In this set of letters for 1734 and early 1735, the aging Susanna Wesley continues to provide counsel to her correspondents (including, in the first one, a person not of her family) and to discuss important events within the family circle. Perhaps reflecting on her husband’s deteriorating condition and intimations of her own mortality, she also falls into paragraphs of devotional rapture, reminiscent of pages in her journal.1
The initial letter, difficult to place concerning both date and recipient, shows her at her practical best, trying to help a young clergyman think through the ecclesiastical, political, and legal issues involved in getting his first parish. As in other instances in which she has something important to say, her tactic is modestly to deny her own abilities and then boldly to proceed to impart her well-considered advice. She writes in this letter as one who understands “the system” but who also knows the spiritual and theological bases that the system ought to serve.
In three substantial letters to her son John at Oxford in early 1734, Susanna combines a number of her typical themes. The marriage of her crippled daughter, Molly, to John Whitelamb, Samuel Wesley’s protege and John’s pupil at Oxford, exercises her in the 1 January letter. She is against the match, lets John know in no uncertain terms, and closes by asking him to “burn this letter.” He did not, probably in part because she also provided perspective on William Law, whose mysticism John was struggling to comprehend at the time. Of additional interest to us is a reference to the “despised Methodists” at Oxford (she was already taking her sons’ controversial part) and her almost existential confession of faith: “I cannot know him. I dare not say I love him—only this, I have chose him… .”
The letter of 14 February reveals her as a sort of pastor’s pastor, helping John figure out how to be the spiritual director of his student Richard Morgan, brother of William (whose death had caused such controversy for the Oxford Methodists). In the process she criticizes the “heathen philosophers” and recommends the ethics of the New Testament by reporting a remark of John Locke.
The Morgan case and the Holy Club are still on her mind in her letter of 30 March, in which she also reports taking issue (on paper) with a preacher she has been hearing (perhaps her husband, perhaps young John Whitelamb). She passes on some free advice to Westley Hall, another of John’s Oxford contacts and the soon-to-be husband, of her daughter Patty, recognizing that it is “none of my business.” Then, in a section recommending more time for meditation, she waxes eloquent on the glory of God, nevertheless observing that lack of fervor should not be interpreted as lack of faith. She has gotten carried away: “I am got to the end of my paper before I am aware.”
For the early part of 1735, just prior to Samuel Wesley Sr.’s death, we have no full letters, only notes for a letter to John and part of one to Charles. In the former, Susanna responds to John’s query about Christian liberty by reaffirming her belief in the hierarchical order of things and subservience to authority. Practically liberated she may be, but theoretically she still sees social and political distinctions as part of the divinely ordained scheme. In the fragment of the letter to Charles she again is commending meditation as a spiritual discipline to one of her children, concluding with what is by now her old refrain from George Herbert’s poetry.
To Unknown
N.d. (possibly 1734)
MA. This is possibly a draft, given its many deletions and insertions. Internal clues suggest that it is intended for a young, local clergyman trying to find a decent living during Samuel Wesley Sr.’s lifetime. Perhaps the man is John Whitelamb, before he succeeded to the living of Wroot in 1734; surely, however, Whitelamb would not have to be urged to “advise with Mr. Wesley,” having been his protege and a member of the household for some time before he went to Oxford and (see following letter) became his son-in-law. Concern for a daughter’s prospect would certainly account for Susanna’s interest in such a case, though her practical advice might well have been sought in any case.
[No heading or greeting]
I was greatly surprised when Mrs. Piggot2 told me that your friend is like to be engaged in a suit of law about the living he pretends to, and though I do not care to meddle or interfere in other people’s business, especially where my advice is not desired and perhaps will not be well taken, yet I think myself obliged in charity to speak my mind freely, since none of your brethren,3 Mr. [?]Lug etc., would be so kind to deal faithfully with you; but ’tis no new thing for a man to have a great acquaintance and yet want a friend.
