Arguably the most influential of Susanna Wesley’s writings, this essay in the form of a letter was written to her son John at his request in early 1732. Dealing with the household regimen and the early education of her ten children who survived infancy, it has become something of a classic statement of evangelical child-rearing practices. Though not her earliest extended piece on education, we have placed it first in this section as an indication of her methodology and rationale.
Anticipating its composition in a letter to her son John in February 1732, she outlined the project with her own blend of modesty and forthrightness:
The writing anything about my way of education I am much averse from. It can’t (I think) be of service to anyone to know how I, that have lived such a retired life for so many years (ever since I was with child of you), used to employ my time and care in bringing up my children. No one can, without renouncing the world in the most literal sense, observe my method, and there’s few (if any) that would entirely devote above twenty years of the prime of life in hope to save the souls of their children (which they think may be saved without so much ado); for that was my principal intention, however unskillfully or unsuccessfully managed.1
The letter finally came through in late July, and John Wesley was impressed enough to recommend it to his constituency after his mother’s death, both in his published Journal and in his house organ, the Arminian Magazine, where it appeared as part of a sermon. Leaders in the post-Wesley generation, such as Adam Clarke, followed suit, and soon “her wise and parental intstructions” (accounting for “the rare excellence of the Wesely family”) became a staple of Methodist hagiography.2 Romanticizing aside, however, there are good grounds for tracing something of Methodism’s method to the educational discipline of Susanna Wesley’s home school.3 More recently English historian Lawrence Stone has called her educational principles the link between “the caring but authoritarian discipline of the Puritan bourgeois parent of the seventeenth century and the caring but authoritarian discipline of the Evangelical bourgeois parent of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.”4 Further, according to American historian Philip Greven, the letter may have helped create an evangelical identity in an even wider sphere.5
By the time Susanna began raising her family, education of children as a parental duty had long since become a commonplace in both Puritan and Anglican circles. The Geneva Bible, commenting on Deuteronomy 21:18, sounded the note early on: “It is the mothers dutie also to instruct her children.”6 In her own lifetime her father’s friend Richard Baxter underscored the point:
Especially you, mothers, remember this; you are more with your children while they are little ones than their fathers, be you therefore still teaching them as soon as ever they are capable of learning.7
But Anglican sources were equally insistent, as a purusal of a section on “Parents Duty to Children” in the influential The Whole Duty of Man amply illustrates. After physical nourishment and bringing a child to baptism, parents “must provide for the education of the child.” 8
Though steeped in English Protestant tradition, Susanna’s educational methodology was also au courant. We have already noticed her fascination with John Locke’s Essay concerning Human Understanding, portions of which she copied in her journal. As Frank Baker has reminded us, Susanna Wesley appears also to have been one of the early readers of Locke’s slightly later work, Some Thoughts concerning Education, early echoes of which may be seen in her journal (entries 55 and 103). The yoking of the philosopher with Susanna Wesley has been used to demonstrate both that her methods were not as harsh as may seem (given the intellectual context of the times) and that Locke was not as liberal in his thought as has been supposed.9 In fact, both may be read as having a severe side: both reserve a place for the rod, and both argue for early and firm parental authority; Locke’s goal, “compliance and suppleness of their wills,” is a rough equivalent of Susanna Wesley’s “conquering the will.” Yet both also mitigate such strictness in their disavowal of mean-spirited and senseless beating, as well as in the goals of their practices, which in the long run result in less cruelty than if all early discipline had been abandoned. As the annotations will show, her educational and child-rearing practices are peppered with Lockean resonances, though no direct quotations—she is working from memory, and in any case she has borrowed, not slavishly copied, from him. In one or two instances she contradicts him.
What we seem to have in her letter is a curious yet influential blend of evangelical and Lockean ideas,10 one that also goes a long way toward explaining the remarkable children of the Epworth rectory and that illustrates the zeal with which Susanna Wesley pursued an educational vocation within the bounds of contemporary social constraints. The letter also sets the stage for the three other (more content-oriented) educational writings that follow.
