Edward Stennett is said to have been of Lincolnshire descent.001 From original sources, I have no documentation of Edward's having come from that county, yet marriage records show that a number of Stennetts did live in Lincolnshire.002 However, his first certain appearance was at Abingdon in Berkshire, sixty miles west of London.003 Berkshire had been disputed ground in the Civil War, 1642-1649. The Royalists had their headquarters in nearby Oxford and the Parliamentarians were directed from London. Many Berkshire towns had changed hands more than once and sharp engagements were fought near the town of Abingdon.004 In the Civil War, Stennett was on the side of Parliament. Because of this, his relatives disowned him.005  Map of the area around Edward movements At the close of the war, with Oliver Cromwell at the head of the Commonwealth government, James Oakford and Thomas Chafie wrote booklets favoring the seventh day of the week, Saturday, as the Sabbath. A third booklet on this rather unusual practice was put out in 1653 by "A lover of peace with truth". Five years later this anonymous author identified himself as Edward Stennett.006 In the next year, 1654, Stennett married Mary Quelch of a good family in Oxford. She was related to Richard Quelch, a porter007 at New College and one of the early leaders of the Oxford Baptists.008 Stennett is said to have been a member of the Baptist Church in Abingdon in 1656,009 but for at least three years he had believed in the seventh day Sabbath. In 1658010 he published The Royal Law Contended For and The Seventh Day is the Sabbath. In these he defended the eternal validity of the Moral Law, as expressed in the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath likewise was an element of Biblical religion which he believed should not be discarded. In his book on the Sabbath once he mentions that the weekly Sabbath was to be swallowed up by a great Sabbath of a thousand years at the end of the world.011 This has some similarity in terminology with the Fifth-Monarchy movement. Men of that movement had read about the four kingdoms in Daniel and the Revelation of John. They said a fifth kingdom would be the millenial (thousand year) reign of Christ and his saints. One can easily see how such an idea would flourish in a time of political strife in which a somewhat religious group had taken over the government. Among Seventh Day Baptists or their predecessors, Dr. Peter Chamberlain and some members of his London church were members of the move merit. A Seventh Day Baptist pastor, John James, was martyred in 1661 , being accused of having taken part in Venner's Fifth-Monarchy uprising that year in London.012 John Belcher was once a Fifth-Monarchy man;013 later he became a Seventh Day Baptist pastor in London and a friend of the Stennetts. The Fifth-Monarchy movement seems to have been active in Abingdon, but Edward Stennett, as far as I know, was not a member, much less a leader. Stennett lacks the abundant interpretation of prophecy which is as typical of the Fifth-Monarchy Movement. if he had been a good member of that movement, in 1658, instead of The Royal Law , he would likely have written a tract encouraging the people to look, set dates, and work for the coming millenial reign of Christ. As far as Edward Stennett is concerned, I do not follow the generalization in the Sabbath Observer that "the study of prophecy, the hope of the second advent and the establishment of the kingdom of Christ on earth was the inspiration of the early Seventh Day Baptists.014 W. T. Whitley, a Baptist historian makes the generalization that "the Fifth-Monarchists transformed into Seventh-day Baptists.015 "Even The Transactions of the Baptist Historical Society names both Baptists and Seventh Day Baptists as recipients of former members of the Fifth-Monarchy movement.016 I do not think all Fifth-Monarchists became Seventh Day Baptists or that all Seventh Day Baptists came from the Fifth-Monarchy Movement.017 I note that Whitley's article" Seventh Day Baptists in England" does not make Seventh Day Baptists and Fifth-Monarchy men identical although he shows some overlapping. He does not claim that Edward Stennett had been a Fifth-Monarchy man.018 In his book on the Sabbath, Stennett, because of literalism, holds to the Old Testament law of the death penalty for Sabbath breaking. He recognizes, however, that in Nehemiah's time, God only "contended' with the Sabbath breakers. He also modifies the death penalty by saying that God punishes presumptuous" sinners, not those who sin in ignorance. A main argument against the death penalty being enforced in his time is that "every saint is not a magistrate to put it into execution." Stennett, even in the time of the Cromwells, does not find the "true magistrate" ruling and does not even express any idea of when the "true magistrate" might begin to rule. For Stennett, it seems to me, his Sabbath