8. Susanna’s Advanced Education of Her Sons
Susanna’s Advanced Education of Her Sons
We have seen that the Wesley sons left home to obtain further schooling while they were still boys. Samuel, after attending a regular school in Epworth, was sent at the age of thirteen to the St Peter’s Classical School adjoining Westminster Abbey. John attended his mother’s classes in the rectory till he was eleven, when he was sent to London to attend the Charterhouse School. Charles likewise attended his mother’s school, and at the age of nine he went to live with his brother Samuel and to attend the Westminster School.
While the boys were at home, over and above the instruction received from their mother, they were also taught to some extent by their father. Samuel instructed his sons in Latin and Greek and in classical literature and thus he laid the foundation on which they built solid structures of learning in Westminster, Charterhouse and Oxford.
Once the sons left home, however, Susanna took it upon herself to continue instructing them, doing this in a number of letters. The contents of some of these letters were manifestly above the understanding of young boys, but they showed them there was an advanced learning available in life. She instructed them in religious truth and philosophized about God and man, about right and wrong and numerous other elements of human life. Some of her reasonings may be difficult for modem readers to grasp as well, but they are presented here as evidence of the unusual intellect of the woman with whom we are dealing.
Susanna wrote especially to her son Sammy. She perhaps felt that since she did not begin her school in the rectory till after he had left home she needed to make up some of the training he had missed. The opening paragraphs of one of her first letters to him read:
Dear Sammy,
The eternal law with respect to man is called ‘the law of reason’; when it is more clearly explained by revelation, ‘divine’; when it orders natural agents which obey it willingly, yet constantly and regularly, we style it ‘the law of nature and instinct’. And you may here take notice that in the observation of this law consists the happiness of all creatures; and it is only that which conserves the being and composes the harmony which we observe in the works of the Creator. . .
Now by what has been said you may learn that a law is a rule of an action. Now where this is taken from the nature of things, and respects rational, voluntary agents, it is called ‘moral’; and our agreement or conformity to it, ‘moral virtue’. The law of reason (which is the foundation of morality) is also, and not improperly, called ‘the law of nature’; because it is not only a rule of action to rational, voluntary agents, but it is a rule we are capable of discovering by our natural light without the assistance of revelation; so you plainly perceive you are obliged, as a man, to observe all the precepts of morality, or natural religion, though you had never heard of Christ or Moses. I cannot here enumerate all the particulars of this great law; I shall only hint at those that are most obvious and easy to be understood. I intend you an entire discourse upon it when I have more time.[1]
Susanna’s ‘only hinting at’ such things went on for another 315 lines!
Her next letter to Sammy was written some five months later. She had been ill, but was now largely recovered and she said, ‘I shall be employing my thoughts on useful subjects to you when I have time, for I desire nothing in this world so much as to have my children well instructed in the principles of religion, that they may walk in the narrow way which alone leads to happiness. Particularly I am concerned for you, who were, before your birth, dedicated to the service of the sanctuary, that you may be an ornament of that church of which you are a member. . .’[2]
In another letter to Sammy, Susanna enlarged upon the Scripture, ‘Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven,’ telling him, ‘The mind of a Christian should be always composed, temperate, free from all extremes of mirth or sadness, and always disposed to hear the voice of God’s Holy Spirit.’
Like virtually all mankind in that day, Susanna and Samuel were not teetotallers regarding the use of alcoholic drink. Pure water was difficult to obtain in many places and people resorted to the practice of brewing to make sure that all impurities were removed. The Wesleys brewed in their kitchen, and John, during his ministry, considered himself a connoisseur on the taste of good drink.
However, Susanna sought to warn Sammy of the dangers of over-indulgence. Writing to him on 22 May 1706 she stated, ‘Two glasses cannot hurt you, provided they contain no more than those commonly used.’ Then she went on to admonish, ‘Have a care; stay at the third glass; I consider you have an obligation to strict temperance, which all have not — I mean your designation for holy orders. Remember, under the Jewish economy it was ordained by God himself that the snuffers of the temple should be perfect gold; from which we may infer that those who are admitted to serve at the altar. . . ought themselves to be most pure, and free from scandalous action. . .’[3]
Writing to Sammy a year later, earnestly desirous that he be saved, Susanna presented her concept of how to be saved — her concept of the way of salvation. After urging the reason for which he was created, ‘to know, love and obey God,’ she said,
This life is nothing in comparison of eternity; so very inconsiderable, and withal so wretched, that it is not worthwhile to be, if we were to die as the beasts. What mortal would sustain the pains, the wants, the disappointments, the cares, and thousands of calamities we must often suffer here? But when we consider this as a probationary state. . . and that if we wisely behave ourselves here, if we purify our souls from all corrupt and inordinate affections, if we can, by the divine assistance, recover the image of God (moral goodness), which we lost in Adam, and attain to a heavenly temper and disposition of mind, full of the love of God, etc., then we justly think that this life is an effect of the inconceivable goodness of God towards us. . .