With no existing holograph I have relied on the text as it appears in John Wesley’s Journals and Diaries, II (1738–42), ed. W. Reginald Ward and Richard P. Heitzenrater, The Works of John Wesley (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 19:286–291 (1 August 1742), collated with the Arminian Magazine, 1784, pp. 462–464, where portions of the letter are incorporated into Wesley’s sermon “On Obedience to Parents.” John Wesley’s editorial hand is probably at work in both. Clarke (pp. 211–212, 215–219) includes most of the letter but probably is following Wesley’s Journal edition.
July 24, 1732
Dear son
According to your desire, I have collected the principal rules I observed in educating my family;11which I now send you as they occurred to my mind, and you may (if you think they can be of use to any) dispose of them in what order you please.
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, undressing, changing their linen, etc. The first quarter commonly passes in sleep. After that they were, if possible, laid into their cradles awake and rocked to sleep; and so they were kept rocking till it was time for them to awake. This was done to bring them to a regular course of sleeping; 12 which at first was three hours in the morning and three in the afternoon; afterwards two hours, till they needed none at all.
When turned a year old (and some before), they were taught to fear the rod, and to cry softly;13 by which means they escaped abundance of correction they might otherwise have had, and that most odious noise of the crying of children was rarely heard in the house, but the family usually lived in much quietness as if there had not been a child among them.
As soon as they were grown pretty strong, they were confined to three meals a day. At dinner their little table and chairs were set by ours, where they could be overlooked; and they were suffered to eat and drink (small14 beer) as much as they would; but not to call for anything. If they wanted aught they used to whisper to the maid which attended them, who came and spake 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, but always made eat such things as were provided for the family.
Mornings they had always spoon-meat;15 sometimes on nights. But whatever they had, they were never permitted to eat at those meals of more than one thing, and of that sparingly enough. Drinking or eating between meals was never allowed, unless in case of sickness; which seldom happened. Nor were they suffered to go into the kitchen to ask anything of the servants when they were at meat; if it was known they did, they were certainly beat, and the servants severely reprimanded. 16
At six, as soon as family prayers were over, they had their supper; at seven the maid washed them; and, beginning at the youngest, she undressed and got them all to bed by eight; at which time she left them in their several rooms awake, for there was no such thing allowed of in our house as sitting by a child till it fell asleep.
They were so constantly used to eat and drink what was given them that when any of them was ill there was no difficulty in making them take the most unpleasant medicine; for they durst not refuse it, though some of them would presently throw it up. This I mention to show that a person may be taught to take anything, though it be never so much against his stomach.
In order to form, the minds of children, the first thing to be done is to conquer their will, and bring them to an obedient temper.17 To inform the understanding is a work of time, and must [with children]18 proceed by slow 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 is hardly ever [after] conquered;19 and never, without using such severity as would be as painful to me as to the child.20 In the esteem of the world they pass for kind and indulgent whom I call cruel parents, who permit their children to get habits which they know must be afterwards broken.21 [Nay, some are so stupidly fond as in sport to teach their children to do things which in a while after they have severely beaten them for doing.22
Whenever a child is corrected, it must be conquered; and this will be no hard matter to do if it be not grown headstrong by too much indulgence. 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 inadvertences 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 require.]23
I insist upon conquering the will24 of children betimes, because this is the only [strong and rational] foundation of25 a religious education[, without which both precept and example will be ineffectual], [But] when this is thoroughly done, then a child is capable of being governed by the reason [and piety] of its parent[s], till its own understanding comes to maturity [, and the principles of religion have taken root in the mind].
