5. Susanna’s Christian School
Susanna’s Christian School
When Samuel returned from his five months’ absence the relationship between him and Susanna remained one of partial estrangement. From this point onwards Susanna’s life was distinctly different from what it had been previously. Her existence now became almost cloistered; she seldom left her house and she devoted all her time and strength to her children. She later explained her chief purpose in doing so and how she concentrated all her efforts to achieve it, saying, ‘I have lived such a retired life for so many years. . . No one can, without renouncing the world in the most literal sense, observe my method; and there are few, if any, that would entirely devote above twenty years of the prime of life in hopes to save the souls of their children.’[1]
In fulfilment of this design Susanna set up a school in her own home. The rebuilding work after the fire was probably not yet completed when she started, but she set apart a room for this purpose and, though she probably did not have proper desks, she apparently found table space for each child. Classes were conducted six days a week, from nine to twelve and then from two till five. ‘There was no such thing as loud talking or playing allowed,’ stated Susanna, ‘but everyone was kept close to business for the six hours of school.’
The Wesley children had, however, been prepared for the control exercised in a school. They had been disciplined since birth. Susanna reported that ‘The children were always put into a regular method of living, in such things as they were capable of, from their birth; as in dressing and undressing, changing their linen, etc. . . When turned a year old (and some before) they were taught to fear the rod and to cry softly, by which means they escaped abundance of correction. . . and that most odious noise of the crying of children was rarely heard in the house. . .’[2]
Lest Susanna’s discipline should sound too harsh, we need to view it in the light of the times in which she lived. Heartlessness was widespread. A person could be thrown into prison for owing a few pounds and might be left in this loathsome and disease-ridden confinement to rot and to die. More than a hundred misdemeanours were punishable with death and public hangings were conducted in London with painful frequency. A youth might be seized by a pressgang and forced to labour aboard a ship, where for an unwitting mistake he could be tied to the mast and flogged without mercy. In the schools beating with the birch rod was considered to be as necessary as teaching the alphabet and many parents assumed that physical punishment of their children was as essential for them as eating. In contrast with such conditions Susanna’s discipline was light and constructive.
We also need to look at precisely what she says in the paragraph just quoted. We notice the phrase, ‘. . .as they were capable of,’ and this principle of not pushing a child beyond its natural ability controlled her actions. She says, ‘They were taught to fear the rod,’ but that does not mean that she used it constantly, or even frequently. They came to realize at an early age that wilful disobedience would result in physical punishment and therefore they learnt to obey. Nor does she say, as some have assumed, that her children were never allowed to cry. Rather her meaning is that when they did cry they did not do so at the top of their lungs. They were not made to repress their emotions totally, but to learn to control the expression of their feelings.
The discipline which Susanna practised from their earliest days was continued as they began to grow. She tells us, ‘As soon as they were grown pretty strong they were confined to three meals a day. At dinner their little table and chairs was set by ours, where they could be overlooked; and they were suffered to eat and drink (small beer) as much as they would, but not to call for anything. If they wanted ought they used to whisper to the maid who came and spoke to me; and as soon as they could handle a knife and fork they were set to our table. They were never suffered to choose their meat [food] but always made to eat such things as were provided for the family. . . Nor were they suffered to go into the kitchen to ask anything of the servants when they were at meat; if it was known that they did so they were certainly beat, and the servants severely reprimanded.’[3]
Part of Susanna’s kitchen at the Old Rectory, Epworth, with some of the original utensils
The picture painted by Susanna is not one of children living in fear that at any moment a heavy hand might fall upon them, as some have supposed, but rather one of a disciplined household and of children who were conscious that they must obey and generally willing to do so.
Once again Susanna has mentioned her servants. Many women reading her account today may be tempted to think that she did not, after all, have so difficult a life as has been made to appear in these pages, since she had servants. But we need to remember that in those days everything had to be done by hand, that a servant could be obtained for very little more than the cost of her board, and that in view of Mrs Wesley’s frequent pregnancies and ill-health it was both normal and necessary for her to have help. Yet she was in no sense living like an aristocrat, having no duties that she needed to perform herself. Rather there were numerous tasks in maintaining the house and the family, over and above those accomplished by the servants; these fell to her and kept all her moments fully occupied.
The strongest criticism levelled against Susanna arises from what she wrote about ‘conquering the will’ of her children. This is what she said: ‘In order to firm the minds of children, the first thing to be done is to conquer their will and bring them to an obedient temper. To inform the understanding is a work of time, and must with children proceed by small degrees as they are able to bear it; but the subjecting the will is a thing that must be done at once, and the sooner the better, for by neglecting timely correction they will contract a stubbornness and obstinacy which are hardly ever after conquered, and never without using such severity as would be as painful to me as to the child. . . And when the will of a child is totally subdued, and it is brought to revere and stand in awe of the parents, then a great many childish follies and inadvertencies may be passed by. Some should be overlooked and taken no notice of, and others mildly reproved; but no wilful transgression ought ever to be forgiven children without chastisement, less or more, as the nature and circumstances of the offence may require.’[4]
Certainly the idea of conquering the will of a child contradicts much that is taught today about educating children. Yet it is evident that what Susanna meant by this was simply a question of teaching a child that it is under authority and that it is required to obey. It has been suggested that this principle would make children spineless automatons, yet the Wesley children grew up to be men and women who showed great strength of character, one of them to a degree superior to almost all others of his time. Susanna trained her children to obey and in so doing she richly moulded their characters.
As to the degree of learning achieved by the children while still very young, Susanna said that ‘It is almost incredible what a child may be taught in a quarter of a year by a vigorous application. . . All could read better in that time than most women can do as long as they live.’[5] Of course, the Wesley children were quick to learn and their mother was an excellent teacher, but here was extraordinary progress.
Over and above the academic subjects, religious instruction played an important part in this school. Classes opened each morning with the singing of a psalm and the reading of the Scriptures and they closed with the same exercise. The children were trained, as in all avenues of their lives, in decency and politeness, and Susanna said that ‘Taking God’s name in vain, cursing and swearing, profanity, obscenity, rude ill-bred names, were never heard among them.’[6] They were given a basic knowledge of the Bible and they learned especially to ‘remember the sabbath day to keep it holy’.
As we have seen, Susanna had stated that her basic purpose was ‘the saving of their souls’. Although her intentions were highly commendable, she failed during these years to mention the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death and the receiving of its merits by faith. She said nothing as yet of conversion or of the assurance of salvation, but she stressed the need for regular attendance at church and at the communion, and she seems to have believed that by living a fully disciplined life and refraining from open evil they would be saved.
The intellectual qualities manifested by the Wesley children in their adult life bear witness to the character of the training given by Susanna during their childhood. Each of the three sons possessed, as we shall see and as is widely known, a rich depth of scholarship. And the girls, although denied the educational advantages given to their brothers, possessed, in varying degrees, similarly capable minds. In that day, when even among aristocratic families many women could barely read and write, the Wesley sisters proved truly skilful in their use of the English language and one, Hetty, revealed remarkable ability as a poet.
The strength of character which her children would display in later life was due in part, of course, to inherited qualities, but it also stemmed from their training in Susanna’s Christian school.