1729

To his Father [1]

LINCOLN COLLEGE, December 19, 1729.

DEAR SIR, -- As I was looking over the other day Mr. Ditton's Discourse on the Resurrection of Christ, [By Humphrey Ditton(1675-1715), Master of the new Mathematical School in Christ's Hospital: A Discourse concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ . . . with an Appendix concerning the impossible production of thought from matter and motion; the nature of human souls and of brutes; the animi mundi, &c. 1714.] I found, toward the end of it, a sort of essay on the Origin of Evil. I fancied the shortness of it, if nothing else, would make you willing to read it; though very probably you will not find much in it which has not occurred to your thoughts before.

'Since the Supreme Being must needs be infinitely and essentially good as well as wise and powerful, it has been esteemed no little difficulty to show how evil came into the world. Unde malum [‘Whence did evil arise?’] has been a mighty question.'

There were some who, in order to solve this, supposed two supreme, governing principles; the one a good, the other an evil, one: which latter was independent on and of equal power with the former, and the author of all that was irregular or bad in the universe. This monstrous scheme the Manichees fell into, and much improved; but were sufficiently confuted by St. Austin, who had reason to be particularly acquainted with their tenets.

But the plain truth is, the hypothesis requires no more to the confutation of it than the bare proposing it. Two supreme, independent principles is next door to a contradiction in terms. It is the very same thing, in result and consequence, as saying two absolute infinities; and he that says two, had as good say ten or fifty, or any other number whatever. Nay, if there can be two essentially, distinct, absolute infinities, there may be an infinity of such absolute infinities; that is as much as to say, none of them all would be an absolute infinite, or that none of them all would be properly and really infinite. ' For real infinity is strict and absolute infinity, and only that.'

'From the nature of liberty and free will we may deduce a very possible and satisfactory (perhaps the only possible just) account of the origin of evil.

'There are, and necessarily must be, some original, intrinsic agreements and disagreements, fitnesses and unfitnesses, of certain things and circumstances, to and with each other; which are antecedent to all positive institutions, founded on the very nature of those things and circumstances, considered in themselves, and in their relation to each other.

'Farther: it noway derogated from any one perfection of an infinite Being to endow other beings which he made with such a power as we call liberty -- that is, to furnish them with such capacities, dispositions, and principles of action, that it should be possible for them either to observe or to deviate from those eternal rules and measures of fitness and agreeableness, with respect to certain things and circumstances, which were so conformable to the infinite rectitude of his own will, and which infinite reason must necessarily discover. Now, evil is a deviation from those measures of eternal, unerring order and reason; not to choose what is worthy to be chosen, and is accordingly chose by such a will as the divine. And, to bring this about, no more is necessary than the exerting certain acts of that power we call free will. By which power we are enabled to choose or refuse, and to determine ourselves to action accordingly. Therefore, without having recourse to any ill principle, we may fairly account for the origin of evil from the possibility of a various use of our liberty; even as that capacity or possibility itself is ultimately founded on the defectibility and finiteness of a created nature.'--I am, dear sir,

Your dutiful and affectionate Son.

Editor's Introductory Notes

[1] Samuel Wesley, M.A., was born on December 17, 1662, and was being trained at Newington Green for the Nonconformist ministry, when he changed his views and entered Exeter College as a pauper scholaris in August 1683. He took his B.A. in 1688, and was ordained that summer. He married Susanna Annesley on Nov. 12, 1688, in Marylebone old Parish Church, where their son Charles is buried, received the living of South Ormsby in 1691, became Rector of Epworth in 1697, and died there in April 1735. His indomitable industry and fine scholarship were not less remarkable than the guidance he gave to his sons at Oxford.

Edited by Michael Mattei
©2000 Wesley Center for Applied Theology.All rights reserved. No for-profit use of this text is permitted without the express, written consent of the Wesley Center for Applied Theology of Northwest Nazarene College, Nampa, Idaho 83686 USA. Contact the webmaster for permission.