I cannot yet dismiss this subject. As self-will is the root of all sin and misery, so whatever cherishes this in children ensures26 their after-wretchedness and irreligion; whatever checks and mortifies it promotes their future happiness and piety. This is still more evident if we [farther] consider that religion is nothing else than the doing the will of God, and not our own; that the one grand impediment to our temporal and eternal happiness being this self-will,27 no indulgences of it can be trivial, no denial28 unprofitable. Heaven or hell depends on this alone. So that the parent who studies to subdue it in his child29 works together with God in the renewing and saving a soul. The parent who indulges it does the devil’s work, makes religion impracticable, salvation unattainable; and does all that in him lies to damn his child, soul and body, for ever.30
This therefore I cannot but earnestly repeat:31 break their wills betimes. Begin this great work before they can run alone, before they can speak plain, or perhaps speak at all. Whatever pains it cost, conquer their stubbornness: break the will, if you would not damn the child. I conjure you not to neglect, not to delay this! Therefore, 1. Let a child from a year old, be taught to fear the rod and cry softly.32 In order to this, 2. Let him have nothing he cries for, absolutely nothing, great or small; else you undo your own work.33 3. At all events, from that age, make him do as he is bid, if you whip him ten times running to effect it: let none persuade you it is cruelty to do this; it is cruelty not to do it. Break his will now, and his soul will live, and he will probably bless you to all eternity.34
The children of this family35 were taught, as soon as they could speak, the Lord’s Prayer,36 which they were made to say at rising and bedtime constantly; to which, as they grew bigger, were added a short prayer for their parents, and some collects; a short catechism, and some portions of Scripture, as their memories could bear.
They were very early made to distinguish the Sabbath from other days, before they could well speak, or go. They were as soon taught to be still at family prayers, and to ask a blessing immediately after, which they used to do by signs, before they could37 kneel or speak.
They were quickly made to understand they might have nothing they cried for, and instructed to speak handsomely for what they wanted. They were not suffered to ask even the lowest servant for aught without saying, “Pray give me such a thing”; and the servant was chid if she ever let them omit that word. Taking God’s name in vain, cursing and swearing, profaneness, obscenity, rude, ill-bred names were never heard among them. Nor were they ever permitted to call each other by their proper names without the addition of brother or sister.38
None of them were taught to read till five years old,39 except Kezzy, in whose case I was overruled; and she was more years learning than any of the rest had been months. The way of teaching was this. The day before a child began to learn, the house was set in order, everyone’s work appointed them, and a charge given that none should come into the room from nine till twelve, or from two till five; which, you know, were our school hours. One day was allowed the child wherein to learn its letters, and each of them did in that time know all its letters, great and small, except Molly and Nancy, who were a day and a half before they knew them perfectly; for which I then thought them very dull; but since I have observed how long many children are learning the hornbook, I have changed my opinion. But the reason why I thought them so then was because the rest learned so readily; and your Brother Samuel, who was the first child I ever taught, learned the alphabet in a few hours. He was five years old on the 10th of February; the next day he began to learn and, as soon as he knew the letters began at the first chapter of Genesis. He was taught to spell the first verse, then to read it over and over, till he could read it off-hand without any hesitation; so on to the second, etc., till he took ten verses for a lesson, which he quickly did. Easter fell low that year; and by Whitsuntide he could read a chapter very well; for he read continually, and had such a prodigious memory that I cannot remember ever to have told him the same word twice.40
What was yet stranger, any word he had learned in his lesson he knew wherever he saw it, either in his Bible or any other book; by which means he learned very soon to read any English author well.
The same method was observed with them all. As soon as they knew the letters, they were put first to spell; and read one line, then a verse, never leaving till perfect in their lesson, were it shorter or longer. So one or other continued reading at school-time without any intermission, and before we left school each child read what he had learned that morning; and ere we parted in the afternoon, what they had learned that day.
There was no such thing as loud talking or playing allowed of; but everyone was kept close to their business for the six hours of school; and it is almost incredible what a child may be taught in a quarter of a year by a vigorous application, if it have but a tolerable capacity and good health. Everyone of these, Kezzy excepted, could read better in that time than the most of women can do as long as they live.
