Young John Wesley soon crossed clerical and academic thresholds. On 19 September 1725, Dr. John Potter, bishop of Oxford, ordained him deacon, and the following spring, 17 March 1725/26, he was elected fellow of Lincoln College, to the great delight and relief of the family. Susanna, for one, was ready with advice in her letter of 30 March 1726, about how her son should deal with his newfound “riches.” Nevertheless, despite these new attainments and responsibilities, he remained “Dear Jacky” to her, as she continued to fill her letters with theological counsel. Though the young don did not always put the details into his letter book, he did transcribe the authors she discussed for his benefit: Berkeley, Pearson, and Fiddes in the 10 November 1725, letter (in addition to an intriguing, but long, discourse on religious zeal) and Norris on love in the 30 March 1726 letter.
Occasionally, even in the Wesley family, life prevailed over theology. The news from Epworth (actually, from Wroot, Samuel Wesley’s other parish, where the family now resided) was dominated in these letters by an ill-fated love affair followed by an ill-arranged marriage involving daughter Mehetabel, known to the family as Hetty. Finding suitable suitors for the bright and lively Wesley daughters from among the residents of the fen country was not easy. Hetty became infatuated with a lawyer (she had met him in the household where she was in service) and was in the process of eloping when she discovered that he was not really interested in a wedding. Her behavior (and the resulting pregnancy) scandalized the family, especially the rector, who set up a quick, unsuitable match with a local plumber. Only her sister Molly and her brother John sympathized in the least with the unfortunate young woman. The sad story cast a gloom over these letters that even for a time put the perennial concern about indebtedness in the shade.
One letter in particular rewards close study, that of 12 October 1726. Here Susanna recounts a visit with Hetty and her attempt to work out some reconciliation with her estranged daughter. It sheds considerable light on the mother-daughter relationship, on the Wesley marriage, and on that battle in Susanna’s own mind between her sense of justice and mercy in the middle of a family crisis.
To John Wesley
10 November 1725
MA; addressed “For the Revd. Mr John Wesley, Commoner of Christ Church … Oxon”; LB, pp. 44–4-5; FB, 1:183–185, but with considerable material missing.
Wroot, Nov. 10th, 1725
Dear Jacky,
I believe I’ve received three letters from you since I wrote to you; but the dismal situation of our affairs, which has found me full employment at home, and my unwillingness to burden you, prevented my writing hitherto. But I will now look over your letters, and reply to each if there be occasion.
Your first of August 4th requires no answer, only there’s one passage in it which I don’t well understand. You say Berkeley has convinced you “that there is no such thing as matter in the world, if by the real existence of matter is meant a subsistence exterior to the mind, and distinct from its being perceived.” What does he mean by imperceptible matter?1
Your second bears date August 24th, wherein you are satisfied about humility, and I wish you had also a better notion of that faith which is proposed to us as a condition of salvation. I think Pearson’s definition of divine or saving faith is good and no way defective.2 For though the same thing may be an object of faith as revealed and an object of reason as deducible from rational principles, yet I insist upon it that the virtue of faith, by which through the merits of our Redeemer we must be saved, is an assent to the truth of whatever God hath been pleased to reveal, because he hath revealed it, and not because we understand it. Thus St. Paul, “By faith we understand that the world was made” 3—q.d.,4 rejecting the various conjectures of the heathen and not resting upon the testimony of natural reason but relying on the authority of God, we give a full assent to what he hath been pleased to reveal unto us concerning the creation of the world. Now the reason why this faith is required is plain, because otherwise we do not give God the glory of his truth, but prefer our weak and fallible understanding before his eternal word, in that we will believe the one rather than the other. If you will but read Bishop Beveridge on faith, and repentance, Vol. 7th, 5 you’ll find him a better divine than Fiddes.6
I can’t recollect what book I recommended to you, but I highly approve your care to search into the grounds and reasons of our most holy religion, which you may do if your intention be pure, and yet retain the integrity of faith. Nay, the more you study on that subject, the more reason you will find to depend on the veracity of God; inasmuch as your perceptions of that awful Being will be clearer, and you will more plainly discern the congruity that there is between the ordinances and precepts of the gospel and right reason; nor is it a hard matter to prove that the whole system of Christianity is grounded thereon.
