Wesley Corpus

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 Estab lished 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 apprehend ing 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 Eng land, 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 con demned 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. You next observe, that “the Dissenters of all denominations qualify themselves according to the Act of Toleration; other wise, they are liable to the penalties of all the laws recited in this Act.” I answer, as before, all this strikes wide. It relates wholly to “persons dissenting from the Church.” But we are not the men: We do not dissent from the Church: Whoever affirms it, we put him to the proof. You go on : “One of those laws so recited (viz., 22 Car. II., c.