The Stennetts of England Samual Stennett

Defense of Dissenters

Samuel Stennett's last publication was a small book put out in 1793, two years before his death. The book is a series of six letters, each on some point on which the dissenters have been criticized. This book, A Trip to Holyhead in a Mail Coach with a Churchman and a Dissenter , purports to be written by a third person who is reporting a discussion between the Church of England layman and the Dissenter. As is obvious from reading it. the views of Stennett are aired by the Dissenter. As in Justin Martyr's Dialog with Tryaho the Jew , the opponent, in this case, the Churchman, asks the proper questions to keep the book moving very smoothly. At the end, the Churchman is made to say that the Dissenter's

principles are founded in reason, and are in perfect unison with the doctrines and precepts of Christianity... . whenever in the future I shall all in company with any one of what persuasion, I shall presume, till I have full evidence to the contrary, that he is a sensible, peaceable, and pious man. 244

Stennett, whom one might now call a Dissenter "elder statesman," does not "convert" his Churchman to being a Dissenter; instead, he makes him acknowledge that, he avoids alienating any Church of England readers who might read his book.

The first two letters are his defense of the Toleration Act of 1689 and the enlargement of the Act in 1779. Basically, the Dissenters object to some of the ceremonies of the Church of England as harmful, some ceremonies are neither good nor bad but merely unnecessary, and some are undesirable because they are not found in the time of the New Testament and the early church. He also objects to a state church, for "the church of Christ ... [is] 'a congregation of faithful men,' and so collected out of the world." He does say that many of the people in the Church of England are "sincere and exemplary Christians"; "Many of the forms used in the church I highly approve of, and no doubt multitudes in the communion of it highly approve of, and no doubt multitudes in the communion of it will be finally saved. 245

The third letter defends the Dissenters against the accusation that they desired and approved the American Revolution. First he answers charges that the Dissenters oppose some government policies and are "disturbers of the public peace." He says the Dissenters in the country take little part in politics while these in the city "are indeed under a temptation to mingle more with the world than their country brethren." Thus the Dissenters are not very active in politics. He does mention that Dr. Richard Price and Dr. Joseph Priestly are outspoken in politics, 246 but he says they are not popular as Dissenters among the Dissenters.

I do all honour to their characters as scientific men, and men of distinguished integrity and virtue. By their calculations and experiments the world has been greatly benefited, and their reasonings on civil and religious liberty have met the approbation of not a few wise and good men of all parties. But, Sir, considered as Dissenting ministers, I assure you ... the Dissenters ... as a body ... are not noisy politicians, but a serious peaceable people. 247

As to the American revolution, Stennett thinks many groups are to blame, namely the colonies, the American governors, the "Administration," Parliament, and the English people. 248

In the fourth letter, Samuel defends the Dissenters against charges that they have talked noisily about reforms. He says,

Dissenters have a right to reason upon the state of their country as well as others; and if they do not feel for its welfare, they are certainly not good members of society. 249

As to parliamentary reform, Stennett knows of no practical one. He does say that administering justice and levying of taxes could use some reform, but this is not important enough for rebellion. Positively, he appreciates the Habeas Corpus Act, the prosperity of trade and commerce, increased employment opportunities, increased charities and higher wages. He also says Dissenters are loyal by celebrating November 4 and 5 each year. The former is in memory of the arrival of William and Mary in 1688 and the latter commemorates the discovery of the Catholic Gunpowder plot in 1605. On the fourth of November, there are dinner meetings which were once Dissenter meetings, but now many non-Dissenters attend them. 250

The fifth letter calls for the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. These Acts still make Church of England communion essential to holding public offices or military commissions. Thus they tempt the Non-conformists, and the Church of England Communion has been made a farce by having anyone come into the sanctuary and "demand" communion. 251

In the last letter, Stennett defends the Dissenters against charges that they favor the French Revolution. This was a serious charge, for in 1792, France had become involved in war with Austria (and Prussia) over the return of French refugees; then the aims of the war were enlarged on November 19 and December 15 to include the "liberation" of oppressed human beings and the suppression of all existing authorities. On February 1, 1793, France declared war on England. 252 To support the French Revolution would be very dangerous and an act of treason. In this book, released for publication on April 2, 1793, Stennett says that at first he was favorable to the French Revolution, but now it has gone to great excess:

At the commencement of this memorable struggle for liberty I rejoiced--rejoiced in the hope that we should quickly see a wretched people emancipated from their bondage ... and the light of truth, both natural and divine, was just dawning on this wretched kingdom... . But alas! they are now totally overcast and dissipated. 253

Yet, in spite of the miscarriage of liberty, Stennett does not desert the goals of human rights and freedom.

The late improvements ... in philosophy are to be greatly valued, not only on their own account, but on that of their happy effect to promote free enquiry, and so beget love of liberty; objects these of great importance in the apprehension of every intellectual and sensible man, and of every truly liberal and generous mind. 254

The freedom of the press in every country ought to be held sacred; and no man who reasons soberly on questions either of philosophy, jurisprudence, or divinity, is deserving of censure. 255

Stennett, of course, remains loyal to the English government 256 and quotes a section from John Locke which expresses opposition to revolution. 257 Thus an intellectual concept with force, and this led to the French Revolution. 258 Stennett, however, believes in the slow peaceful evolution of society.