Rising out of their places, or going out of the room, was not permitted unless for good cause, and running into the yard, garden, or street, without leave, was always esteemed a capital offence.
For some years we went on very well. Never were children in better order. Never were children better disposed to piety, or in more subjection to their parents, till that fatal dispersion of them after the fire into several families. In these they were left at full liberty to converse with servants, which before they had always been restrained from;41 and to run abroad and play with any children, good or bad. They soon learned to neglect a strict observation of the sabbath, and got knowledge of several songs and bad things, which before they had no notion of. That civil behavior which made them admired when at home by all which saw them was in great measure lost, and a clownish accent and many rude ways were learned, which were not reformed without some difficulty.42
When the house was rebuilt, and the children all brought home, we entered upon a strict reform; and then was begun the custom of singing psalms at beginning and leaving school, morning and evening. Then also that of a general retirement at five o’clock was entered upon, when the oldest took the youngest that could speak, and the second the next, to whom they read the Psalms for the day and a chapter in the New Testament;43 as in the morning they were directed to read the Psalms and a chapter in the Old, after which they went to their private prayers, before they got their breakfast or came into the family. And I thank God this custom is still preserved among us.44
There were several by-laws observed among us, which slipped my memory, or else they had been inserted in their proper place; but I mention them here, because I think them useful.
1. It had been observed, that cowardice and fear of punishment often led children into lying, till they get a custom of it which they cannot leave. To prevent this a law was made, that whoever was charged with a fault, of which they were guilty, if they would ingenuously confess it, and promise to amend, should not be beaten.45 This rule prevented a great deal of lying and would have done more if one46 in the family would have observed it. But he could not be prevailed on, and therefore was often imposed on by false colours and equivocations, which none would have used (except one), had they been kindly dealt with. And some, in spite of all, would always speak truth plainly.
2. That no sinful action, as lying, pilfering, playing at church, or on the Lord’s day, disobedience, quarrelling, etc., should ever pass unpunished.47
3. That no child should ever be chid or beat twice for the same fault; and that, if they amended, they should never be upbraided with it afterwards.48
4. That every signal act of obedience, especially when it crossed upon their own inclinations, should be always commended and frequently rewarded, according to the merits of the case.49
5. That if ever any child performed an act of obedience, or did anything with an intention to please, though the performance was not well, yet the obedience and intention should be kindly accepted; and the child with sweetness directed how to do better for the future.
6. That propriety50 be inviolably preserved, and none suffered to invade the property of another in the smallest matter, though it were but of the value of a farthing, or a pin; which they might not take from the owner without, much less against his consent. This rule can never be too much inculcated on the minds of children, and from the want of parents or governors doing it as they ought proceeds that shameful neglect of justice which we may observe in the world.51
7. That promises be strictly observed; and a gift once bestowed, and so the right passed away from the donor, be not resumed, but left to the disposal of him to whom it was given; unless it were conditional, and the condition of the obligation not performed.
8. That no girl be taught to work till she can read very well; and then that she be kept to her work with the same application, and for the same time, that she was held to in reading. This rule also is much to be observed; for the putting children to learn sewing before they can read perfectly is the very reason why so few women can read fit to be heard, and never to be well understood.52
1. S. W discusses her educational projects in several of her other writings: letters to Sammy, 11 October 1709, and to her husband, Samuel, 6 February 1712; journal entries 11, 56, and 57; and in the educational writings themselves, particularly the opening paragraphs of her letter on the Creed and the title page of her “Religious Conference.”
2. Clarke, p. 220
3. For a good summary of her educational work (and its Puritan roots) see John Newton, Susanna Wesley and the Puritan Tradition in Methodism, (London: Epworth, 1968), chap. 4 (“A Mother in Israel”), especially pp. 105–129.
4. Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500–1800, abridged ed. (New York: Harper Colophon, 1979), p. 293.
