NEW EVANGELICAL MAGAZINE, AND Theological Review. DECEMBER, 1817. SIR, To the Editor of the New Evangelical Magazine. Bristol, Oct. 16, 1817. THE Letter of Dr. Stock to the Rev. John Rowe, with the introductory letter of the person who sent it to you, was inserted in the Bristol Mirror of Sept. 13th. As Mr. Rowe was absent, and I knew that from his long habits of personal intimacy with Dr. Stock he would wish to decline making any strictures on his letter, I drew up some remarks which were inserted in the Bristol Mirror of the 27th. As you have inserted Dr. Stock's letter in your publication, I trust you will feel yourself called upon, by a regard to that impartiality which is your duty as an Editor, to insert my letter in reply. When I say that Dr. Stock saw the letter in manuscript, and that it has caused no diminution of the friendly regard existing between us, you will not think it necessary, from attention to his feelings, to decline the insertion of my letter. I am Sir, Your obedient servant, LANT CARPENTER. SIR, Sept. 18, 1817. It To the Editor of the Bristol Mirror. | mistaken, if he imagine that the Great George-street, letter had been "confined to the private circle of the Doctor's friends." Copies of it had, long before, been handed about in distant parts of the kingdom. had been shewn, with triumphant exultation, to the advocates of his former opinions: it had been circulated by their opponents to strengthen the faith of the wavering, or to recal those who had wandered. IN your last paper you inserted Dr. Stock's letter to the Rev. John Rowe, with the introductory letter of the person who communicated it to the New Evangelical Magazine of this month. As Dr. Stock's letter is now, for the first time, submitted to the Bristol public, I request the insertion of the following observations. The anonymous writer is widely VOL. III. Dr. Stock too well understands the nature of evidence, to imagine that his letter assigns a single rea 2 Z son why another should follow his example. (a) Those who have so much extolled it, and have re cently given it a species of cele brity, which his refined taste cannot relish, any more than his judg ANIMADVERSIONS ON DR. CARPENTER'S LETTER. NOTE (a) Dr. Stock's letter assigns no reason why another should follow his example.] In a subsequent paragraph, Dr. C. reminds his reader that Dr. Stock's letter" neither contains, nor was designed to contain any argument." We cannot, however, subscribe in an unqualified manner to the truth and accuracy of all this. A simple narrative of facts, well authenticated, may involve in it reasons of the most cogent nature for changing the judgment and influencing the conduct of men, even though those reasons should not be actually deduced by the writer, or exhibited in logical form. We shall endeavour to illustrate this position a little, by a reference to a matter of fact, familiar to every Christian. A dispute as we all know, formerly existed between Jesus of Nazareth and his unbelieving countrymen, during the whole of his personal ministry, whether or not he was the Son of God. Jesus affirmed that he was-the Jews denied it. Both parties were agreed respecting the plain meaning and import of that title as used by Jesus. When be called God his Father, they understood him as "making himself equal with God." John v. 18. It was upon this ground that they accounted his pretensions "blasphemy," and agreeably to the tenour of their law, they first attempted to stone him and ultimately put him to death. John x. 30-33. Mark xiv. 61-64. then was the plain state of the controversy at the time of his crucifixion. It was no part of the dispute, whether in calling himself the Son of God, he signified himself to be truly and properly God. All parties concerned, whether friends or foes, were agreed upon this point: for under that title Jesus claimed equal honour with the Father, John v. 23. under that title the believing Jews worshipped him, and ascribed the divine perfections to him, even at a time when nothing was more zealously maintained among the Jews than the worshipping of one God only, Matt. xxviii. 9. Luke xxiv. 52. and it is remarkable that, however captious in their conduct on other occasions, they never charged him with being an advocate of Polytheism. It is too late, therefore, now to alter the meaning of that title: the simple question was, whether it belonged to Jesus or not, Now let us mark the result of all this. This When the first preachers of the gospel went throughout the nations, what did they do? They testified a plain matter of fact, of which they were eye and fear witnesses. They declared that "God had raised Jesus from the dead." Acts ii. 24, 32. ch. iii. 15, 26. ch. iv. 10, 33. and v. 30. ch. x. 40. and xiii. 30. and xvii. 3. and this simple fact the apostles considered as containing in itself the most cogent reasons why men should every where repent and turn to God. Acts ii. 38. and iii, 19. ch. xvii. 30, 31. ch. xx. 21. and xxvi. 20., They very properly regarded the resurrection of Christ as deciding the dispute between Him and the Jews--and that God in raising him from the dead had interposed to vindicate all his claims, and had thereby given an indubitable proof that he was his "beloved Son, in whom he is wellpleased." This then is the great fact which is demonstrably ascertained to us by that important event, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and such its native import. Rom. I. 4 Let us now apply this reasoning to the question before us, and in order to do so, what should hinder us from forgetting for a moment the distance of time and place and a few other circumstances of no account as to the argument, and fancying