You know when you were first pleased to tell me the reason of your journey, that I spake very cautiously of it, yet I could not forbear saying that I did not like your miscalled friend’s proceedings, and I must tell you plainly, sir, that I like him now worse than ever. He has not dealt fairly with you in representing his case; for he told you that he was sure of the place and wanted nothing but your name in the presentation and that you immediately be inducted, whereas now it appears that there must be a reference, if not a suit, before he can enter upon it, which may take up a great deal of time. And, though I am but a novice in these matters, yet I think you would do well to inquire whether your having your name put into his presentation by which you are entitled to the living will not prove a bar to your own preferment till the matter is decided. I am afraid you’ll find yourself incapable of any other cure without a dispensation. And are you sure, sir, your friend will be at the trouble and charge of procuring you one if you should want it? Or that he will support you in the meantime without one? If not, to what purpose should you make such a costly compliment to any man? You stand as fair and are as well qualified for preferment as another, and why should you involve yourself in such a dishonourable and troublesome business to oblige anyone?4 Indeed, I’m much afraid that you’ll gain a great deal of disreputation by [?]engaging in this affair, and you know we are not only obliged to whatever things are honest, but to whatever is of good report.5 “lis in my opinion this affair is of the same complexion with Occasional Conformity; 6 for as that is a wicked evasion of one law, so is this of another. ’Tis well if that friend of yours be not a little heterodox in his principles and, if there be not too much love of this world in the bottom of it.
I should not take upon me to advise those that are wiser than myself, nor to teach where I ought to learn, but I think I may without offence to any say that the clergy would do well to consider with what temper and sincerity of mind they reply when they are questioned before they enter into the sacred priesthood, whether they think they are moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon themselves that holy order.7 Though it is permitted to those who serve the altar to be partakers with the altar, yet that does by no means justify the entering upon the ministry only for interest without principally regarding the glory of God and the salvation of the souls committed to their cure. And you very well know, sir, that those that followed our Saviour only for the loaves were upon that account severely reprehended by him.8 Whether this be the case of your friend, I am not able to determine. God and his own conscience are the most proper judges, and there I leave it.
To be short, though you have gone so far, yet be advised and go no farther. You do not know your man, nor can you possibly foresee the event of a law suit. But grant you were sure he would get the better; yet are you also sure it will be the better for you if he does? What terms are agreed upon between you? Or what advantage can he propose that will be equivalent to the tarnishing of your reputation upon your first appearing in the world? But above all other things, this consideration ought to weigh most with you, whether or no you can answer before God your being accessory to his plain neglect of his duty, to say no worse of it. And if you cannot, I need not tell you what you are to do. What, though this small thing you have at [sic] 9 now be precarious and you have at present no prospect of another cure, yet never be discouraged that God that has been with you, that has fed and clothed you hitherto ever since you came into the world, and that has preserved you, will never forsake you, if you do but heartily rely upon his Providence, and he has a thousands expedients to relieve and provide for us that we cannot possibly foresee. Nay, though your friend should entirely cast you off and should refuse to bear the charges of the journey (which, by the way, would prove him a great ———),10 yet if you have but the testimony of a good conscience and can but say to yourself, “this loss and damage I sustain because I would be guilty of an ill action,” 11 I am very confident that God will abundantly make it up to you, even in this life, though if he should not, heaven would make large amends for all.
Pardon me, sir, that I have spoke my thoughts so freely, but I have a true concern for you, and would not have you under the management of a designing man that perhaps may lead you into a great deal of mischief and then drop you. I wish you would advise with Mr. Wesley. Depend upon it, he is a just, honest man, and I am sure will be very faithful, if you please make a friend of him.
I am, sir, your friend and servant
[no signature]
To John Wesley
1 January 1733/34
MA; FB, 1:362–364.