belief prevents him from participating in the Fifth-Monarchy hope for the imminent kingdom of God on earth.019 During the Commonwealth, most of the oppressive religious laws against "malcontents" were, by common consent or tact understanding, held in abeyance.020 but with the Restoration of the Stuarts in 1660, growing religious restrictions brought the Dissenters under persecution. Charles II showed weak signs of tolerance at the Restoration with his declaration from Breda, but the new parliament was fiercely Anglican.021 The Corporation Act of 1661 required all officeholders to take the Church of England communion and acknowledge the King as the head of the church. The 1662 Act of Uniformity demanded that all clergy and teachers accept the episcopal Book of Common Prayer.022 There is a current of thought which says that Stennett was a minister in the established church. It is based on a sentence in the biography of his son Joseph: Edward "was a faithful and laborious minister: but his dissent from the established church depriving him of the means whereby to maintain his family. . . ."023 If he were a clergyman in the Church of England; certainly he should be listed by Edmond Calamy among those who were ejected after the restoration of 1660, by or before the Act of Uniformity of 1662. Instead, Calamy calls Stennett a Dissenter "lay preacher".024 Furthermore, Samuel Palmer's 1775 edition of Calamy's Nonconformist Memorial says: "it doth not appear that he ever had been a minister in the Church of England, and therefore he is not put upon our list [ of ejected ministers ]."025 It is significant that Payne dos not mention Stennett as having been a Church of England minister.026 Therefore I think that the biographer's statement is simply an ambiguous sentence written in an "unguarded moment". From the materials available, my historical judgment is that Stennett was never a minister in the Church of England. Probably it was after the Restoration that Stennett found it necessary to change occupations. Such a change might have been necessary if the members of the majority Church of England had even in a small way indulged in economic measures against the Dissenter Stennett. Perhaps his Sabbath-keeping would not make him popular, either. Anyway, after he was married and had children, he took up the study of medicine. As far as we know he did not go to a medical school. Apparently on his own he studied medicine, began his practice, and became a successful physician. In spite of religious persecution, his hard won vocation was successful enough so that he was able to give his children a "liberal education." Though one would not doubt the excellence of Stennett's medical career; his interest in the Seventh Day Baptist cause is practically a second vocation.027 One must not forget the added trials the Dissenters must face. In 1664 the Conventical Act was passed. By this Act Nonconformist ministers were forbidden to hold meetings when there were five persons present besides the members of their own family. Imprisonment was the punishment for the first and second offenses and transportation for the third, with the death penalty to be inflicted if the "criminal" returned to his home. The next year the Five Mile Act was passed, attempting to breakup up the Dissenting cause by rendering its leaders ineffective. According to this act, dissenting clergymen and schoolmasters were forbidden to come within five miles of any corporate town unless they swore for all time not to "endeavor any alteration of government, either Church or State." The Conventical Act was strengthened in 1670, encouraging informers and increasing penalties for violators.028 These penalties did not stop Stennett's pen to say the least. Dr. William Russell of High Hall near West Smithfield had published in 1663 a book against Sabbatarians.029 Stennett would not let this attack go unchallenged for it attacked a belief which he thought had great importance. In the next year, the year of the Conventical Act, he published a reply to Dr. Russell. in the preface of this book, The Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the Lord, Stennett says he is searching for truth and this book is his present belief. The body of the small book states his belief that the Ten Commandments, including the fourth one, are not done away with by Christ. A closing section repeats his literal, uncompromising belief in the eternity of the death penalty which magistrates might inflict on Sabbath-breakers.030 This later facet of his belief, while unpracticed,will be the one influence prompting a fellow minister to leave the Sabbath. Edward Cowell seems to have been serving a mixed congregation of first-day and seventh-day observers at Natton in Glouchestershire. He began to keep the Sabbath in 1661 and left it in 1671. His 1677 book is The Snare Broken: Being a True and Faithful Account of the Author's Grounds for His Leaving off the Observation of the Sabbath of the First or Old Covenant. 031 In it Cowell mentions Stennett's book The Seventh Day is the Sabbath.032 A major reason for his rejection of the Sabbath is the death penalty connected with it. Stennett has stressed the death penalty for Sabbathbreaking though he recognizes that penalty has not been practiced for several millenial and cannot be practiced now because there no true magistrates. Says Cowell,