Samuel Stennett was associated with the men who started the Baptist foreign missionary enterprise; 259 he himself, however, was not an active supporter. As far as Stennett is concerned, the story begins in 1785. In that year, John Thomas, a ship-surgeon returned England after spending two years in Bengal. At London, he was baptized by Dr. Stennett and was admitted to membership in the Little Wild Street Church. Shortly thereafter, the church licensed him to preach. 260 The next year he returned to India. While in India, he corresponded with Stennett and Abraham Booth on the Subject of an Indian Mission; he did not know that an English country Baptist minister, William Carey, had the same idea. 261

In 1792, at Kettering, the Baptist foreign missionary society was founded. The missionary society wanted to support of the London Baptists, both spiritually and financially. Accordingly, a meeting was held in London, probably in 1793, to consider the Indian mission idea which was being fostered by this group from the country. It was attended by eight ministers and twenty-three layman. Booth was ill and therefore could not attend. Stennett, however, was present and he presided. In an opening speech of nearly an hour in length, Stennett "urged much caution." 262 Other accounts say "good Dr. Stennett advised the London ministers to stand aloof, and not commit themselves." 263 Booth's deacons, Fox and Gutteridge, were present and were definitely hostile. Recognizing the cautiousness of the meeting, John Rippon urged the men to agree to let Baptists support the mission enterprise as individuals or perhaps as individual churches, but not as the London Baptists as a whole; this eventually was the decision of the meeting. Andrew Fuller, one of the original founders of the missionary society, wrote to Carey:

Dr. Stennett predicts that the mission will come to nothing. People may contribute for once in a fit of zeal, but how is it to be continually supported? 264

Yet Stennett was not completely cold to Carey, for an early Biographer of Carey says, "I have heard Dr. Carey, Notwithstanding, speak with gratitude of the personal respect with which he was treated, both by Dr. Stennett and the venerable Abraham Booth." 265

Nevertheless, with John Thomas, who had just returned from India, as his traveling companion, William Carey left for India in 1793. 266 Carey was shortly reduced to poverty. 267 After Carey moved several times, with no success as a missionary, Thomas finally landed a job for Carey as manager of an indigo factory; this job gave him considerable freedom nine months of the year. Thus with an income of his own, Carey had the missionary society stop sending him the meager allowance he was to receive. 268 William Ward and Joshua Marshman joined Carey in 1799; the same year the indigo works were given up. Carey had worked to convert the natives to Christianity; at the end of 1800, his hopes were at last realized with the baptizing of the first convert on December 28. 269 The mission gradually gained converts and the missionaries were busy translating the Bible and printing it for converts. 270 Stennett had been right about the financial trouble, and it had taken seven years to make the first convert, but eventually Carey's optimism won out.

Samuel Stennett and his wife had a happy marriage and a congenial, Christian home. Mrs. Stennett was a woman of genuine piety and good nature. They treated their children with "tender love and Christian solicitude"; the children, i n turn followed the ways of their parents and became sincere Christians, their son even following his father's vocation. The story is told of "a prophane and vicious youth, tutored on a bowling green, whom the Dr. at the e arnest request of an aged [of the church], the boy's aunt, took into his family." The boy, John Hancock, "afterward proved a very godly man" after he had experienced life in a Christian family.

It was said of Mrs. Stennett that "no one heard her speak evil of any one however bad." If Samuel "heard any one spoken evil of, he would reply, Well, see now if you can't tell something good of that person."' That could be a biting criticism, but the biographer approves of the action, so I must presume that Samuel made the criticism in a manner in which his century approved; if possible, we should not read twentieth century standards into the time of the Stennetts. 271

During most of their lifetimes, the Stennetts lived at Hatton Garden. In the latter years (at least by 1690), they had moved to Muswell Hill, which was then a pleasant rural retreats six miles from the Little Wild Street Church. Samuel did some preaching at Muswell Hill, but in what church I do not know. 272

Mrs. Stennett had been gradually declining in health, but in March 1795 she was suddenly taken sick and in a week she died (Monday, March 16). Abraham Booth gave the address at the interment and on the next Sunday, Mr. Josiah Thompson of Clapham preached the funeral discourse at the Little Wild Street Church. After her death, Samuel began to realize he was very near the end of his life. He continued to work hard in his ministry, but his strength failed and he died on Tuesday, August 25, 1795. Abraham Booth gave the address at the grave, as he had done for Mrs. Stennett, and on Sunday, September 6, Dr. Josiah Jenkins preached the memorial sermon at Little Wild Street. At Samuel's grave his coffin was carried by six ministers, two Presbyterians, two Independents and two Baptists. 273 Booth said that in his last days, Samuel was bolstered by his faith in the "evangelical truths." "These truths, warm on his heart, rendered him superior to the fears of death, and to the painful apprehension of eternal judgment." In this tense situation, for the first time on record, he expresses his opposition to Socinianism: "Of Socinian sentiments he, on the contrary, avowed his detestation; as of principles which must, in that situation, have abandoned him to deep distress, and to the horrors of dark despair." 274

Other ministers also preached sermons in commemoration of Samuel Stennett. Daniel Turner, the Baptist minister of Abingdon in Berks, then eighty-eight years old, preached a sermon about him on September 6, 1795. 275 Daniel Taylor preached a sermon about him on entitled A Good Minister of Jesus Christ . He said of Stennett,

Perhaps few ministers have understood and practiced the duties of their function, or have maintained a fraternal regard to those whom they presided, better than the late Dr. Stennett.