Tuesday, Jan. 1st [l]733/4
Dear son,
I was highly pleased with receiving a letter from you last Sunday,12 for I have long wanted to write to you, but knew not whether you were at London or Oxford. My principal business with you was about Whitelamb, to reprehend your too great caution in not informing me what his moral character is, and about his intrigue at Medley. Had you let me know of the looseness of his principles and his disreputable practices, I should never have forwarded his going into orders, neither would I have suffered him to renew his addresses to Molly, after such a notorious violation of his promises to her. Indeed when he came hither first he was so full of his new doxy that he could not forbear telling Molly and Kezzy of his amour, which the former informed me of, and I discoursed him about it and would have convinced him that it was sinful and dishonourable for him to court another woman when he was pre-engaged, [but] he was not much moved with what I could say. So I told him plainly he should presently renounce one or the other, and that if he did. not presently write to Robinson13 (who is his pimp) and tell him that he would never more have any conversation with his doll at Medley, I would immediately send Molly away, where he should never see her more; though withal I advised him rather to take his Betty than your sister, for I thought her a much fitter wife for him. Besides, I was extremely unwilling Molly should ever marry at all. But Molly, who was fond of him to the last degree, was of another mind, and persuaded him to write to Robinson, and show14 me the letter. I did not much approve it, because he seemed to justify those vile practices, which I thought he ought to have condemned; yet to satisfy her importunity I permitted them to go on. Whitelamb wrote to ask your father’s leave to marry his daughter, which Mr. Wesley gave him, and on St. Thomas’s Day15 married they were at Epworth by Mr. Horbery; full sore against my will, but my consent was never asked, and your father, brother Wesley,16 etc., being for the match, I said nothing against it to them, only laboured what 1 could to dissuade Molly from it. But the flesh and the devil were too hard for me. I could not prevail. Yet with God nothing is impossible,17 and though this unequal marriage has to me a terrible aspect, ’tis possible for God to bring good out of this great evil; or otherwise he can take me away from the evil to come. Still, Jacky, I have somewhat more to tell you, but dare not write it, only this. Pray let Robinson (your pupil) know that Whitelamb is married; let him know I was against the match; give my service to him; and tell him from me, I am as good as my word, I daily pray for him, and beg of him, if he have the least regard for his soul or have yet any remaining sense of religion in his mind, to shake off all acquaintance with the profane and irregular; for it is the free thinker and sensualist, not the despised Methodists,18 which will be ashamed and confounded when summoned to appear before the face of that Almighty Judge whose Godhead they have blasphemed and whose offered mercy they have despised and ludicrously rejected. The pleasures of sin are but for a short, uncertain time, but eternity hath no end. Therefore one would think that few arguments might serve to convince a man which has not lost his senses that ’tis of the last importance for us to be very serious in improving the present time and acquainting ourselves with God while it is called Today,19 lest being disqualified for his blissful presence, our future existence be inexpressibly miserable.
You are entirely in the right in what you say in the second paragraph of your letter. The different degrees of virtue and piety are different states of soul, which must be passed through gradually; and he that cavils at a practical advice plainly shows that he has not gone through those states which were to have been passed before he could apprehend the goodness of the given direction. For in all matters of religion, if there be not an internal sense in the hearer corresponding to that sense in the mind of the speaker, what is said will have no effect. This I have often experienced. Yet sometimes it falls out that while a zealous Christian is discoursing on spiritual subjects the Blessed Spirit of God Incarnate will give such light to the minds of those that hear him as shall dispel their native darkness and enable them to apprehend those spiritual things of which before they had no discernment. As in the case of St. Peter, who preaching the gospel to Cornelius and his friends, it is said, “While Peter yet spake these words the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.” 20
Mr. Law is a good and a valuable man; yet he is but a man; and therefore no marvel that he could not be so explicit as you could have wished in speaking of the presence of God.21 Perhaps his mind was too full of the sense of that Blessed Being readily to hit upon words to express a thing so far above their nature. Who can think, much less speak, on that vast subject—his greatness, his dignity, astonishes us! The purity of his goodness, his redeeming love, confounds and overwhelms us! At the perception of his glory our feeble powers are suspended, and nature faints before the God of nature.
For my part, after many years’ search and inquiry I still continue to pay my devotions to an unknown God. I cannot know him. I dare not say I love him—only this, I have chose him for my only happiness, my all, my only God, in a word, for my God. And when I sound my will, I feel it adheres to its choice, though not so faithfully as it ought. Therefore I desire your prayers, which I need much more than you do mine.
That God is everywhere present, and we always present to him, is certain; but that he should be always present to us is scarce consistent with our mortal state. Some choice souls, ’tis true, have attained such a habitual sense of his presence as admits of few interruptions. But what, my dear—Consider, he is so infinitely blessed! So altogether lovely! 22 That every perception of him, every approach (in contemplation) to his supreme glory and blessedness imparts such a vital joy and gladness to the heart as banishes all pain and sense of misery—And were eternity added to this happiness it would be heaven.
I have much to say, but time is expired.
Pray burn this letter, for I would not that any know my thoughts of W[hitelamb] and M[olly], since they are married. She thinks she can reform what is amiss in him. I think myself he grows more serious and regular. My love and blessing to ye both. Wishing ye a Happy New Year. My service to Mr. Hall.23
To John Wesley
14 February 1734
AM, 1778, pp. 81–84; FB, pp. 377–378. When Wesley edited this letter for AM, he misdated it as 14 February 1735. In fact, it answers John’s letter to S. W of 28 January 1734 (FB, 1:71–373).
