“Therefore, it is worse than not preaching at all.” *The first proposition is not self-evident, nor indeed universally true. For the preaching of all the primitive Christians was contrary to the whole tenor of the _Roman_ law; the worship of the devil-gods being established by the strongest laws then in being. Nor is it ever true, but on supposition, that the preaching in question is an indifferent thing. But ♦waving this, I deny the second proposition; I deny that _field-preaching_ is contrary to the laws of our land. ♦ “waveing” replaced with “waving” for consistency To prove which, you begin thus, “It does not appear, that any of the preachers among the _Methodists_, have qualified themselves and the places of their assembling, according to the act of toleration.” *I answer, 1. That act grants toleration to those who _dissent_ from the established church. But we do not dissent from it. Therefore we _cannot_ make use of that act. 2. That act exempts dissenters from penalties consequent on their _breach of preceding laws_. But we are not conscious of _breaking any law at all_. Therefore we _need not_ make use of it. In the next section you say, “They have broken through all these provisions, _in open defiance_ of government: and have met, not only in houses, but in the _fields_, notwithstanding the statute (_22 Charles II._ chapter 1.) which forbids this by name.” *I answer, 1. We do nothing _in defiance_ of government. We reverence magistrates, as the ministers of God. 2. Although we have met in the _fields_, yet we do not conceive that statute at all affects us: not only because that act points wholly at _dissenters_; whereas we are members of the established church; but also because (they are your own words) _it was evidently intended to suppress and prevent sedition_: whereas no sedition, nor any the least approach thereto, can with any colour be laid to our charge. In your third section you affirm, “That the act of toleration itself cannot secure us in _field-preaching_, from the penalties of former laws.” We have no desire it should; as not apprehending ourselves to be condemned by any former law whatever. Nor does what you add, “That the act of toleration forbids any assembly of persons _dissenting_ from the church of _England_, to meet with the doors locked,” affect us at all; because we do not _dissent_ from it. 5. In _the case of the Methodists briefly stated_, your first observation is, “The act of toleration leaves them liable to the penalties of several statutes made against unlawful assemblies.” I suppose then these several statutes specify what those _unlawful assemblies_ are; and whether unlawful, as being condemned by previous laws, or made unlawful by those statutes. And it still remains to be proved, that our assemblies are _unlawful_, in one or other of these senses.