Dr. Stennett ... was singularly qualified to benefit Society at large. The esteem in which he was held by men of all parties, his extensive connections [friendships], his acquaintance with those in superior stations, his benevolent and truly liberal disposition, his great prudence, his polite behavior, his various learning and knowledge, and his genuine piety, singularly qualified him for extensive public usefulness. 276

On October 18, John Evans preached a sermon in his own Church in memory of Stennett and two other ministers who had died about the same time. Evans says of them

Nor were they to be ranked amongst those inconsistent characters, who, whilst they asserted the right of private judgment, in opposition to the Church of England, frowned on their fellow christians for difference of opinion, and delivered them over the horrors of future punishment. This detestable species of bigotry they regarded with abhorrence. Knowing and feeling the weakness of human nature, they dared not prescribe to others, with a proud infallibility, what they were to believe, and what they were to practice.

Though they warmly vindicated the cause of civil and religious liberty, for which their forefathers bled, yet they cautioned mankind lest this liberty might degenerate into licentiousness. Partaking largely of the piety and integrity which distinguished the first nonconformists, they lamented the late and irregulate attendance on divine worship too prevalent amongst modern professors, and inveighed loudly against that conformity to the world, and that love of sordid interest, which in the present day, prove so often the disgrace of Christian profession. 277

Samuel's achievements in character have been praised highly by those writers and by the various people who have written biographical sketches of him. Intellectually he could grasp difficulties in religion and "resolve" them in a few sentences. His language was practically always very accurate and though he kept himself well educated, he spoke in language that even an "unlettered reader" could understand, but he was "never slovenly or inelegant." He could have qualified for good positions in the Church of England (and he had many friends in that church), but he preferred the Dissenter beliefs and cause. In his personal behavior, he was never rude to anyone, even though that person differed greatly from Stennett's own theological beliefs. His own religious beliefs partook of the spirit of experimental (experiential) religion. 278

Samuel had an interest in ministerial education. Once Daniel Turner, Robert Robinson and Samuel Stennett made the suggestion that a Dissenter Academy or College should be established near Oxford to give "a higher grade of education than that offered by the Bristol Education Society." "The time," however, "was not ripe for any such scheme." 279 Personally Samuel guided the studies of several young men who were preparing for the ministry. Among them was Win. Clarke, the Baptist minister at Unicornyard, Southwark and later at Exeter. 280 "John Marsom, a pupil at Shakespeare's Walk, fostered by Samuel Stennett, founded a church at Margaret street of Oxford street." 281 It is said of the men whom Stennett guided into the ministry that their "learning and ministerial abilities were a credit to the cause they espoused." 282

About the time of Samuel's death, his son Joseph IV went to the Baptist Church in Coate in Oxfordshire. Then the congregation began to grow smaller and the church had four ministers by 1830 and at that time did not have one. About this time the church was closed, but reopened in 1831 and by the end of the nineteenth century was a very large church. Ivimey conjectures that the church was built too much around Samuel Stennett. The church did not have any "benevolent societies to attach them to each other." The annual collections for the Baptist Fund (for the relief of needy ministers) were large, but they were not a means of uniting the congregation. Also Ivimey suggests that as Stennett lived the last years of his life six miles from the church, Stennett would not be able to unite the congregation as well as if he had lived closer. 283 I think Ivimey's judgments are fair and that the church was built too much on his personality, or else the church failed to find an adequate successor.

Samuel Stennett began his ministry as his father's assistant in the Little Wild Street Baptist Church in London. With this preparation, he naturally stepped in the office of pastor. As such, he was a leading Baptist minister in London for thirty-five years. Altogether, he served the Little Wild Street Baptist Church three years less than half a century. During the middle of his ministry, he also preached for the Curriers' Hall Seventh Day Particular Baptist Church for twenty-two years. His preaching was highly valued and many sermons were printed and some retained popularity for years after his death. From the Seventh Day Baptist point of view, Samuel Stennett "was the most famous preacher who has ever represented the Seventh Day Baptists in England." 284 As a Baptist and Dissenter, he was well known and was a leader an both movements. He was a friend to men of all creeds and fought for personal freedom of belief for everyone. On the other side of the coin, he preached for the necessity of personal belief for everyone. Besides emphasizing the individual and his religion, Samuel says a person has duties to the other members of his family; Samuel is pleased by the prison reform efforts of John Howard and generous public benevolences.

Top

Index