Feb. 14 [1734]
Dear son,
I cannot well say whether it will answer any good end to let the young gentleman 24 know that you have heard of what he has said against you. I doubt it will make him desperate. I remember a piece of advise which my brother Matthew25 gave in a parallel case: “Never let any man know that you have heard what he has said against you. It may be he spake upon some misinformation, or was in a passion or did it in a weak compliance with the company; perhaps he has changed his mind, and is sorry for having done it and may continue friendly to you. But if he finds you are acquainted with what he said, he will conclude you cannot forgive him and upon that supposition will become your enemy.”
Your other question is indeed of great weight, and the resolving it requires a better judgment than mine. But since you desire my opinion, I shall propose what I have to say.26
Since God is altogether inaccessible to us but by Jesus Christ, and since none ever was or ever will be saved but by him, is it not absolutely necessary for all people, young and old, to be well grounded in the knowledge and faith of Jesus Christ? By faith I do not mean an assent only to the truths of the gospel concerning him, but such as assent as influences our practice, as makes us heartily and thankfully accept him for our God and Saviour upon his own conditions. No faith below this can be saving. And since this faith is necessary to salvation, can it be too frequently or too explicitly discoursed on to young people? I think not.
But since the natural pride of man is wont to suggest to him that he is self-sufficient and has not need of a Saviour, may it not be proper to show (the young especially) that without the great atonement there could be no remission of sin; and that in the present state of human nattire no man can qualify himself for heaven without that Holy Spirit which is given by God Incarnate? To convince them of this truth, might it not be needful to inform them that since God is infinitely just, or rather that he is justice itself, it necessarily follows that vindictive justice is an essential property in the divine nature? And if so, one of these two things seems to have been absolutely necessary, either that there must be an adequate satisfaction made to the divine justice for the violation of God’s law by mankind; or else that the whole human species should have perished in Adam (which would have afforded too great matter of triumph to the apostate angels)—otherwise, how could God have been just to himself? Would not some mention of the necessity of revealed religion be proper here? Since without it all the wit of man could never have found out how human nature was corrupted in its fountain, neither had it been possible for us to have discovered any way or means whereby it might be restored to its primitive purity. Nay, had it been possible for the brightest angels in heaven to have found out such a way to redeem and restore mankind as God hath appointed, yet durst any of them have proposed it to the uncreated Godhead?—No. Surely the offended must appoint a way to save the offender, or man must be lost for ever. “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom, and knowledge, and goodness of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” 27 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are his thoughts higher than our thoughts, and his ways than our ways!”28 Here surely you may give free scope to your spirits, here you may freely use your Christian liberty and discourse without reserve of the excellency of the knowledge and love of Christ, as his Spirit gives you utterance.—What, my son, did the pure and holy person of the son of God pass by the fallen angels, who were far superior, of greater dignity, and of an higher order in the scale of existence, and choose to unite himself to the human nature? And shall we soften (as you call it) these glorious truths? Rather let us speak boldly without fear; these truths ought to be frequently inculcated and pressed home upon the consciences of men. And when once men are affected with a sense of redeeming love, that sense will powerfully convince them of the vanity of the world and make them esteem the honour, wealth, and pleasures of it as dross or dung, so that they may win Christ.29
As for moral subjects,30 they are necessary to be discoursed on; but then, I humbly conceive, we are to speak of moral virtues as Christians and not like heathens. And if we could indeed do honour to our Saviour, we should take all fitting occasions to make men observe the excellence and perfection of the moral virtues taught by Christ and his apostles, far surpassing all that was pretended to by the very best of the heathen philosophers. All their morality was defective in principle and direction, was intended only to regulate the outward actions, but never reached the heart, or at the highest it looked no farther than the temporal happiness of mankind. “But moral virtues evangelized, or improved into Christian duties, have partly a view to promote the good of human society here, but chiefly to qualify the observers of them for a much more blessed and more enduring society hereafter.”31 I cannot stay to enlarge on this vast subject, nor indeed (considering whom I write to) is it needful. Yet one thing I cannot forbear adding, which may carry some weight with his admirers, and that is, the very wise and just reply which Mr. Locke made to one that desired him to draw up a system of morals. “Did the world,” says he, “want a rule, I confess there could be no work so necessary, nor so commendable. But the gospel contains so perfect a body of ethics that reason may be excused from that enquiry, since she may find man’s duty clearer and easier in Revelation than in herself.”32
That you may continue steadfast in the faith and increase more and more in the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son, Jesus Christ! That holiness, simplicity, and purity (which are different words signifying the same thing), may recommend you to the favour of God Incarnate! That his Spirit may dwell in you, and keep you still (as now) under a sense of God’s blissful presence, is the hearty prayer of, dear son,
Your affectionate mother,
And most faithful friend,
S[usanna] W[esley]
To John Wesley
30 March 1734
MA; FB, 1:382–385.