5. Philip Greven, The Protestant Temperament: Patterns of Child-Rearing, Religious Experience, and the Self in Early America (New York: Knopf, 1977), pp. 36–38, 44, 48–49, 93–94; reprint ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988). Greven puts S. W under the category “The Evangelicals: The Self Suppressed,” citing her particularly in his chapter “Authoritarian Families: Modes of Evangelical Child-Rearing” in the sections on “Broken Wills: Discipline and Parental Control” and “Regular Methods of Living: External Discipline in Evangelical Households.” The other two “modes of piety” Greven explores are “The Moderates: The Self Controlled” and “The Genteel: the Self Asserted.” Greven has edited S. W’s letter on education in his anthology, Child-Rearing Concepts, 1628–1861: Historical Sources’ (Itasca, 111.: Peacock, 1973), pp. 46–51.
6. Quoted in Richard Greaves, “Foundation Builders: the Role of Women in Early English Nonconformity,” in Richard L. Greaves, ed., Triumph over Silence: Women in Protestant History (West-port, Conn., and London: Greenwood, 1985), p. 77.
7. Richard Baxter, The Saints’ Everlasting Rest, 11 ed. (London: Francis Tyton and Robert Boulter, 1677), quoted by Newton, Susanna Wesley, p. 105.
8. [Richard Allestree], The Whole Duty of Man …, in The Works of the Learned and Pious Author of the Whole Duty of Man (Oxford: George Pawlet, 1684), pp. 112–117. Underscoring Allestree’s importance, John Spurr borrowed the book’s title to label his chapter on the ideal of holy living that permeated the Restoration church: The Restoration Church of England, 1646–1689 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1991), pp. 279–330.
9. John Locke, Some Thoughts concerning Education, ed. John W Yolton and Jean S. Yolton (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989). Frank Baker in his essay, “Susanna Wesley,” in Rosemary Skinner Keller, Louise L. Queen, and Hilah F. Thomas, eds. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982), Women in New Worlds, 2:117–19, partially defends S. W.’s emphasis on conquering a child’s will by pointing out that it is “one principle which she took from Locke.” Cf. Newton, Susanna Wesley, pp. 115–117. On the other side, Greven in Protestant Temperament, p. 160n, argues, “Although, on balance, John Locke can be put into the category of ‘moderate,’ his views on early child-rearing … were almost as repressive as those of evangelicals such as Susanna Wesley,” and he points a finger of blame at Calvinist sources of Locke’s thought. In his child-rearing anthology, Greven actually groups Locke with Susanna (and John) Wesley under the rubric “Puritan-Evangelical Concepts,” noting that Locke was raised in a Puritan family and “that many of the fundamental assumptions shaping his views on childhood mirrored those of others raised within the Puritan tradition” (p. 18).
10. This combination clouds the distinction that Greven, following Alan Heimart, would like to make: that “evangelicals were not Lockeans.” See Greven, Protestant Temperament, p. 354-n, but cf. his linking of Locke and Puritanism in Child-rearing, p. 18.
11. S. W seems to have heeded Locke’s call for as few rules as possible: “Make but few Laws, but see they be well observed, when once made” (Concerning Education, sec. 65).
12. Ibid., sec. 21.
13. Though minimizing the necessity of corporal punishment, Locke does occasionally recommend it. In the case of what he calls “obstinate or stomachful crying,” he advises “severity to silence it, and where a Look or a positive Command will not do it, Blows must” (ibid., sees. 112 and 114).
