Controversy
Controversy
|
In 1703, the Baptist denomination was the object of a bitter attack by Mr. David Russen, a lay member of the Church of
England. Russen's book was
Fundamentals without a Foundation, or a True picture of the Anabaptists
. Mr.
Russen dwelt on the unusual practices and beliefs of the Anabaptists of Germany. Baptism by immersion he noted was a
feature present both in the Anabaptists of Germany and the Baptists of England. Russen generalized from this one similarity,
making the two groups identical and referring to them collectively by the name "Anabaptists."
088
Russen's book included in it a personal attack against Benjamin Keach, a Baptist minister. Keach was attacked not in regard to his hymn-writing but as to baptism. Russen repeats a tale which apparently he had heard, which tells about Benjamin Keach baptizing people naked or while they were wearing transparent garments! These attacks on the Baptist denomination and a fellow Baptist minister just too much for Joseph Stennett. He feels under compulsion to answer Russen's attack, and he does just that in a 254 page book. 089 The book is supposed to have been very effective in silencing Mr. Russen. Stennett would prefer that controversy were not a part of Christianity, yet he will not shirk his duty to truth:
As to personal attack by Russen on Benjamin Keach, Stennett is unable to find the originator or the tale. For lack of evidence he says Keach must be innocent. 094 Furthermore, in an appendix dated September, 7, 1703, twenty-eight "Neighbors and acquaintances of Mr. Keach (Including 'divers of us Psedobaptists, 095 some of us in the Communion of the Church of England')" attested to the innocence of Mr. Keach. Among the signers is Joseph Collett, 096 who evidently was a friend of the Stennett family, years later Collett wrote a long poem with sonnet-like verses in tribute to Joseph Stennett. The poem is composed of fourteen lines of iambic pentameter, as is required for a sonnet, but it uses a different pattern of rhyme than do either the Italian or English sonnets. 097 When Collett wrote the poem he is "Joseph Collett, Esq; Governour of Bencolen, in the East-Indies." 098 Not an inconsiderable man is this Collett! But back to controversy, Stennett writes "to answer his [Russen's] Arguments, and to show him his; Mistakes." 099 I give here a few examples of his answers to Russen. Russen, to support infant baptism, desires to baptize children first and to teach them later, using as his basis a strained reading of Matt. 28: 19f. [ But Stennett comes back,
Russen has heard that "the Jews always did. and still do baptize, and that even infants." Stennett has never heard of that practice and asks Russen for documentation and he himself quotes a Sir Norton Knachbull who denies baptism is a Jewish practice. 102 Stennett agrees with Russen that Infant-Baptism was practiced by the church about 200 A.D. according to the writings of Tertullian. But, says Stennett, to prove that infant baptism has been continuous from the Apostles, some earlier church fathers must be consulted.
Besides answering Russen's arguments, Joseph Stennett also sets about showing "his Mistakes." Stennett's overall method is devastating to an opponent. He goes through Russen's book chapter by chapter, disagreeing with Russen at many points. Specifically, here are a few of the errors he charges to Mr. Russen. Russen would translate a Greek word as "dip" instead of "baptize." thus, "'Go teach all Nations, dipping them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'"! Such is unsatisfactory to Stennett, for Stennett has a rule for translation
In other cases, Stennett says Russen criticizes the Anabaptists because they have one quality and also lack a quality that is similar to the first quality. If they do perform something, they are wrong; if they do not perform it, they are wrong. They have no ground to stand on; no matter what they do on certain issues, they are wrong. For example, Russen criticizes the Anabaptist ministers for often engaging in secular occupations, an action necessary for the support of their families, but disagreeable to Russen. (Stennett, of course, reminds his readers that secular employment is not necessarily unbecoming to ministers-witness the example of Paul, "the Great Apostle of the Gentiles.") On the other hand, Russen accuses the Anabaptist ministers of preaching for profit! What can one do? 106 Stennett also finds mistakes in Russen's list of sects of the Anabaptists (of Germany). Among the Anabaptists, whose movement began in the early sixteenth century, Russen lists "Homerebaptists." Stennett could date the Homerebaptists about the time of Christ. Russen also lists "Catharists" among the Anabaptist sects, but Stennett says they appeared about the year 279 A.D. 107 Two miscellaneous technical criticisms are of note. Once Stennett corrects a translation Russen has made from French, 108 and another time he says Russen has used a Bible verse, I Corinthians 7: 14, out of its context. 109 In Stennett's reply to Russen, one cannot recognizing the former's great wealth of historical religious knowledge. His detailed ministerial education was achieved primarily on his own, apart from formal college work, for the Universities were not open to Dissenters. He is very much "at home" with the early church fathers. Among them Barnabus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Irenaenus, Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, Gregory Naziansen, Chrysostome, Ambrose, Basil Jerome, and Cyprian. later church authorities whom he mentions are Scotus, Thomas Acquinas and Bede. He also quotes on baptism a number of writers contemporary to him. These men are of first rate importance. With this background, he makes mention of one time Russen used second rate authorities. 