If it be a weak virtue that can’t bear being laughed at, I am very sure ’tis a strong and well confirmed virtue that can stand the test of a brisk buffoonery. I doubt there are too many instances of people that, being well inclined, have yet made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, merely through a false modesty, and because they could not bear the raillery of their companions. Some young persons have a natural excess of bashfulness, others are so tender of what they call honour that they can’t endure to be made a jest of. Nay, I’ve often observed that those very people which will on all occasions take the liberty to play upon their neighbours are of all living the worst able to bear being so used themselves. I would therefore advise young persons in their beginning of a Christian course to shun the company of profane wits as they would the plague or poverty; and let ’em never contract an intimacy with any but such as have a good sense of religion. And if ’tis their hap to live where few of that character can be found, let them learn the art of living alone; and when once they are masters of that rare secret, and know how to converse with God and themselves, they’ll want no other company. For properly speaking no man wants what he can be happy without.
I now proceed to answer your last, of October 14th. And in this you desire me to speak on a subject above my comprehension. I do not mean as to the nature of zeal, for that is easily defined; but to assign precisely every instance wherein it is allowable or we are required to show that zeal to the world, needs a better head and pen than mine. However, I’ll offer some hints, which you may correct or improve by your own meditation.7
Zeal or jealousy is an effect of love; and the more intense the love is, the greater is our desire of the good and possession of what we love, and the more vigorously shall we strive to repel and exclude everything that is repugnant to the belov’d object or may prevent our attainment or quiet enjoyment of what we so love. As we observe in friendship, whoever really loves his friend always desires the good of that friend, and if his love be strong, it moves him against everything that is contrary to it; and accordingly he is said to be zealous for his friend and for his reputation when he endeavors all he can to repel everything that is said or done against him. Thus on account of the great love he bears to us, Almighty God is frequently in holy writ represented as zealous or jealous over us, lest we bestow that honour and love which is due to him on anything else—particularly in the Second Command where he says that as he will show mercy unto thousands of those that love him, so he will punish to the third and fourth generation those that hate him,8 i.e., transfer their love from him to a creature. And the reason is because he is a jealous God.
Zeal with respect to God consists in an awful regard and tender concern for his glory and will, and it ever holds proportion with the degree of our love towards him. If our love be cold, so will our zeal be, too; if fervent, we shall endeavor what is in our power to advance his honour and service in the world, and shall feel much displicency 9 and grief when either we ourselves or any other is guilty of dishonouring or offending him and shall strive what we can to prevent or repel whatever is done against his honour and will. So Elijah says of himself, “I have been very jealous, or zealous, for the Lord God of Hosts, for the children of Israel had forsaken his covenant and thrown down his altars.” 10
The habit of this zeal is always necessary, being indeed inseparable from our love to God; but the visible expressions of it must be ever under due restriction, always according to knowledge, and strictly guarded by prudence and Christian charity; for without restriction and such a guard ’tis the most pernicious thing in nature and has done more mischief in the world than even licentiousness or infidelity. These have slain their thousands, but zeal its ten thousands,11 as might be shown in many instances. This sacred fire must be kindled at the altar; nor should the perturbation arising from malice, revenge or any private interest or selfish regard presume to mingle with it. Otherwise we may fitly apply to zeal what St. James says of an unbridled tongue: “’Tis a fire, a world of iniquity, it setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.” 12
Now that the outward expressions of our zeal may be acceptable to God and useful to men, ’tis necessary in the first place that our intention be good, that the glory of God and good of others be really our aim without any private views or worldly consideration. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory. And herein prudence is of great use in choosing such means and using them in such a manner as is most proper and worthy the ends we propose. For prudence ever has respect to time, place, persons and manner of speech or action. As to time it directs us to observe and improve that special season for speaking or acting which we call opportunity, when we are likely to do most service to God, i.e., to make him better known and loved in the world, as for instance if we have an opportunity of instructing the ignorant, to confirm the weak or reprehend13 the [?]sinner. Or if we would administer relief to our neighbor, it must be done when he stands most in need of it and when we can best spare it without injuring our dependents or creditors; the former must first be provided for, nor will God accept robbery for sacrifice.
Prudence also considers place, and in all these instances the most private is the best, unless in some exempt cases which I can’t stay to mention particularly.