A second edition of the Royal Law was published in 1667. Appended to it was the pamphlet, A Faithful Testimony Against the Teachers of Circumcision, and the Legal Ceremonies; Who Are Lately Gone into Germany . Stennett is one of the seven signers of the appendix; another is John Belcher who had written an introduction to Stennett's 1664 book and who is a friend of Joseph Stennett later in the century. The present day Baptist historian, W. T. Whitley says this appendix is written against Thomas Tillam.034 A 1651 book by Tillam, entitled The Two Witnesses: their prophecy, slaughter, Resurrection, and Ascension Of An Exposition of the Eleventh Chapter of the Revelation . . . . makes one wonder if Tillam were not a Fifth-Monarchy man. His book Banners of Love . . . . is written in 1654 against four men, one of whom Thomas Weld, in 1661, signed a declaration against the Fifth-Monarchy Insurrection.035 Tillam was imprisoned by the Royalists on June 30, 1660 but appears to have been released before long. The majority of Tillam's church in Colchester emigrated to the Continent.036 However, there was still a Sabbath-keeping church in Colchester in 1693 and 1695.037 According to a book title of 1661 by another man, Tillam, Pooley and Love landed at Lowestoft [England] in July on a Recruiting Mission for the Palatinate . (after the Thirty Year's War (1618-1648), The Palatinate had been left in a devastated condition. Thus new settlers were likely quite welcome. At least we know that in either 1664 or 1671, that the Count of the Palatinate, Karl Ludwig, welcomed some six hundred Mennonite refugees from Switzerland.)038 According to Silas Taylor in 1668, there was A Cargo of Recruits Leaving Harwitch039 for Tillam. Full Account of the Monastery .040 Tillam had an extreme form of religion, not to mention his fallacious literalism as shown in Stennett's opposing pamphlet.041 Edward Stennett and the others who signed the pamphlet would appear to be fighting for "sensible" expressions of Christianity. Here at least are some early Seventh Day Baptist leaders who are not swept away by millenial schemes. Whitley reconstructs the situation thus: shortly after 1661,
Stennett's small literary production is encompassed by the trials and sufferings of the English Dissenters when under Stuart kings. Specifically as to the Sabbath, Stennett says in a 1668 letter to Rhode Island:
Persecution after the strengthening of the Conventical Act in 1670 has brought new heights of insecurity:
Meanwhile In 1670, King Charles II has signed a secret treaty with Louis XIV of France. Charles was to withdraw England from the Triple Alliance and put his navy and military forces at the disposal of Louis. In return Louis was to give Charles, among other things, an annual subsidy. Feeling more secure because of this subsidy, in 1672 Charles issued a Declaration of Indulgence which suspended the enforcement of all laws against Dissenters and Catholics.049 Many Protestant Dissenters were freed from prison at this time, including John Bunyan and Joseph Davis, Sr., The Latter a Seventh Day Baptist.050 In this same year, many licenses were issued for Dissenter ministers and meeting places. On August, 8, Edward Stennett was licensed as a Baptist teacher at his own house in Wallingford.051 But the Indulgence lasted only a year, for many Englishmen thought it was only an effort to reestablish Catholicism, which was probably true.052 In 1673, Parliament came back with the Test Act requiring certain oaths and the Church of England Lord's Supper for all office-holders.053 This does not affect Stennett directly and was aimed mainly at Catholics, but shows that Dissenters were not exempted from even this discrimination. Yet it seems to me that the years 1672 and 1673 were significant in shifting the alarmist emphasis toward the Roman Catholics. "From 1673 till Charles II died in 1685, and throughout the troubled reign of James II, much depended on local conditions how vigorously Free Churchmen were persecuted."054 From Wallingford, Stennett wrote in 1674: "we enjoy our meetings in peace, and there is a quite calm thought the nation." This Letter to Rhode Island tells of having added nine members and baptized others. His work he describes as more prosperous among children than among their fathers.055 Apparently peace yet prevails for Seventh Day Baptists a half decade later for Francis Bampfield and Edward Stennett wrote to America on Feb. 12, 1678/9, proposing a general