I have such a vast inexpressible desire of your salvation, and such dreadful apprehensions of your failing in a work of so great importance; and do moreover know by experience how hard a thing it is to be a Christian, that I cannot for fear, I cannot but most earnestly press you and conjure you, over and over again, to give the most earnest heed to what you have already learned, lest at any time you let slip the remembrance of your final happiness, or forget what you have to do in order to attain it.[4]
As much as we may rejoice in the extraordinary earnestness manifested by Susanna in seeking Sammy’s salvation, we cannot but regret that she did not know the ‘finished’ work of Christ, and the assurance of salvation which God grants to ‘him that believeth’. How different was this concept of Susanna’s from that experienced by Charles and John following their conversions in May 1738!
It is evident that Susanna, holding so strongly to the doctrine of salvation by works, and depending on human reason rather than on divine revelation, would have rejected the teaching that man’s salvation begins with God. This rejection she had taught to her children. John wrote to her on this matter when he was preparing for ordination. He confessed that he could not accept the seventeenth section of the Articles of Religion, which so plainly declares the Church of England’s belief in the doctrine of predestination and shows it to be a beautiful and comforting doctrine.
Susanna replied to John, but she did not deal with predestination as presented in the Prayer Book. She dealt with it only in an exceptionally extreme and distorted sense, and nowhere did she refer to the several Scriptures which declare the doctrine nor did she treat of what was stated in the Article. Three of her letters to him reveal her views on this subject. In the first she says, ‘The case stands thus: this life is a probation, wherein eternal happiness or misery are proposed to our choice; the one as a reward of a virtuous, the other as the consequence of a vicious life.’
In the second letter she asserts, ‘I do firmly believe that God from all eternity hath elected some to everlasting life, but then I humbly conceive that this election is founded in his foreknowledge, according to Romans 8:29,30.’[5] She then cites these two verses, assuming that God ‘foreknew’ that some men, when presented with the gospel, would accept it. Nowhere does she mention the truth that man is ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ — that he could do nothing and that God ‘foreknew’ what he himself would do. Nor does she show any understanding of the biblical use of the word ‘foreknowledge’ as a term indicating God’s affection and love towards mankind.
We should also notice a letter she wrote to John in 1727. He was then twenty-four, a tutor at Oxford and a Fellow of Lincoln College. But for three years he had been frequently in the company of a circle of cultivated young women in nearby Cotswold villages and Susanna wrote informing him about the enjoyments but also the dangers of human love. She stated, for instance, ‘Ah, my dear son, did you with me stand on the verge of life, and saw before your eyes a vast expanse, an unlimited duration of being, which you might shortly enter upon, you can’t conceive how all the inadvertencies, mistakes and sins of youth would rise up to your view; and how different the sentiments of sensitive pleasures, the desire of sexes, the pernicious friendships of the world, would be then from what they are now, while health is entire and seems to promise many years of life.’[6]
In another letter to John, written on 14 May 1727, Susanna stated, ‘I must confess I never yet met with such an accurate definition of the passion of love as fully satisfied me. It is indeed commonly defined as “a desire of union with a known or apprehended good”. But this directly makes love and desire the same thing; which, on a close inspection I perceive they are not, for this reason: desire is strongest and acts most vigorously when the beloved object is distant, or apprehended unkind or displeased; whereas, when the union is attained, and fruition perfect, complacency, delight and joy fill the soul of the lover, while desire lies quiescent; which plainly shows (at least to me) that desire of union is an effect of love, and not love itself.’[7]
Thus did Susanna instruct John, but there is little evidence of any effect of her words in his own life. His two love affairs — one with Sophia Hopkey and the other with Grace Murray — and his marriage were not exactly models of understanding!
Susanna also wrote manuals for her children, and these she considered to be simplified handbooks on Christian doctrine.
