*May I speak without offence? I cannot think you are _in earnest_. You do not _mean_ what you _say_. Do you _believe_, Mr. _Whitefield_ had _eighty thousand_ hearers at once? No more that you believe he had _eighty millions_. Is not all this talk of _danger_, mere finesse? Thrown in purely _ad movendam invidiam_? You know governments generally are suspicious; especially in time of war: and therefore apply, as you suppose, to their weak side; in hopes, if possible, to deliver over these hereticks to the secular arm. However, I will answer, _as if_ you spoke from your heart. For I am in earnest, if you are not. First, “The preacher cannot know a tenth part of his congregation.” Let us come to the _present_ state of things. The largest congregation that _now_ attend the preaching of any _Methodist_, are those (God be merciful to me!) that attend mine. And cannot I know a tenth part of one of these congregations, either at _Bristol_, _Kingswood_, _Newcastle_, or _London_? As strange as it may seem, I generally know two-thirds of the congregation in every place, even on Sunday evening, and nine in ten of those who attend at most other times. 2. “All people may come and carry on what designs they will.” Not so. All _field-preaching_ is now in the open day. And were only ten persons, to come to such an assembly with arms, it would soon be inquired, with what design they came. This is therefore, 3. No “great opportunity put into the hands of seditious persons to raise disturbances.” And if ever any disturbance has been raised, it was quite of another kind. The public then is entirely safe, if it be in no other danger than arises from _field-preaching_. 7. There is one other sentence belonging to this head, in the eighth section of _the observations_. “The religious societies, you say, in _London_ and _Westminster_, for many years past, have received no discouragements, but on the contrary have been _countenanced_ and incouraged both by the bishops and clergy.” How is this? Have _they_ then “qualified themselves and places of their assembling, according to the act of toleration?” Have _they_ “embraced the protection which that act might give them, in case they complied with the conditions of it?” If not, are they not all “liable to the penalties of the several statutes made before that time against unlawful assemblies?” How can they escape? Have they “qualified themselves for holding these separate assemblies, according to the tenor of that act”? “Have then the several members thereof taken the oaths to the government?” And are the “doors of the places wherein they meet, always open at the time of such meeting?” I presume, you know they are not: and that neither “the persons nor places are so qualified as that act directs.”