In attempting an understanding of the theology of Joseph Stennett, we must first survey the background of the full-fledged movement which is called Deism.262 Deism is characterized by the use of one's own reason in thinking about religious matters. The Roman Catholic Church demanded of its laity that they accept the Church's demands. However, Protestantism with its "priesthood of all believers" encouraged everyone to read the Bible and think for himself. (Stennett implies Protestant freedom to think for oneself in the following section of his reply to Russen:
reason!264 Stennett would say,
Another stage of Deism comes from John Locke (1632-1704), a man in the same generation as Edward Stennett. He was a Christian philosopher and his basic approach to theology was empirical. Locke said that knowledge of God was not innate, but that by reasoning wise men can easily acquire the idea of God. Almost immediately the tide of Deism followed Locke, not Herbert.267 Yet Locke is not a full-fledged Deist, for he retains Christian revelation.
Joseph Stennett, in works now extant, never quotes from Lord Herbert or John Locke, but unquestionably he knows of them. His Reply to Russen on Baptism quotes an assortment of English writers;269 Charles Leslie with whom he had a controversy on other topics, wrote a book against Deists;270 and at various times, Stennett speaks in terms of "Scripture and Reason" and "Natural Religion".271 By the same token, Stennett is a Particular Baptist, a Calvinistic Baptist, but he never quotes from Calvin, at least, not in extant materials. Stennett uses reason almost constantly in his religious thinking. Man should serve God with his affections, will and understanding,272 "Let your zeal be constantly directed by knowledge, and your knowledge always ballasted by humility." He pleads with his congregation to know why the took up Christianity.273 They should study Christianity to see if it is what it claims to be; Stennett seems use personal experience as the basis for judging Christianity:
At the times Stennett judges Christianity on the basis of national standards. Christians should obey God out of pleasure, "because they are convinced of the reasonableness and excellency of his precepts"!276 "Certainly that religion is best most strictly. This is a proof that Christianity is true." 277 In a similar vein he says, "'Tis worth the while to be religious, considering the happy consequences of it in the joy of a good conscience."278 Yet with all this rationalism, Stennett used revelation as he found it in the Bible as a parallel criterion of Christianity. He also said that in spite of man's reason, "Truth is an independent thing; and so likewise goodness: these do not depend upon the will of man."279 Stennett does not say it explicitly, but he implies that man's use of reason always agree with revelation. He does say that "there is nothing prescribed to us in religion but what is very reasonable and just. . . .280 (This is much the same as Locke who said that revelation may be above reason, but it cannot be contradictory to reason.)281 The question comes to my mind, does the product of man's reason always agree with revelation as it is in the Bible? In Stennett's time, this question did not have the broad scope it has today. Nevertheless, in a poem, he used the very primitive cosmology of Genesis 1. He speaks of the end of the world as the time when "heaven's high arches crack."282 This presupposes the primitive cosmology in which the firmament is thought to be a hard shell arching over the earth;283 the earth is likewise the center of cosmic activity. Copernicus (1473-1543) had long since pronounced his theory that the sun is the center of our solar system and that it is the earth that revolves around sun. Does Joseph Stennett wrestle with this difference between reason and the Bible? In his extant writings, there is nothing explicit about It, but this would be an argument from silence. However, saying that all revelation is reasonable284 possibly means he has not accepted the Copernican hypothesis. I would point out that study of the Copernican hypothesis in England centers in the late seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries.285 (His grandson, Samuel Stennett does have to take into the account the Copernican theory.) Both Locke and Stennett recognize that revelation is valid and that it goes beyond natural religion. For Locke, revelation is needed to provide morality for the great masses of people, for only the wise could find morality by natural religion. Also it is necessary to have revolution in order to provide the only sure hope of a future life.286 Stennett has these things to say about the advantages which revelation has over natural religion.