Persons also it regards, and here I must advise that if we sincerely desire to promote the glory of God or would successfully attempt anything for his service or the good of mankind, that we do first turn the point of our zeal against ourselves. Let us be careful to sanctify the Lord God in our own hearts by holding him in the highest estimation, by bearing equal respect to all his commands, by purifying our minds from whatever is contrary to his will, and planting each virtue there that may through Christ render us acceptable to God. For [it is] in vain that we appear zealous for that glorious Being, if we do not inwardly esteem and revere him ourselves. In vain shall we attempt to serve him while we indulge ourselves in any known sin and do not vigorously proceed in our own reformation. For otherwise, instead of a plaudit we must expect to meet with that sad expostulation from God: “who hath required this at YOUR hand? Bring no more vain oblations; the incense of your service is an abomination unto me.” 14 Nor can we expect better success in instructing or reproving our neighbor who fail to observe the disproportion between our lives and professions; and instead of taking our good offices kindly they will, and may justly, retort upon us, “physician, heal thyself.”15
Again, prudence requires all persons with or without distinction to keep with their own sphere of action. The inferior magistrate must not intrench16 upon the prerogative of his prince, nor any private person assume the office of the magistrate. Neither should any secular person of what degree soever invade the province of a priest. But princes, magistrates, husbands, wives, parents, children, masters, servants must all observe their several stations; nor will any pretense of zeal justify a man’s acting out‘17 of his own proper character. For our God is a God of order and not of confusion.18 Nor does he require ought of us but what is consistent with a due performance of relative duties. And indeed there’s work enough for our zeal in accurately discharging the duties of each relation.
But in the last place prudence is more especially concerned in the manner of our speaking or acting either for God or our neighbor. For be our intention never so good, our zeal ever so fervent, unless we perform all after a due manner, we shall not compass our design. If we would serve Almighty God, we must do it with that vigor, that cheerful gravity and becoming reverence as [the] importance of the work requires. If we are about to instruct the ignor[ant let] us proceed with so much seriousness that they may see we are well appriz[ed of the] truths we teach, and are ourselves under the same impressions we endea[vour to] make on their minds. If we would confirm the weak, it should be done witho[ut any] reproach and with that tenderness and arguments so well adapted to their cas[e,] as may serve to convince them that we are really concerned in their safety and happiness. If we reprove the sinner, let us avoid pride and vainglory and be careful lest we fall into indecent passion or be guilty of unchristian revilings and contemptuous language, which would probably prove a greater sin in us than that we are about to reprehend in another. As we should never undertake a matter of this nature without desiring to do good, so we ought by all proper methods to make the person spoken to sensible of that desire; for we gain a great point if we can persuade them that we really bear them good will and have no design to upbraid, much less expose them, but merely to do ’em good.
The second thing mentioned as a guard of our zeal was charity, which I shall briefly speak of and so conclude.
Love to God and love to our neighbour, which often in scripture is called charity, is, or ought to be, the principle and rule of all our thoughts, words and actions with respect to either. And whatever we do for God or man that flows not from this principle and is not squared by this rule is wrong, as wanting a good foundation and a right conduct. Thus St. Paul: “Though I give my body to be burned and all my goods to feed the poor and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” 19
I have not time to discourse on divine charity, but shall only mention a few instances wherein charity must correct our zeal in thought, word, and deed in relation to our neighbour.
And first we must never conclude any man so bad as ’tis possible for him to be; nor think because he is guilty of many sins, that therefore he must be guilty of all; nay, we should not judge that the most profligate sinner cannot possibly amend. For what are we that we should presume to limit the omnipotent mercy of God or consign any to eternal misery whom that almighty Goodness for ought we know may intend to save at last.
Secondly, our charity should strictly confine our zeal within the bounds of truth and soberness. We must not lie for God nor falsly accuse our brethren; nor in a pretended zeal run into censoriousness and evil-speaking, crimes utterly to be ab-hored of all good men.
Thirdly, no pretence of zeal should make us lay aside our humanity or exercize any act of injustice or cruelty towards our neighbour. Nor must we suffer a bad man to perish for want of our relief. For we have no commission to slay the wicked or right to invade any man’s property because he is a sinner. But we must be careful to do our duty to all men, let ’em be what they will.