14. That is, weak.
15. Soft or liquid food.
16. Cf. Locke, Concerning Education, sees. 13–20, 39.
17. Locke recommended physical punishment only for obstinacy or rebellion, not for any other fault. He gives a positive account of a mother who whipped her daughter eight times the same morning to gain compliance on an admittedly “indifferent matter” and “wisely persisting, till she had bent her Mind, and suppled her Will, the only end of Correction and Chastisement, she established her Authority thoroughly in the very first occasion, and had ever after a very ready Compliance and Obedience in all things from her Daughter.” He adds that this was not only the first but also the last time she needed to strike her daughter (Concerning Education, sec. 78. See also sees. 36, 40, 44, 46). Locke was afraid lest “the Mind be curbed, and humbled too much in Children” or “their Spirits be abased and broken much, by too strict an hand over them” (sec. 46; see also sec. 51). For one of Susanna’s earlier meditations on correcting children, see journal entry 55.
18. This paragraph begins a section common to both sources, the previous material having come exclusively from the more extensive edition in John Wesley’s Journal. Brackets indicate words found in the longer Journal version but not in the sermon as published in AM; when sections are differently phrased, the Journal version is left unbracketed as the preferred text and the AM reading is given in footnotes.
19. In AM: “to be conquered.”
20. In AM: “to us as to the children.”
21. In AM: “Therefore I call those cruel parents, who pass for kind and indulgent: who permit their children to contract habits… .” Habits are for Locke central to the discussion. Typical of numerous references is this assertion in a section on diet: “The great Thing to be minded in Education is, what Habits you settle: And therefore in this, as all other Things, do not begin to make any Thing customary, the Practice whereof you would not have continue, and increase” (Concerning Education, sec. 18; cf. sec. 66).
22. Cf. [Allestree], Whole Duty, pp. 114–115, who also insists on the wisdom of “seasonable” and moderate correction to forestall bad habits and stubbornness.
23. Achieving a “Compliance, and Suppleness of their Wills” should be “begun early, and inflexibly kept to, till Awe and Respect be grown familiar, and there appears not the least Reluctancy in the Submission and ready Obedience of their Minds.” Such reverence—mixed with appropriate indulgence, not more “Beating, Chiding, or other Servile Punishments”—will help govern children as “they grow up to more Understanding” (Locke, Concerning Education, sec. 44. Elsewhere, sec. 99, Locke urges that “true Reverence” should be “maintained in both the Parts of it, Love and Fear, as the great Principle, whereby you will always have hold upon him, to turn his Mind to the Ways of Vertue, and Honour.” In sec. 41 he states, “Children, when little, should look upon their Parents as their Lords, their Absolute governors; and, as such, stand in awe of them… .” When they grow older and wiser “love and reverence” of parents as “their best, as their only sure Friends,” will replace the awe.
24. In AM: “wills.”
25. In AM: “for.”
26. In AM: “insures.”
27. In AM: “and that self-will being the grand impediment to our temporal and eternal happiness.”
28. AM adds: “of it.”
29. In AM: “children.”
30. Though without the dire theological consequences, Locke also emphasized the importance of self-denial: “this Habit, as the true foundation of future Ability and Happiness, is to be wrought into the Mind, as early as may be, even from the first dawnings of any Knowledge, or Apprehension in Children.” (Concerning Education, sec. 45)
31. This paragraph is found only in the AM version.
32. Echoing sentence from third paragraph, above, from the Journal version.
33. Somewhat less nuanced, given the short space, than Locke, Concerning Education, sees. 111–114.
34. This is the last section of the letter to be found in the AM. The remaining material from John Wesley’s Journal is therefore transcribed without brackets. On Locke’s similar view on the occasional necessity of multiple beatings, see note 17, above.
35. In Clarke: “our children.”
36. Though no evangelical, even Locke could recommend that certain religious texts be learnt by heart: the Lord’s Prayer, the Creeds, and the Ten Commandments. See Concerning Education, sec. 157 and further comments on religious education in sec. 136.
37. Ward and Heitzenrater, Works of John Wesley, has “would.” “Could” makes more sense and is supported by Clarke and by Curnock’s older edition, The Journal of the Rev. John Wesley, AM… ., ed. Nehemiah Curnock, 8 vols. (London: Epworth, 1912–16 [reprint 1938]), 3:36.