Sat: March 30th [1]734
Dear son,
The young gentleman’s father,33 for ought I can perceive, has a better notion of religion than many people have, though not the best; for few insist upon the necessity of private prayer, but if they go to church sometimes and abstain from the grossest acts of mortal sin, though they are ignorant of the spirit and power of godliness and have no sense of the love of God and universal benevolence, yet they rest well satisfied of their salvation and are pleased to think they may enjoy the world as much as they can while they live and have heaven in reserve when they die. I have met with abundance of these people in my time, and I think it one of the most difficult things imaginable to bring them off from their carnal security and to convince them that heaven is a state, as well as a place; a state of holiness, begun in this life, though not perfected till we enter upon life eternal;34 that all sins are so many spiritual diseases, which must be cured by the power of Christ before we can be capable of being happy, even though it were possible for us to be admitted into the kingdom of heaven hereafter. If the young man’s father was well apprized of this, he would not venture to pronounce his son a good Christian upon such weak grounds as he seems to do. Yet notwithstanding the father’s indifference, I can’t but conceive good hopes of the son, because he chooses to spend so much of his time with you (for I presume he is not forced to it), and if we may not from thence conclude he is good, I think we may believe he desires to be so. And if that be the case, give him time. We know that the great work of regeneration is not performed at once, but proceeds by slow and often imperceptible degrees, by reason of the strong opposition which corrupt nature makes against it; yet if one grain of divine grace be sown in the heart, though (to use our blessed Lord’s simile) it be but as a single grain of mustard seed, it will lake root, and bring forth fruit with patience.35
Mr. Clayton and Mr. Hall36 are much wiser than I am, yet with submission to their better judgments I think that though some marks of a visible superiority on your part is convenient to maintain the order of the world, yet severity is not; since experience may convince us that such kind of behaviour towards a man (children are out of the question) may make him a hypocrite, but will never make him a convert. Never trouble yourself to inquire whether he loves you or not: if you can persuade him to love God, he will love you as much as is necessary; if he love not God his love is of no value. But be that as it will, we must refer all things to God, and be as indifferent as we possibly can be in all matters wherein the great enemy, self, is concerned.
If you and your few pious companions have devoted two hours in the evening to religious reading or conference, there can be no dispute but that you ought to spend the whole time in such exercises which it was set apart for; but if your evenings be not strictly devoted, I see no harm in talking sometimes of your secular affairs. But if (as you say) it does your novice no good and does yourselves harm, the case is plain—you must not prejudice your own souls to do another good; much less ought you to do so when you can do no good at all. Of this ye are better judges than I can be.
‘Twas well you paid not for a double letter. I am always afraid of putting you to charge, and that fear prevented me sending you a long scribble indeed a while ago. For a certain person37 and I had a warm debate on some important points in religion wherein we could not agree. Afterwards he wrote some propositions, which I endeavoured to answer, and this controversy I was minded to have sent you, and to have desired your judgment upon it. But the unreasonable cost of such a letter then hindered me from sending it, since I have heard him in two sermons contradict every article he before defended, which makes me hope that upon second thoughts his mind is changed; and if so, what was said in private conference ought not to be remembered, and therefore I would not send you the papers at all.
I can’t think Mr. Hall does well in refusing an opportunity of doing so much service to religion as he certainly might do if he accepted the living he is about to refuse. Surely never was more need of orthodox, sober divines in our Lord’s vineyard than there is now; and why a man of his extraordinary piety and love to souls should decline the service in this critical juncture I can’t conceive. But this is none of my business.
You want no direction from me how to employ your time. I thank God for his inspiring you with a resolution of being faithful in improving that important talent committed to your trust. It would be of no service to you to know in any particular what I do, or what method in examination, or anything else, I observe. I am superannuated, and don’t now live as I would, but as I can. I can’t observe order, or think consistently, as formerly. When I have lucid interval I aim at improving it, but alas! it is but aiming.