Yet after all that can be said, though prudence and charity should correct the irregular motions of our zeal, they must by no means extinguish it. But we must keep that sacred fire alive in our breasts and carefully lay hold of all opportunities of serving God, nor should we tamely endure to hear his glorious name blasphemed in execrable oaths or impious discourses without expressing a just indignation against such offences. And if we happen to be in presence of those that either are so superlatively wicked or too much superior to admit of reproof, we may find some way to testify our dislike of such conversation and leave their company.20
I’ve room to add no more but that I send you my love and blessing.
S. W.
Your sisters send their love.
I’ve just received a letter from you, which I’ll answer if I’ve leisure.
Your brother Wright fetches your sister Hetty from hence the end of this week.21
To John Wesley
7 December 1725
LB, pp. 45–46; FB, 1:189–190.
Wroot, December 7th [1725]
Dear Jacky,
(Of Mr. Norris’s Sermon on Divine Love) 22
Who but an atheist will deny that God, and God alone, is the supreme efficient cause of all things, the only uncreated good! But can it be inferred from hence that he hath imparted no degree of goodness to his creatures? … We may full as well argue that because they are not self-existent, therefore they have no being at all …
Your sister Wright went with her husband about three weeks since to their house in Louth, with Molly to keep her company this winter.23 Your sister Anne was married last Thursday at Finningley to John Lambert and goes this day home with him. He has hired the red house as we go to church, which they have made very pretty and comfortable, and we hope they will do well.24
Emly sends her love to you, as do all the rest. She goes not hence this winter, and greatly desires to hear from you.
I suppose the election at Lincoln College draws near, and your father gives me small encouragement to hope for your success25 … Our crop at Wroot was almost destroyed by floods; and of the small remains your sister Nancy has the best part in dowry, besides near if not quite £30 for hers and Hetty’s clothing, which I’ve yet to pay. What then can I do for you? Nothing but pray for you; nothing but lift my helpless eyes and hands to heaven and beseech Almighty God, to whom all power belongs, to do that for you which I cannot: to appoint some expedient for your relief and raise you some friend in this time of distress. And who can tell? Perhaps he may condescend to hear the unworthiest of his creatures …I will not despair, but against hope, believe in hope: for I know that often man’s extremity is God’s opportunity, wherein he delights to manifest his mercy to such as call upon him.
Dear Jacky, I send you my love and blessing. Adieu!
To John Wesley
30 March 1726
LB, pp. 46–47; FB, 1:193–194.
Wroot, March 30, 1726
Dear Jacky,
1 think myself obliged to return great thanks to Almighty God for giving you good success at Lincoln.26 Let whoever he pleased be the instrument, to him, and him alone, the glory appertains. For as the best concerted measures often prove ineffectual, so sometimes things that carry little probability in them shall succeed beyond expectation. And why is this? But because God prospers the one, and (as his Spirit expresses it) blows upon the “labour of the other.” 27
I am much more pleased and thankful because I have observed sometime that the Holy Jesus (to whom the whole manage of our salvation is committed) seems to have taken the conduct of your soul into his own hand, in that he has given you a true notion of saving faith and, I hope, an experimental knowledge of repentance. Therefore I trust that he will be pleased to direct your intentions, and assist you in the exercise of your28 ministerial office, that he will incline your heart to the love of justice, so that you will not look on the small addition to your fortunes as given you to make provision for the flesh, but as a talent committed to your charge: to pay your debts in the first place, and the residue to be employed as religion and prudence direct.29
(Of Norris’s distinction between compla[cenc]e and goodwill.)30
Many and great are the trials it has pleased God to exercise us with; and though that is not the reason of my not writing so long, yet I must say they have found me sufficient employment to keep my mind from utter 31 fainting. And your father being displeased at my writing so often, because of the expense it was to you, our pressures disposed me to a more implicit obedience than perhaps I should otherwise have paid him.32 I would not inform you of anything that might grieve, but Dr. Morley advising your coming into the country, ’tis not probable any unhappy circumstances or practices of some of our family should remain concealed from you.33 Dear Jacky, I hope you are a good Christian, and as such do firmly believe that no events happen but by the commission, or rather at least permission of divine Providence. Therefore do not much afflict yourself, let what will befall. God hath promised, “All things shall work together for good to those that love him.” 34
(Of my father’s getting money for me.)
