Wesley Corpus

An Extract of a Letter to the Rev. Mr. Law Source: The Works of John Wesley, Volume 9 (Zondervan) Author: John Wesley --- IN matters of religion I regard no writings but the inspired. Tauler, Behmen, and a whole army of Mystic authors, are with me nothing to St. Paul. In every point I appeal “to the law and the testimony,” and value no authority but this. At a time when I was in great danger of not valuing this authority enough, you made that important observation: “I see where your mistake lies. You would have a philosophical religion; but there can be no such thing. Religion is the most plain, simple thing in the world. It is only, ‘We love him, because he first loved us.” So far as you add philo sophy to religion, just so far you spoil it.” This remark I have never forgotten since; and I trust in God I never shall. But have not you? Permit me, Sir, to speak plainly. Have you ever thought of it since 2 Is there a writer in England who so continually blends philosophy with religion ? even in tracts on “The Spirit of Prayer,” and “The Spirit of Love,” wherein, from the titles of them, one would expect to find no more of philosophy than in the Epistles of St. John. Con cerning which, give me leave to observe in general, l. That the whole of it is utterly superfluous: A man may be full both of prayer and love, and not know a word of this hypothesis. 2. The whole of this hypothesis is unproved;--it is all pre carious, all uncertain. 3. The whole hypothesis has a dangerous tendency. It naturally leads men off from plain, practical religion, and fills them with the “knowledge” that “puffeth up,” instead of the “love” that “ edifieth.” And, 4. It is often flatly contrary to Scripture, to reason, and to itself. But over and above this superfluous, uncertain, dangerous, irrational, and unscriptural philosophy, have not you lately grieved many who are not strangers to the spirit of prayer or love, by advancing tenets in religion, some of which they think are unsupported by Scripture, some even repugnant to it? Allow me, Sir, first to touch upon your philosophy, and then to speak freely concerning these. I. As to your philosophy, the main of your theory respects, 1.