I see nothing in the disposition of your time but what I approve, unless it be that you do not assign enough of it to meditation, which is (I conceive) incomparably the best means to spiritualize our affections, confirm our judgments, and add strength to our pious resolutions of any exercise whatever. If contrition be as ’tis commonly defined, that sorrow for and hatred of sin which proceeds from our love to God, surely the best way to excite this contrition is to meditate frequently on such subjects as may excite, cherish, and increase our love to that blest Being! And what is so proper for this end as deep and serious consideration of that pure, unaccountable love which is demonstrated to us in our redemption by God Incarnate! Verily, the simplicity of divine love is wonderful! It transcends all thought, it passeth our sublimest apprehensions! Perfect love indeed! No mixture of interest! No by-ends38 or selfish regards. If we be righteous, what give we him? “In him we live, and move, and have our being,” 39 both in a physical and moral sense; but he can gain nothing by us, nor can we offer him anything that is not already his own. He can lose nothing by losing us, but in our loss of him we lose all good, all happiness, all peace, all pleasure, health, and joy; all that is either good in itself, or can be good for us. And yet this great, this incomprehensible, ineffable, all-glorious God deigns to regard us! Declares he loves us! Expresses the tenderest concern for our happiness! Is unwilling to give us up to the grand enemy of souls, or to leave us to ourselves, but hath commissioned his ambassadors to offer us pardon and salvation upon the most equitable terms imaginable! How long doth he wait to be gracious! How oft doth he call upon us to return and live! By his ministers, his providences; by the still, small voice40 of his Holy Spirit! By conscience, his vicegerent within us and by his merciful corrections and the innumerable blessings we daily enjoy! To contemplate God as he is in himself we cannot; if we aim at doing it we feel nature faints under the least perception of his greatness, and we are presently swallowed up and lost in the immensity of his glory! For finite in presence of Infinite vanishes straight into nothing. But when we consider him under the character of a Saviour we revive, and the greatness of that majesty which before astonished and confounded our weak faculties now enhances the value of his condescension towards us and melts our tempers into tenderness and. love.
But I am got to the end of my paper before I am aware. One word more and I am done. As your course of life is austere, and your diet low, so the passions, as far as they depend on the body, will be low, too. Therefore you must not judge of your interior state by your not feeling great fervours of spirit and extraordinary agitations, as plentiful weeping, etc., but rather by the firm adherence of your will to God. If upon examination you perceive that you still choose him for your only good, that your spirit (to use a Scripture phrase) cleaveth steadfastly to him,41 follow Mr. Baxter’s advice, and you will be easy:
Put your souls, with all their sins and dangers, and all their interests, into the hand of Jesus Christ your Saviour; and trust them wholly with him by a resolved faith. It is he that hath purchased them, and therefore loveth them. It is he that is the owner of them by right of redemption. And it is now become his own interest, even for the success and honour of his redemption, to save them.42
When I begin to write to you I think I don’t know how to make an end. I fully purposed when I began to write to be very brief, but I will conclude, though I find I shall be forced to make up such a clumsy letter as I did last time.
Today J|ohn] Brown, Sr.43 sets forward for London in order to attend your father home.
Pray give my love and blessing to Charles. I hope he is well, though I have never heard from him since he left Epworth.
Dear Jacky God Almighty bless thee!
To John Wesley
Notes for an answer written on the back of his letter to S. W, 14 February 1735; MA; FB, 1:418–419. John’s letter continues a discussion they have been having on Christian liberty.
The visible order of Providence is to be observed by all, whether strong or weak in the faith, and this can’t be done, nor civil government be established and the due subservience of one man to another preserved, without ensigns of authority, and difference in houses, furniture, and apparel, all which are marks of distinction, and as such in obedience to the will of God, and not for vainglory, they ought to be used, and he that breaks his rank and goes out of character, so far as he does so, so far he breaks the external order of the universe and abuses his Christian liberty.
To Charles Wesley
1735 (no month or date)
MA. Fragments, mainly advising a daily devotional routine; heading missing; brief postscript from Samuel Wesley Sr.: “Since you desire me to write, I will, though with great pain and to little purpose. I pity and love you, but that’s all I can do unless praying to God to help you. Yr Aff: Fa: Sam Wesley.” Endorsed by Charles Wesley: “My father and mother 1735.” The letter would have to have been written before Samuel Wesley’s death on 25 April 1735 and before Charles and John walked home from Oxford, arriving to be with their dying father on 4 April (FB, 1:422, n. 1).