How or when do you intend to come hither? It will be necessary to let us have timely notice of your intentions. Dear Jacky, all send their love, I my love and blessing.
Apr. 9 [1726]
Dear Jacky,
…I thought to send a servant the 25th of this month with two horses … Send now a speedy answer, that we may give them a little food extraordinary.35 Dear Jacky, I beseech Almighty God to bless Thee!
To John Wesley
16 April 1726
LB, pp. 47–48; FB, 1:198.
Apr. 16 [1726]
Dear Jacky,
… Your father has ordered his servant, Alexander Clark, to set out hence on the 18 th instant … One thing I suppose needful to admonish you of, that you do not propose to yourself too much satisfaction in coming hither; for what the world calls joy lives not within these walls. But if your heart be right and you can rejoice in God whether you have or have not anything else to rejoice in; if he be the pleasure of your mind, so that you can feel delight in each perception of his presence, though encompassed with [poverty, reproach] and shame,36 then you may spend a few months in Wroot as happily as in any place of the world …
Dear Jacky, God bless thee!
To John Wesley
27 August 1726
Priestley, pp. 1S2–155.
This is not a letter but John Wesley’s written account of Susanna’s “testimony” concerning the rectory hauntings in 1716/17. See chapter 5 in part I of this volume, where it is printed as an addendum to her more timely record of Old Jeffrey.
To John Wesley
28 September 1726
LB, p. 48 (one-line summary); FB, 1:199.
Sept. 28 [1726]
Dear Jacky,
(Of my father’s mare, left ill at Banbury, and my plaid37 nightgown)
12 October 1726
LB, pp. 48–49; FB, 1:199–200.
Oct. 12 [1726]
[Dear Jacky,]
(Of my father’s mare, and my nightgown)
I greatly rejoice that your lot is cast among such agreeable companions, nor am I a little pleased with the hopes of your being [out of debt].38 Would Almighty God now permit me the satisfaction of being so myself and seeing my children [clear] 39 in the world, with what pleasure could I leave it!…
Your brother and sister Wright are now in Wroot at John Lambert’s.40 By your father’s permission I went to see her and was surprised to find that she met me without the least emotion of joy or grief. I desired a private conference, which she could not deny, though I found she was not pleased with it. I spoke what I thought proper for the occasion, but observed she was on the reserve, nor could I prevail with her to speak freely on anything. To induce her to it I used as much mildness as I am mistress of, told her I freely forgave all her offences against me, and spake more than perhaps was required on my part. She heard me with great indifference, made no acknowledgment of my proffered kindness, but seemed rather not pleased that I supposed she stood in need of my pardon. I then proposed a reconciliation between her and Mr. Wesley and asked her if she would not see him if he were willing to see her. She told me she had no desire to see him, because she knew he would reproach her with what was past, and that she could not bear. I replied, he would certainly put her in mind of her faults, which I thought he was obliged to do, as a father and as a clergyman; and that she was not to call the just rebukes of a parent reproaches, but submit herself to him, which she would certainly do if she were truly penitent. She repeated her not desiring to see him and added she wished for no reconciliation with him till one of ’em came to die. What effect my discourse had on her I know not, but I’m sure I returned home strangely mortified, neither pleased with her nor myself. I hoped from Molly’s representation of matters to have found her in a different temper from what I did. Therefore I did not say enough to convince her of her duty and was troubled to find her averse from her father, whom I take to be as well disposed to be reconciled to her as man can be. For he seemed pleased that I went to her and never restrains any of the children from being with her as much as they will. I verily believe that I could by a few words speaking reconcile him to her, but God forbid those few words should be spoken by me till she is better disposed. What her inward frame of mind is, is best known to the Searcher of hearts, to whose mercy I leave her, beseeching him to give her true repentance, without which I desire to see her face no more.
Charles is greatly to blame in not writing to Sam …
Dear Jacky, I pray God to bless thee!
I desire what I’ve spoken of Hetty may be concealed. I have not spoken so freely of her to our folks, nor is it necessary they should know my thoughts. Let all think as they please.
29 November 1726
LB, p. 50; FB, 1:200.
