Wesley Corpus

Well, “here it is: Roger Balls.”--Pray who is Roger Balls? No more a Methodist than he is a Turk. I know not one good thing he ever did or said, beside the telling all men, “I am no Methodist,” which he generally does in the first sentence he speaks, when he can find any one to hear him. He is therefore one of your own allies; and a champion worthy of his cause ! If then you have no more than this to advance in support of your first charge, you have alleged what you are not able to prove. And the more heavy that allegation is, the more unkind, the more unjust, the more unchristian, the more inhuman, it is to bring it without proof. In support of the Second charge, you say, “Our Saviour declares our works to be the object of hisjudgment. But the Methodist, for the perdition of the souls of his followers, says our works are of no consideration at all.” Who says so? Mr. Whitefield, or my brother, or I? We say the direct contrary. But one of my “anonymous corre spondents says so.” Who is he? How do you know he is a Methodist? For aught appears, he may be another of your allies, a brother to Roger Balls. Three or threescore anonymous correspondents cannot yield one grain of proof, any more than an hundred anonymous remarkers on Theron and Aspasio. Before these can prove what the Methodists hold, you must prove that these are Methodists; either that they are original Methodists, or in connexion with them. Will you say, “If these were not Methodists themselves, they would not defend the Methodists?” I deny the consequence: Men may be far from being Methodists, and yet willing to do the Methodists justice. I have known a Clergyman of note say to another, who had just been preaching a very warm sermon, “Sir, I do not thank you at all for this. I have no acquaint ance with Mr. Whitefield or Mr.