… that as pleases God, but if while I have life and any remains of health, it may be useful or pleasing to you, that we hold a correspondence together by letters, I shall gladly do it. But then, dear Charles, let us not spend our time in trifling, in talking of impertinent matters that will turn to no account. Rather, let us converse as beings whose existence on earth is of short continuance, and yet have a work of great, I should say, of the greatest, importance, to finish in this uncertain duration, or we are lost forever.
This consideration will readily suggest to your good sense that we ought carefully to improve our time44 And in order to do it effectually, I must earnestly conjure45 you to set apart two hours every day for private devotion; one in the morning, the other in the evening, which will answer to the morning and evening sacrifices that you know were appointed by God himself!46 It is not for me to fix the particular hours; those must be determined by yourself, who best know the method of your studies and what time you are least engaged. But then having once made your choice, you must peremptorily adhere to it, nor suffer company, pleasure, or any business that is not truly unavoidable to break in upon you, and cause you to neglect your retirement. For what is once devoted to God, ought never to be alienated from him. ‘lis probable you will find some difficulty in this practice at first, and when it is observed, perhaps you may sometimes lie under the imputation of singularity, moroseness, or ill breeding—but let not such things trouble you, for they are not worth regarding. What wise man would not be singular among such as have no [?]taste of sincere piety? Or would not rather be thought defective in complaisance47 and good breeding by men of license, than neglect such an excellent means of advancing spiritual life?
Slight those that say amidst their sickly health,
Thou livest by rule. What doth not so but man? … 48
[Page cut; material missing.]
. . knew of my [?]worry.
Dear Charles, my love and blessing attend thee.
S. Wesley
1. See part II of this volume.
2. Wife of the vicar of Doncaster, c. 1732/33(?) See Stevenson, p. 135.
3. “Brethren” replaces the crossed-out “acquaintance.”
4. “One” replaces the crossed-out “man.”
5. Echoes from Philippians 4:8. This last clause, beginning “and you know” is written lengthwise in the right-hand margin; an asterisk after the word “affair” in the text calls it to the reader’s attention.
6. The practice of a Dissenter’s receiving communion in the Anglican church on only one or two occasions to qualify for government office. An attempt to close this loophole was on the books from 1711 until 1719, when it was repealed to relieve George I’s Nonconformist subjects. In the present instance S. W is complaining that the spirit of the canons relating to a priest’s induction into a parish was being similarly violated.
7. She actually has in mind the first question asked candidates for the diaconate in the BCP: “Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon you this Office and Ministration, to serve God for the promoting of his glory, and the edifying of his people?” (My emphasis.) The equivalent question in the ordination of priests is “Do you think in your heart, that you be truly called, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the order of this Church of England, to the Order and Ministry of Priesthood?”
8. See John 6:26–27.
9. She originally wrote “at present,” then substituted “now” without striking out both words of the first phrase.
10. Dash in MS, indicating that S. W has omitted the word, possibly to be inserted in a subsequent draft.
11. My quotation marks.
12. Wesley’s letter of 19 December 1733 has not been found.
13. Probably Wesley’s pupil at Lincoln, Matthew Robinson, who later became a fellow of Brasenosc.
14. In MS: “shew.”
15. 21 December; see BCP.
16. That is, Samuel Jr.
17. Luke 1:37.
18. By now the standard nickname for the Wesleys’ circle at Oxford.
19. My boldfacing; S. W. emphasized the word in the MS by writing it in larger letters.
20. Acts 10:44; S. W.’s quotation marks.
21. William Law (1686-1761), unwilling to take an oath of allegiance at George I’s accession, forswore a career in the church and university. He wrote his two most famous works, A Practical Treatise upon Christian Perfection (London: William and John Innys, 1726) and A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life … (London: William Innys, 1729) while serving as tutor for the Gibbon family in Putney. John Wesley, much influenced by the ideal of a “new life perfectly devoted to God” (Christian Perfection, p. 41), visited Law in July of 1732 and again, just before writing the letter that Susanna Wesley is here answering, on 28 November 1733. In his diary for that day John Wesley notes, “with Mr. Law, not understood all he said.” V. H. H. Green, The Young Mr. Wesley … (New York: St. Martin’s, 1961), p. 277, n. 4. Though no copy of his letter exists, his mother’s reply indicates that he was asking her to help him understand the interview. Despite her interest in the meditational life and her political affinity for him, there is no evidence that she had ever read Law. John Wesley later broke with Law, the former pulling away from mysticism after his sojourn in Georgia, the latter delving deeper into it with his increasing appreciation of the work of Jacob Boehme.