Most important of all, she wrote an exposition of the Apostles’ Creed. She went through this historic statement of belief point after point, and we shall consider her concept of faith when we come to look at her letters to Charles after his conversion in 1738.
For the present we shall notice her portrayal of the passion of Christ. In reference to his suffering in Gethsemane, in the judgement hall and upon the cross, her solemn words are:
He must be forsaken of his Father in the midst of his torments, which made him thrice so earnestly repeat his petition that if it were possible that cup might pass from him. But the full complement of his sufferings we may suppose to be that he did at that time actually sustain the whole weight of that grief and sorrow which was due to the justice of God for the sins of the whole world. And this, we may believe, caused that inconceivable agony when his sweat was as great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
And though his torments were so inexpressibly great, yet the Son of Man must suffer many things. He must be betrayed by one disciple, denied by another, and forsaken by all. And as he had suffered in his soul by the most intense grief and anguish, so he had to suffer in his body the greatest bitterness of corporeal pains, which the malice and rage of his enemies could inflict upon it. And now the Sovereign Lord and Judge of all men is haled before the tribunal of his sinful creatures: the pure and unspotted Son of God who could do no wrong, neither could guile be found in his mouth, accused by his presumptuous slaves of no less a crime than blasphemy. . .
But though the corporeal pains occasioned by the thorns, the scourging, by the piercing those nervous and most sensible parts of his most sacred body, were wrought up to an inexpressible degree of torture; yet were they infinitely surpassed by the anguish of his soul when there was (but after what manner we cannot conceive) a sensible withdrawing of the comfortable presence of Deity, which caused that loud and impassioned exclamation: ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’
And now it is finished and he who could not die but by his own voluntary act of resigning life, gave up his pure and spotless life into the hands of his almighty Father.[8]
Susanna continued in this way till she made an exposition of the whole of the Apostles’ Creed. It would be well if this treatise, which she presented to her daughter Sukey and which she intended should be read by all her children, was available as a single item for both children and their parents to read today.
Samuel Wesley also wrote to his boys with a view towards encouraging them intellectually and advancing them spiritually. For instance, in his first letter to his son Samuel he stated,
Most of what I write to you will be the result of my own dear-bought experience . . . and you may expect a letter once a month, at least, or once a fortnight; and I hope, in mere civility, you will sometimes write again.
And I shall begin, as I ought, with piety, strictly so called, or your duty towards God, which is the foundation of all happiness; I mean your immediate duty to him, both in public and private; as for your morals I shall send my thoughts hereafter.
The father went on, reasoning with his son about the person of God, and he closed, saying,
I commend you to God’s gracious protection, and would have you always remember that he sees and loves you. Your mother will write soon to you. We are all well.
I am your affectionate father,
In another letter to this son, Samuel praised Susanna:
You know what you owe to one of the best of mothers . . . often reflect on the tender and peculiar love which your mother has always expressed towards you, the deep affliction, both of body and mind, which she underwent for you, both before and after your birth; the particular care she took of your education when she struggled with so many pains and infirmities; and, above all, the wholesome and sweet motherly advice and counsel which she has often given you to fear God, to take care of your soul, as well as your learning, to shun all vicious practices and bad examples . . . as well as those valuable letters she wrote to you. . .
You will not forget to evidence this by supporting and comforting her in her age . . . and doing nothing which may justly displease and grieve her, or show you unworthy of such a mother. . .
In short, reverence and love her as much as you will. . . For though I should be jealous of any other rival in your heart, yet I will not be of her: the more duty you pay her and the more frequently and kindly you write to her, the more will you please
your affectionate father,
The attitude manifested by Samuel in these letters to his son is indicative of the better side of his nature. This undoubtedly was evident, along with his native wit, in many of his activities, but although he could be jovial and pleasant, he could also be dictatorial and severe. ‘I allow no rivals in my kingdom!’ he once asserted to John, and this declaration was true in his home and in his church.
We especially notice the way he praises Susanna in the letter just quoted. She was more than worthy of the commendations he gave her and he very rightly desired that his children should never fail to show their love for her.
Thus, added to Susanna’s efforts to educate her sons, there were also these endeavours on the part of Samuel. The boys went to their special schools well grounded in basic classical knowledge and upon this they built the scholarship that characterized all of their later lives.
The girls, though left at home and denied the privileges accorded to their brothers, benefited, nevertheless, from their father’s learning, as well as from their mother’s daily instruction, together with her watchful admonition and her constant example.