Nov. 29. Tues. 1726
Dear Jacky,
… The mare cost £4.10s.9d before we got her home. (Of the money I left at Wroot.) Dear Jacky, I must say unto thee as Naomi to her daughters, “It grieveth me much for your sake that the hand of the Lord is gone out against me.”41
This has withheld me from writing, though I had a great desire to hear from you and poor starving Charles. For it seemed a palpable piece of cruelty to make you pay for a letter unless I could send money too. But [as] I can’t fix a time of payment, I now think it better to write, lest you should impute my silence to a worse cause.
… Let us know how you like your plaid …
I heartily wish your converse with your friend42 may prove innocent and useful; but old folks are scrupulous and much given to fear consequences. May God preserve you from sin and danger.
Dear Jacky, I pray God bless thee.
Mr. Wesley is this day gone to Mr. Farmery’s (late Minister of Blighton’s) funeral.
1. John Wesley summarizes this and the following paragraph with a brief phrase in LB, p. 44: “Of Hylas and Philonous and the nature of faith.” His letter of 4 August no longer seems to be extant. This early work of Berkeley is titled Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. The Design of Which Is Plainly to Demonstrate the Reality and Perfection of Humane Knowlege, the Incorporeal Nature of the Soul, and the Immediate Providence of a Deity: In Opposition to Sceptics and Atheists. Also, to Open a Method for Rendering the Sciences More Easy, Useful, and Compendious (London: Henry Clements, 1713). Wesley was reading the second edition, 1725. See FB, 1:186, n. 1. George Berkeley (1685-17.53) was a fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, when he published this work. He later became dean of Derry and, in 1734, bishop of Cloyne. In 1752 he retired to Oxford. Though she responds intelligently to some of the issues raised, S. W appears not to have read the book.
2. For Pearson’s view of faith, see chapter 8, note 59, on S. W’s letter of 18 August 172, 5.
3. Paraphrase of Hebrews 11:3. In the AM MS the passage begins with a quotation mark and ends with a dash. I have added the final quotation mark.
4. Quasi dicat: “as if he were to say:”
5. Probably his two sermons, “Repentance and Faith, the Two Great Branches of the Evangelical Covenant” (nos. 88 and 89), Theological Works (1844), 4:185–224. The texts for both discourses is Mark 1:15, “Repent ye, and believe the Gospel”; the first sermon emphasizes repentance, the second faith. Beveridge’s handling of these two imperatives interestingly anticipates Wesley’s later insistence on both faith and works: “as they err on the one hand, who are altogether for faith without repentance, and good works; so they err too on the other hand, who are altogether for repentance and good works, without faith. And therefore, if we desire to go to Heaven, we must be sure to keep the middle betwixt these two extremes: and what Christ hath joined together in His preaching, we must not put asunder in our practice” (pp. 210–211). The definition of faith dial S. W. is recommending includes both assent to certain propositions, a familiar element in the rational theology of the day, as well as a deeper element of trust in Christ: “Faith, therefore, or belief in general, is nothing else but the assent of the mind to what is attested by another, grounded upon the authority of him that doth attest it” (p. 2IS). “In matters Divine,” this means assenting “to any truth only upon the testimony of God Himself; which is most certainly the highest kind of faith which we can possibly exert, because it hath an infallible testimony for the ground and foundation of it” (pp. 216–217). But this assent leads to something more: “For he that firmly and steadfastly assenteth unto this proposition, that God upon our repentance will pardon, accept, and save us, in and through Jesus Christ; cannot but trust and confide in the same Jesus Christ… . And in this, doubtless, consisteth the very essence of saving or justifying faith; even in trusting and relying upon Christ alone for pardon and Salvation, so as to expect it from Him, and from none but Him … the faith which our Saviour requires, is not such a light assent which swims only in the brain, but such a firm and solid assent as sinks into the heart, and there moves and inclines the will to Christ, and resting upon Him for pardon and acceptance with the Most High God” (p. 218).
6. Wesley had been reading Richard Fiddes (167–1725) and was mulling over his definition of faith, in Wesley’s paraphrase, “an assent to any truth upon rational grounds.” See his letter to S. W, 29 July 1725; FB, 1:175, n. 3. V. H. H. Green, The Young Mr. Wesley … (New York: St. Martin’s, 1961), pp. 70, 305, believes he was reading Fiddes’ A General Treatise of Morality (London: S. Billingsley, 1724).