22. Song of Solomon 5:16.
23. The last sentence is written sideways along the top left-hand margin of the page.
24. Richard Morgan Jr. was the brother of William, whose death had been attributed by some to the zeal and discipline of the Holy Club. A new undergraduate, he was chafing under the close scrutiny of John Wesley, under whose tutelage his father had placed him—notwithstanding the elder brother’s unfortunate experience. See Green, Young Mr. Wesley, pp. 194–200.
25. That is, brother-in-law Matthew Wesley.
26. Still speaking of Richard Morgan, John had asked, “Should we converse then in the simplicity of the gospel; and speak as we are enabled, with zeal, of the nothingness of things present, the greatness of things future, and the excellency of the love of Christ? Or should we rather soften these glorious truths, and talk morally? ’Tis an important question, and of constant use” (FB, 1:372).
27. Romans 11:33; first sentence slightly misremembered. The original: “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” AM encloses both biblical verses in the same set of quotation marks.
28. Isaiah 55:9, slightly condensed and with changed pronouns.
29. See Philippians 3:8.
30. Paragraph break not found in AM but introduced here to divide up an extraordinarily long block of discourse.
31. Quotation marks in AM. I have been unable to trace this reference.
32. I cannot find a direct quotation, although S. W writes as if she is looking at Locke’s exact words (thus my quotation marks). However, the substance of the story was available in a letter of 25 August 1703 to the Rev. Richard King, in which he recommends the New Testament as a special source of religious knowledge and moral guidance. See The Works of John Locke, 12th ed. (London: C. and J. Rivington, 1824), 9:305–306. Cf. Thomas Jefferson’s similarly “enlightened” view in his Life and Morals of Jesus (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904).
33. Richard Morgan Sr.; see note 24.
34. Cf. the doctrine of perfection as developed by John Wesley a few years later.
35. See Matthew 13:? 1–32 and parallels.
36. Members of the Holy Club.
37. FB, 1:383, n. 1, suggests that this may be her husband, Samuel, or perhaps her son-in-law John Whitelamb, soon to be incumbent of Wroot.
38. That is, subordinate ends or aims.
39. Acts 17:28.
40. See 1 Kings 19:12.
41. Psalm 78:9, BCP (AV 78:8): “a generation … whose spirit cleaveth not stedfastly unto God.”
42. I have not been able to find the exact passage amid Baxter’s voluminous works. It may be that it is tucked in among similar directions for the faithful in his A Christian Directory, 2nd ed. (London: Nervil Simmons, 1678), for example, Grand Direction XII, in bk. 1 (“Christian Ethicks”), chap. 3, p. 131: “Trust God with that soul and body which thou hast delivered up and dedicated to him; and quiet thy mind in his Love and faithfulness, whatever shall appear unto thee, or befall thee in the world.” Like material is found also in The Life of Faith (London: Nevil Simmons, 1670), for example, p. 175: “By faith deliver up yourselves to God, as your Creator and your Owner, and live to him as those that perceive they are absolutely his own . … By faith deliver up yourselves to God, as your Sovereign Ruler, with an absolute Resolution to learn, and love, and obey his Laws.” Another treatise dealing with these issues is The Right Method for a Settled Peace of Conscience and Spiritual Comfort in The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter, 23 vols., ed. William Orme (London: ]. Duncan, 1830), vol. 9. For easier reading I have chosen to indent this passage from Baxter, removing the quotation marks in the MS.
43. In MS: “Senr.”
44. See Colossians 4:5.
45. Appeal solemnly to.
46. See Exodus 29:38–42 and Numbers 28:3–8.
47. That is, willingness to please others.
48. George Herbert, “The Church-Porch,” stanza 23, lines 133–34, from The Temple, in F. E. Hutchinson, ed., The Works of George Herbert (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941), p. 12. S. W. is fond of these lines and recommended them to each of her three sons. See her letter to Samuel Jr., 11 October 1709 (and note), chapter 4, and her letter to John, 22 April 1727, chapter 10.