Thus we have noted considerable similarly between the Christian philosopher, John Locke and the educated Seventh Day Particular Baptist minister, Joseph Stennett. Locke, however, does not represent full-fledged Deism. Locke, for instance, accepts Biblical miracles in connection with the lives of Moses and Jesus;293 Stennett accepts miracles in general;294 but Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713) does not accept miracles.295 Locke and Stennett believed, in revelation, but John Toland (1670-1722) argued that Christianity should not have any mysterious elements.296 In its ultimate form, Deism said God has created the world, but is no longer personal active in it. Deism finally denied special revelation, miracles supernatural prophesy, providence and the incarnation and diety of Christ.297 Joseph Stennett did not accept this extreme form of Deism that was appearing even in his own time; in fact, he scarcely seems aware of it. Stennett believed In the use of reason in Christianity, but he retained revelation which often goes beyond reason. In his actual theology, Joseph Stennett is very Biblical and seldom quotes other writers on theology. As a Protestant, the Bible is his basic religious authority298 although he certainly was well acquainted with the ancient Greeks and Romans and with their philosophy.299 He also knew the early church fathers,300 and as I have said before, he uses Biblical Quotations, yet in expressing his idea of God, he does use the Greek category, omniscient. God has omniscient, power, justice, infinite perfection, and He is a loving father, governour and judge of the world.301 Although man was created to glorify God, man can not really add anything to God's infinite happiness which He already has.302 As to Jesus, I was surprised to find that Stennett put Him so accurately into His historical setting:
As a Corollary of Stennett's emphasis on the Divinity of Jesus as compared with the human side of Jesus, Stennett's preaching is oriented somewhat other-worldly. Yet he is concerned about the evil in this world and that Christianity should not be just knowledge but must also be expressed in life.306 life in this word is a preparation for the afterlife: "this life is not valuable, but as it may be improv'd in order to a better" life.307 That attitude is almost identical to that of Calvin, who said that Christians must "habituate" themselves "to a contempt of the present life, that we may. thereby he excited to meditation on that which is to come."308 Stennett says that men find their true happiness they set out to achieve.309 Stennett in his ministry is concerned about the doctrine of man. Man, when he was created by God, was "innocent and holy," and sin was once "the most unnatural thing in the world."310 Yet
As I have said before, Stennett believes that men are rational creatures. Because of that, even heaven will have to of such a nature that men can think; otherwise they would be happy!312 Reason and holiness are the natural and religious similarities, respectively, between God and man.313 Men must not prostitute their reason and consciences, said Stennett, in following a crowd of people "to do evil" (Exodus 32: 2).314 Basically man is "a free agent, and capable of morality"315 yet he needs God's help when he attempts Christian living and desires salvation.316 As is common in that time, Stennett believed that God works in the affairs of the world through the agency of providence.317 The hypothesis of providence more or less works in regard to nations in Stennett's time., much as it more or less worked for the Biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah. For individuals, however, there are obvious exceptions. Stennett says that an "accursed sinner" may be allowed to live a hundred years (Isaiah 65: 20) while an early convert dies young.318 Such exceptions have forced him to say that it is in the future life that God will justify his providence.319 Stennett held the doctrine of providence, but he did not hold it so rabidly but what he could recognize exceptions. He formalizes his belief by saying that nations are judged now and the individuals are judged in the future.320 As Joseph Stennett is a Particular Baptist, and the Particular Baptist denomination was Calvinistic, one would expect to find his writings a mechanistic election. His Presbyterian brother-in-law, Dr. Daniel Williams, does believe in a mechanistic election:
Study of the Bible is an important part of a minister's work. Joseph Stennett tried to study the Scriptures objectively for himself before he read the opinions of Christendom at large. His biographer tells of this method of study which he advised for young ministers:
As to the meanings of various words, in the Bible, he recognizes that the "Kingdom of God" can mean two things, a "state of grace," or a "state of glory"! I suppose the distinction in present day terms would be whether the kingdom is a present or future state.330 in defining "world," he recognizes that it has many different meanings in the Bible.331 Greek words which have primary and secondary meanings should be translated according to the primary meaning unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.332 I think he violated that principle, however when as I mentioned before, he changed an imprecation to a prediction of destruction.333 If he thinks he should break with common usage or acceptance, he does so. Thus he says that Jeremiah's cursing of the man who told of his birth ought. to be understood as Jeremiah's great fault, and to be reckon'd among those sins of good men, which are recorded in scripture as warnings to us, that we might avoid being guilty of the same.334 As to the book of Job, he breaks with King James translation without saying so, and announces that most of the book is poetry335 He even uses the same name for God, "Jah" and "Jehovah" which usage I was surprised to find this early.336 There is at least one instance when he makes a factual error. He says the Jews at the time of Christ believed in the Pythagorean idea of the transmission of souls.337 We must also recognize that Stennett lived in a time when archaeology was probably unheard of, the older Bible manuscripts we have now were not then available and sound "historical criticism" was not yet developed extensively for Biblical studies. Joseph Stennett as I have written again and again was a Seventh Day Baptist. He believed the fourth of the ten commandments in "its precise and literal meaning."338 In his extant writings, he is so concerned with the problems of moral living and reason and revelation that he mentions the sabbath only once in three volumes of published sermons,339 once in his reply to Russen340 and in only three of the many poems which filled nearly a whole volume.341 The seventh day Sabbath as a unique theological belief led to special emphasis an the Sabbath as a day of worship. One Sabbath poem has been widely used as a hymn; the poem is not polemic for the seventh day Sabbath. In the poem, the Sabbath is not a legalistic, ritual set (which it was to him theologically), but it is a day of high devotional value:
|