meeting of the churches of America, Britain and Holland. Stennett proposed a meeting date of May 14, 1679.056 This meeting did not take place.057 Stennett had moved to the partial protection of Wallingford castle in 1670 or 1671 and it is possible that his medical ability led some of his neighbors to shield further his Nonconformist services within the ruins of the old castle.058 However, his flouting of the laws against Dissenters eventually led to jealousy on the part of two neighbors. One was a member of the commission of the peace and the other was a clergyman, a professed friend of Stennett and whose family had been the recipient of much free medical care from Stennett. The former opponent had failed to get informers admitted to Stennett's meetings, so he teamed up with the clergyman on a plan to convict Stennett by subordination of witnesses. Accordingly, an indictment was made against him for violation of the Conventical Act. This was based upon the oaths of several "witnesses." Strange events happened before the assizes were held at Newbury. A son of the justice ran away with a "player.059 The justice in searching for the son missed the court session. The clergyman, who was already boasting of the "forth coming" conviction, died suddenly. One of the witnesses who lived at Cromish was seized by a violent disease which proved fatal. An-other witness fell and broke a leg, which prevented his appearing. Altogether, seven or eight persons were prevented by natural causes from appearing in court. Another witness was a gardener of Stennett's, a day-laborer. He had never "lodged" in the house nor attended the church services. As a servant of the family, he was thought to make a good "witness." Accordingly, he was bribed and kept drunk for several days before the trial, but he came to his senses and realized the plot. He went about town exclaiming his ingratitude and perjury and telling of those who had hired him. He absolutely refused to go to the assizes. Stennett went to Newbury for the trial, but neither prosecutor nor witness appeared against him, so he was necessarily discharged.060 Although Stennett avoided conviction and imprisonment that time, sometime, during the reign of Charles II he was in prison "a considerable time." In prison, he was attended by his son Joseph who had been born in 1663. As Joseph would have to have been about sixteen to have been allowed to render such aid, I suggest the imprisonment was some time in the period 1679-1685; in other words, between his postscript to a Bampfield letter suggesting the general meeting of Seventh Day Baptists and the beginning of the reign of James II. Not only was he once actually imprisoned, but while "free," he bore great hardship, handicap, persecution and psychological suffering for his Dissenter activity.061 Stennett's friend, Francis Bampfield fell victim to the sporadic persecution of the closing years of the reign of Charles II. He died in prison Feb. 16 1683/84062 Bampfield had gathered a Society of Sabbathkeeping Christians in London, the organization date being March 5, 1675/6.063 The Bampfield church broke up for perhaps two reasons. Churches of that day were often built around the pastor and Bampfield's imprisonment and death virtually crippled this church. Secondly, persecution apparently made meetings inadvisable for a time. At the time of the death of Charles II in 1685, his Catholic brother became James II. As king, James Tried to strengthen Catholicism in England and appointed many Catholic officials.064 The Dissenter cause among the populace is strengthened by the influx of French Protestants after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. With the public attention turned in the direction of Catholicism, the Bampfield church held a reunion on Thursday, October 14, 1686. Already, three Stennett sons, Jehudah, Joseph, and Benjamin, were in London and they joined this church. Likely some or all of them were at the reunion meeting. Anyway, the church, lacking a leader invited Edward Stennett to come in from Wallingford whenever convenient and minister to their church.065 On Sabbath day (Saturday) November 20, 1686, the reply from Edward Stennett is read:
Stennett is not a Seventh Day Baptist to the exclusion of all other Christian Interests. About this time of the last years of Charles II and the short reign of James II, Stennett is known to have visited the Baptist church in Reading. Since Reading is about fifteen miles southeast of Wallingford, he could have easily stopped there while traveling to or From London.068 Meanwhile, the political situation is tensing. James is more openly an active Catholic. In April, 1687, he issues his first Declaration of Indulgence, granting freedom of worship for all, Catholics and Dissenters alike, the Church of England and many of the Dissenters were lukewarm about the Indulgence. James, feeling the decree lacked publicity, issued another Indulgence in 1688 and ordered it read from all pulpits.069 Seven bishops who refused to read It were brought to trial; People were hoping for the eventual succession of James' Protestant daughter and her husband, William and Mary of Orange, but on June 10, 1688, a son was born to James, meaning a Catholic succession. Almost immediately members of the contending parties, the Whigs and the Tories, sent a joint invitation to William of Orange to come over to England immediately. William and Mary were received with open arms and bloodlessly the "Glorious Revolution" took place. In 1689, the Toleration Act passed both Houses of Parliament and received royal assent. This gave Nonconformists a legal existence and enabled the Dissenting ministers to conduct public worship in whatever manner they desired. Restrictions remain, however, for the ministers must subscribed to the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England and pay allegiance to the government. However, the over-all century and a half English trend toward autocracy had been broken.070 After his son Joseph was ordained to the ministry of the Pinners' Hall church in 1690., the Record Book never again mentions that Edward Stennett visited London. Membership transfers between "Edward Stennett's church" and Pinners' Hall continue until at least Dec. 3, 1699.071 A. C. Underwood thinks Edward died in 1691072 The Transactions say he "survived 1691"073 Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America says that a summons of arrest for Stennett was issued in 1691.074 Also Rev. William Black, a middle nineteenth century Seventh Day Baptist minister examined all evidence available to him and concluded that Edward was living as late as 1705.075 Another source says he died Nov. 21, 1705 and was buried at St. Peter's Church, Wallingford.076 There is a difficulty with this later date. This last source and Calamy Says that Richard Comyns (a Presbyterian) also held services in the castle. It is not certain whether Comyns preached on Sunday or alternately with Stennett on Saturday. Anyway, after Stennett's death both sources, together with Ivimey say that Comyns preached to Stennett's church. The difficulty is that the 1934 Calamy Revised gives Comyns death date as Oct. 5 1705.077 Perhaps the best date for Edward Stennett's death is 1705 though some years earlier is a strong possibility. Through a quirk of fate, the will of a woman who died Oct. 27, 1714 includes a five pound bequest "To Mr. Batt for Edward Stennetts youse."078 Though this might be an outdated section of the will, it does reflect a late death for Edward. This argument from the will is invalid, however, if one accepts the line of inferences I will suggest later, making Edward a son of Joseph.079 Apparently the Seventh Baptist Church at Wallingford became extinct after Edward's death or perhaps after the death of Stennetts Friend, Comyns. Edward Stennett was one of the pioneer Seventh Day Baptists. Some people have thought the first Seventh Day Baptist churches in England to have been organized around 1660.080 Some others have tried to push the organization date for the Mill Yard Seventh Day General Baptist081 Church in London back to about 1617.082 The latest Scholarship has rejected the 1617 date and would prefer some time around 1660.083 If so, Edward Stennett is truly one of the pioneer organizers. Certainly his virtual monopoly of early English-American correspondence points to him as one of the more important leaders Early in life, Edward Stennett had sacrificed family ties in order to be in the side of the Parliament in the Civil War. As a Seventh Day Baptist pioneer, he had struggled for at least thirty-five years. He had seen the Non-Conformist movement live through the Short Reign of James II, which culminated in a general toleration for most religious groups under William and Mary, By participating in the Dissenter movement, Stennett had perhaps unknowingly contributed his life's efforts for the cause of freedom and democracy. The Act of Toleration (1689) climaxing the Dissenter struggle marked the first permanent break in the one church system. Previously, England had been mostly under the sway of the medieval and early Protestant notion that there could be one uniform state church. At last, religion in England is given freedom so that most people can live the Protestant ideal of acknowledging no human superior in one's relationship with God.084 By remembering the loyalty of Edward Stennett to the Dissenter cause, we can better understand the epitaph written to Edward and Mary Stennett by their son Joseph. As once in grace, they now in glory share: They dared to suffer, but they feared to sin; And meekly bore the cross, the crown to win: So liv'd, as not to be afraid to die; So dy'd, as heirs of immortality. Reader attend: Tho' dead, they speak to thee; Tread the same path, the same thine end shall be.085 |