38. Cf. Locke’s Concerning Education, on manners, sec. 66, and “good breeding,” sees. 141–146.
39. “When he can talk, ‘tis time he should begin to learn to read” (ibid., sec. 148). Note, though, that Locke urged that reading be taught as “a Play and Recreation” rather than as a duty (See sees. 149–156).
40. S. W’s experience stood in direct contraction to Locke on the pedagogical use of the Bible: “the promiscuous reading of it through, by Chapters, as they lie in order, is so far from being of any Advantage to Children, either for the perfecting their Reading, or princi-pling their Religion, that perhaps a worse could not be found” (Locke, Concerning Education, sec. 158) His was not a wholesale dismissal of Scripture but an argument that only those parts “suited to a Child’s Capacity” should be given (mainly Old Testament stories and “plain moral Rules”) until further instruction would make it seem more than just an “odd jumble of Thoughts” (sees. 158–1.59).
41. Ibid., sees. 68–69.
42. Locke deals with civility and its opposite (“ill-breeding” and various other forms of natural “roughness”) in sees. 143–145, ibid.
43. Parallel to Locke’s point, “that there cannot be a greater spur to the attaining what you would have the eldest learn, and know himself, than to set him upon teaching it his younger Brothers and Sisters” (ibid., sec. 119).
44. Possibly following the BCP’s instructions, “The Order how the Psalter is appointed to be read” and “The Order how the rest of Holy Scripture is appointed to be read.” Even Locke could recommend morning and evening devotions for children, as long as they were “suitable to their Age and Capacity” (ibid., sec. 136).
45. Locke made a similar point about a child that admitted a fault: “if he directly confess, you must commend his Ingenuity, and pardon the Fault, be it what it will” (Ibid., sec. 132).
46. Probably her husband, Samuel.
47. This rule has elicited some comment by various editors. Curnock, editor of Wesley’s Journal (the standard until the completion of the Bicentennial Edition) indicates that the “or” was left out in an erroneous reading, “occasioning severe reflections upon the moralities of the Epworth house regime” 3:38, n. 3. Maldwyn Edwards, Family Circle: A Study of the Epworth Household in Relation to John and Charles Wesley (London: Epworth, 1949), p. 61, follows Clarke, p. 219, in reading: “lying, pilfering at church or on the Lord’s day… .” He maintains that “pilfering” is probably an erroneous reading (especially as the sixth rule covers the same “sinful action”) and ought to be “playing.” Indeed, singling out ecclesiastical petty larceny as a family concern seems most odd, whereas one with Susanna’s Sabbatarian concerns might well inveigh against playing on Sunday, as well as in the sanctuary itself.
48. A slightly more pointed version of Locke’s “Frequent Beating or Chiding is … carefully to be avoided” (Concerning Education, sec. 60).
49. “Case” follows Clarke, p. 219, and common usage; the Journal version has: “cause.” S. W.’s “commendation” bylaw is also present in Locke; see Concerning Education, sees. 57 and 62.
50. The right of possession or use.
51. Locke, Concerning Education, sec. 110: “great Care is to be taken, that Children transgress not the Rules of Justice: And whenever they do, they should be set right, and if there be occasion for it, severely rebuk’d.”
52. This last rule interestingly corresponds to a line of thought from her sister Elizabeth Dunton’s funeral sermon: “If good Women would apply themselves to reading and study, as the Men do, or had equal Advantage for Knowledge in their Education, no doubt we should have more of their excellent Composures, many of them have an happy Genius, and a smooth Expression, and might write as well as work, and the Pen might have as good success as the Needle; especially, they may make Observations, or draw up Rules for the good order of their own Families, and when they see fit, communicate them for the Good of others.” See Timothy Rogers, The Character of a Good Woman… (London: John Harris, 1697), pp. 48–49, quoted in Newton, Susanna Wesley p. 107. “Work” in this context has the specific meaning do or make by needlework.