7. This paragraph and the following 14 are omitted in LB and summarized with the phrase “Of the nature, properties and expressions of zeal.” FB, 1:184–185, includes only a few excerpts of this long section.
8. Paraphrase of Exodus 20:5–6. Quotation marks erroneously placed in the MS between “says” and “that” have been omitted.
9. Dissatisfaction.
10. Close paraphrase of 1 Kings 19:14. The MS has quotation marks at the beginning of the verse and a dash after “Hosts” and “altars.” Susanna added the words “or zealous” in the middle of her quotation. I have set the whole verse apart with quotation marks.
11. She is playing off 1 Samuel 18:7.
12. Close paraphrase, though with several phrases omitted, of James 3:6; S. W’s quotation marks.
13. Reprove.
14. Paraphrased from Isaiah 1:12–13; quotation marks added. “Your” is emphasized in the MS with large lowercase letters.
15. Luke 4:23; my quotation marks.
16. Encroach.
17. Outside.
18. Echoes of 1 Corinthians 14:33, 40.
19. 1 Corinthians 13:3, paraphrased; quotation marks added.
20. Note S. W’s interest in the subject in her letter to John, 14 March 1726/27. There she recommends a sermon on the subject by Bishop Sprat of Rochester. Her thoughts here, though similarly concerned with guarding against excesses, do not seem to be dependent on that discourse.
21. Hetty Wesley was married to William Wright, a plumber, on 13 October 1725 in the parish church of nearby Haxey. By the time of this letter he would have been ready to take her to his home in Louth, a town some 40 miles to the southeast. Baker has determined from baptismal records in the Louth parish registers that she was by then likely to be five months pregnant, probably by the lawyer that she had gone away with (against her father’s wishes) on a mistaken promise of marriage. The match with the rather coarse Wright was promoted by her mortified father. For brief details, see Frank Baker, “Investigating Family Traditions,” in MH 26.3 (April 1988): 157–158. For a retelling of the entire episode, see Frederick Maser, The Story of John Wesley’s Sisters, or Seven Sisters in Search of Lore (Rutland, Vt.: Academy Books, 1988), pp. 51–71. The Cambridge don Arthur Quiller-Couch was so taken by the story that he converted it into a novel, Hetty Wesley (London and New York: Macmillan, 1903).
22. Susanna Wesley has probably been commenting on “A Discourse concerning the Mea sure of Divine Love, with the Natural and Moral Grounds Upon Which It Stands.” in John Norris, [Practical] Discourses upon Several Divine Subjects, 2nd ed., 4 vols. (London: S. Manship, 1701), 3:1–68. The sermon, based on Matthew 22:37—“Thou shaft love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind”—seeks to demonstrate “that God is the only Author or Cause of our Love” and “that he is also the only proper Object of it” (p. 10). Note S. W’s continuing interest in Norris, expressed in another reference in the letter of 30 March 1726. For details on Norris (rector of Bemerton and sometime collaborator with Samuel Wesley on the Athenian Mercury), see Richard Acworth, The Philosophy of John Norris of Bemerton (1657–1712) (Hildesheim, Ger., and New York: Georg Olms, 1979), especially chap. 7, “The Theory of Love,” pp. 154–183.
As in other letters for which our only source is LB, the ellipses and the summaries in parentheses represent material that Wesley himself has omitted.
23. See note 21.
24. Anne Wesley (“Nancy”) married John Lambert, a fairly well-off land surveyor, on 2 December 1725. As indicated here, they set up houskeeping in Wroot, though later they moved to the London area, where Anne met with Charles and John and was present at her mother’s death. Apart from her husband’s slight drinking problem and some financial tips and downs, Anne appears to have had one of the happier marriages of any of the Wesley children. For additional details, see Maser, John Wesley’s Sisters, pp. 72–78.
25. A fellowship had become open, it was restricted to a native of the diocese of Lincoln, and Samuel Wesley Sr. pulled out all the ecclesiastical political stops to ensure his son’s selection. See Green, Young Mr. Wesley, pp. 76–80.
26. Wesley had been elected a fellow on 17 March 1725/26.
27. Quotation marks in LB, probably misplaced; I have been unable to find a direct scriptural reference, although there are resonances of Psalm 90:17 (BCP)—“prosper thou the work of our hands”—and Isaiah 40:24 (AV)—“he shall blow upon them, and they shall whither.”