110 Stennett regards baptism as a quite essential part of Christianity. 111 Yet he recognizes that baptism should be primarily an inner experience: an "outward sign of inward Grace." 112 This phrase, a common one today, appears at least as early as 1604 in the catechism in the Church of England prayer book! Although Stennett prefers immersion, which he thinks is the original mode of baptism, if baptism would endanger a person's health, immersion need not be insisted upon. God is one "'who will have Mercy and not sacrifice'" 113 I would say that Stennett's answer to Russen was a "success." Russen never did make a reply to Stennett's book. Stennett, of course, received great acclaim in the Baptist denomination. This acclaim led to urging by the London Particular Baptist Association for him to write a more complete history of baptism. 114 This request will be treated later in this thesis. As I think Joseph would prefer it, the controversies about baptism gradually tapered off. The next year, 1705, saw the issuing of The History of Infant Baptism by William Wall, (Church of England) Vicar of Shoreham, in Kent. 115 Surprisingly, Stennett and Wall talked over the latter's book before it was published. 116 "An answer to Mr. Wall was expected from an eminent Baptist minister, Mr. Joseph Stennett, who ... was possessed of great learning, and had personally discussed the point with Dr. Wall," but no reply from Stennett was forthcoming. 117 I Suggest that Stennett thought Christianity would do better to avoid controversies. To support this suggestion, I point out that in the preface of his reply to Russen, if Russen had been only somewhat contemptuous toward Baptists. 118 Wall mentions Stennett at least eight times which is significant, but it is not enough to constitute a polemic against Stennett's work. 119 It is rather accidental that they both happened to write books in the same field. Wall's use of Stennett's book is divided evenly between criticism and approval. Stennett had asked Russen for references to infant baptism in the early church fathers; Wall thinks such references can be found. 120 On the other hand, Wall says some Baptists think a person baptized in infancy and only by sprinkling is not Christian. Wall finds Stennett objecting to such a narrow view of Christianity: I am glad to find by his discourse that he is cordial in the abhorrence of so an unchristian a notion". 121 In looking over several books on baptism which were written in the nineteenth century, I find that sometimes there are references to Wall's book, but never any references to Stennett's answer to Russen was important in its historical sequence, but Wall's book triumphed in long term usefulness. Joseph Stennett lives in a time of religious controversy. The Dissenter denominations 122 are still very young and quite fluid. Yet church memberships are highly respected and a church, before accepting a member from another church, often sends two men to his previous church to attend cordially to the transfer of membership. 123 yet many churchmen hope that by oratory or strongly written books they can swing a large group of Christians to their particular beliefs. Several years later, a Mr. Ball, connected with the Established Church (Church of England), wrote to a Dissenting minister that the latter could not validly perform the sacraments, for he lacked Apostolic Succession. Stennett is the first Dissenter to write an answer to Ball's attack. 124 Stennett says it is impossible to prove Apostolic Succession, for
Ball published in 1708 a reply to Stennett, 130 but no copy of the reply is available to me and this controversy is hidden from me by the passage of Father Time. A Jeremiah Thompson wrote another reply to Stennett on baptism in 1709. 131 Likewise, in 1709, one Marius wrote Mystery of Anabaptism unmasked ... answer to the errors of ... Mr. Stennett. 132 These controversies have all involved men who are unknown in the twentieth century. Stennett, according to his 1732 biographer, had a "dispute" with Mr. Penn, the Quaker. 133 This could be none other than William Penn, who made his great name in the founding and early history of the American Colony of Pennsylvania. To the best of my knowledge, nothing of this controversy has survived the selectivity of time. Likewise, Stennett had a controversy with Mr. Charles Leslie, one of the leading Nonjurors. The Nonjurors were a group of seven bishops and about four hundred clergy of the Church of England who opposed the succession of William and Mary to the English throne in 1689. Accordingly they would not swear allegiance to the new sovereigns; consequently they were dismissed from their ecclesiastical places. The controversy between Stennett and Leslie had to do with infant baptism and the observance of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. An account of the controversy was published in 1697. 134 Unitarians by the names of "Capt. Hedworth and Mr. Emms" and some Roman Catholics, who are not mentioned by name, also were involved in controversies with Joseph Stennett. 135 Henry Hedworth (1626-1705), sometimes called captain, was one of the leading Unitarians of that time. 136 The Unitarians rejected the doctrine of the trinity. Thereby for them Jesus was a great teacher, but was not divine. 137 I do not know the actual subject of the controversy between the two men, but it might easily have been on that topic. Similarly, according to the Pinners' Hall Record Book , once Stennett in a church business meeting tried to argue a man out of "errors about the person of Christ." He failed at that time, but the man "repented" on his own before the next meeting. The parishioner tended toward Unitarianism. Because of his
Joseph Stennett had claimed that he did not think controversies were very Christian and said he would prefer to avoid them. Nevertheless, he was involved in many of them. |
