Wesley Corpus

(4.) Field-preaching was therefore a sudden expe dient, a thing submitted to, rather than chosen; and therefore submitted to, because I thought preaching even thus, better than not preaching at all: First, in regard to my own soul, because, “a dispensation of the gospel being committed to me,” I did not dare “not to preach the gospel:” Secondly, in regard to the souls of others, whom I everywhere saw “seeking death in the error of their life.” 4. But the author of the “Observations,” and of “The Case of the Methodists briefly stated, more particularly in the point of Field-Preaching,” thinks field-preaching worse than not preaching at all, “because it is illegal.” Your argument, in form, runs thus:-- “That preaching which is contrary to the laws of the land is worse than not preaching at all: “But field-preaching is contrary to the laws of the land: “Therefore, it is worse than not preaching at all.” The first proposition is not self-evident, nor, indeed, univer sally true: For the preaching of all the primitive Christians was contrary to the whole tenor of the Roman law; the wor ship 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. 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 dis sent 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 114 A l'ARTHER APPEAL TO MEN 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 Car. II, c. 1) which forbids this by name.” I answer, (1.) We do nothing in defiance of government: We reverence Magistrates, as the Ministers of God.