28. FB has “the.”
29. His income as a fellow would vary but run somewhere in the neighborhood of £30 per annum. See Green, Young Mr. Wesley, pp. 320–321. S. W here reinforces a lesson in personal stewardship that would stick with her son throughout his life.
30. The one-line parenthetical summary of this paragraph in LB (or Susanna in the first place) may not have it right. “Complae-GWill” in the MS probably does stand for “complacence and goodwill.” But if Susanna is referring to The Theory and Regulation of Love, A Moral Essay in Two Parts. To Which Are Added Some Letters Philosophical and Moral, between the Author and Dr. Henry More, 2nd ed. (London: S. Manship, 1694), the primary distinction there is between “concupiscence and benevolence.” Samuel Wesley (or one of his literary friends) favorably reviewed the book in The Compleat Library (London: John Dunton, 1694), 3:92–97, calling attention to these two main branches in Norris’s taxonomy of love. Concupiscence is “a Simple tendency of the Soul to Good,” that is, good in general (p. 93), and benevolence is “a willing of Good to some Being or another” (p. 94). In a later work Norris distinguished between the “love of benevolence” (appropriate toward our neighbor, whose good we can selflessly will) and the “love of desire” (appropriate toward God, whom we cannot hope to wish any good, from whom wc can only seek the fulfillment of our want). Desire, even when used in this theological sense, seems belter represented by “concupiscence” than “complacence.” See his “Discourse concerning the Excellence of Praise and Thanksgiving,” in [Practical] Discourses, 2:92–94. It is possible that the mislabeling of the distinction is attributable to Susanna—she certainly used the same terms when writing to Samuel Jr. on 11 March 1704. If she were remembering it without the book in hand, “good will” would be a plain English equivalent of the Latinate “benevolence,” and “complacence” (OED, def. 3, “disposition to please”) is a word that a rusty memory might substitute for the slightly racier “concupiscence.” Compare the related discussion in her “Obedience to the Laws of God: A Brief (Unfinished) Exposition on the Ten Commandments,” in part III of this volume. The related Platonic distinction between the “concupisciple” and the “irascible” affections is also alluded to in S. W’s devotional journal, entry 73.
31. FB omits.
32. For her role vis-à-vis Samuel, see my article, “‘Some State Employment of Your Mind’…” Church History, 58.3 (September 1989): 3S4–366.
33. John Morley was rector of Lincoln College, 1719–1731, and also resided occasionally in Scotten, his parish, near Gainsborough, not far from Epworth. The family difficulties S. W refers to probably centered on Hetty’s forced marriage. The whole process had estranged her from the family in general and her father in particular. John, home during the summer vacation, was later to take Hetty’s part in a sermon he preached at Wroot in August. See his letter to his brother Samuel, defending his stand, in FB, 1:201–205. Susanna, on having the MS read to her, noted, “You writ this sermon for Hetty; the rest was brought in for the sake of the last paragraph” (p. 20S).
34. Nearly exact quotation of Romans 8:28; quotation marks in LB.
35. That is, over and above what is usual.
36. “Poverty” and “reproach” in cipher. S. W is taking pains to warn her son what he is coming back to. On leave from Lincoln College, he in fact walked home, arriving 23 April and remaining until 19 September.
37. In LB: “plad”; in FB: “plain.”
38. In cipher.
39. In cipher.
40. Not particularly welcome at the rectory while visiting from her new home in Louth, the disgraced Hetty found sanctuary of a sort with her sister Anne and her husband. See preceding letters of 10 November and 7 December 1725 (and notes). The visit set the stage for the rather remarkable mother-daughter interview described in this letter.
41. Ruth 1:13; quotation marks in LB.
42. Most likely Sarah (Sally) Kirkham, daughter of a Cotswold rector, to whom Wesley had been attracted. Despite the fact that she had by now married a local schoolmaster, John continued a slightly more than platonic correspondence with her. She was probably the friend who had recommended both Thomas a Kempis and Jeremy Taylor to his attention. See Green, Young Mr. Wesley, pp. 205–211. There is explicit mention of her in the letter of 31 January 1726/27. Susanna’s scruples doubtless reflect the family’s recent experience vis-á-vis Hetty.