ourselves living at Jerusalem at the instant when Saul of Tarsus was converted to the Christian faith. It will still further assist us, if, instead of being the worthy minister of Lewin's Mead, we should imagine Dr. Carpenter to be one of the rulers of the Synagogue of the Libertines, &c. Acts vi. 9. and Saul, as is probable was the case, a member of that synagogue (one of the Jews from Cilicia) at the interesting period. Suppose the intelligence to be brought to Dr. Carpenter, that Saul of Tarsus, who had hitherto distinguished himself by the keenness of his opposition to the character and claims of Jesus, had, all at once, become one of his bumble disciples, a firm believer of the Trinitarian doctrine, and a worshipper of the crucified Galilean. Of course he is at first quite incredulous as to the fact itself but upon further enquiry he finds, that, in the midst of his career, Saul had been surprised by a flood of evidence which he could neither gainsay nor resist-all his strong prejudices and former notions respecting the character of Jesus had vanished like the mists of the morning before the rising sun, and he is actually become a preacher of that faith which he once laboured to destroy. Acts viii. 1-3. ch. ix. 1-22. Gal. i. 13-16. Now what effect has this upon the ruler of the Synagogue? Why, he meets the members of it, and, to counteract the mischievous effects of such an example, he tells them that he finds his late friend and associate had been in a ment can approve, shew that they consider the question as one which is to be determined by authority, and not by the sober appeal to men's understandings, exercised under a serious sense of responsibility, and a sincere desire to learn the truth as it is in Jesus. We think the contrary. If Dr. Stock had been followed by all whose feelings lead their judgment, it would not have affected the foundation on which his former opinions rest; it would not have weakened the conviction which had been formed by a cahn and serious investigation of the scriptural evidence for and against them. When Dr. Stock's change was announced to the public, it was the language of many, “Dr. Stock become a Trinitarian! why this is decisive." And the greatest triumph was manifested, as though the whole edifice of Unitarianisin were shaken to its foundation; and the most sanguine expectations were expressed, that numbers would follow his example. I should have felt no surprise, if others had followed his example, not, however, from that class who have formed their opinions for themselves, upon scriptural evidence, but from those who received Unitarianism upon the authority of others, or merely because they thought it rational, from those whom fashion or worldly motives would influence in any question, or whose weak minds sunk under the opprobrium so unjustly attached to the avowed Unitarian,(b) and the denunciations of eternal perdition, which so often supply the place of argument. To many, I doubt not, the singular state of mind during the progress of his conversion-his feelings appear to have somehow obtained an ascendancy over his judgment-he certainly had acted "under the influence of strongly excited feeling"--and that in the course of a very few (only three) days, "while in a state of mind utterly unsuited to the calm exercise of the understanding"-without taking the advice of any of his friends, who would have persuaded him to suspend his enquiries, or at any rate, from coming to a decision, he yielded to these unaccountable convictions-his judgment was evidently formed "with extreme rapidity, and communicated with a precipitancy which seemed to say that the desperate step must be made at once or he should relapse.” Such he assures them has been the conduct of Saul of Tarsus on this extraordinary occasion-aud marked as it is by a train of singular occurrences he puts it fairly to their consideration what dependence is to be placed upon it? The instance is but one; and it does not involve in it a single reason "why another should follow his example!" 'Tis true indeed that Saul is prompt upon every occasion to relate the change that has passed upon his mind--but then the narrative "does not contain one argument," which should stagger their faith or cause them to relax in their opposition to the claims of Jesus. The reader will easily perceive how exactly all this applies, mutatis mutandis, to the case before him. Those who can justify the reasoning of the ruler of the synagogue under the circumstances now supposed, will agree with Dr. C. in thinking that Dr. Stock's conduct has nothing in it to disturb the confidence of those who still hold fast the sentiments which he has relinquished— but we must be allowed to think that it, at least, involves a powerful argument why they should enter upon an impartial scrutiny of their Theological creed-and we hope, before we take our leave of Dr. Carpenter, to shew him that it is both his interest and his duty to follow the example of Dr. Stock. NOTE (b) The avowed Unitarian.] The appropriation of the term Unitarian," by this denomination of professed Christians, as a title which exclusively belongs to them, has frequently been complained of by their opponents, and as we think with great reason; and certainly, did their candour bear any proportion to the pompous display which they make of it verbally, they would themselves commute it for that of Anti-Trinitarian." They affect to take it very much amiss that any persons should "misname them Socinians;" and in the polite phraseology of the Rev. Mr. Aspland, this is always the effect of " vulgar bigotry." See Monthly Repository, for October 1817, p. 588. col. 2. We must not, however, imagine, for a moment, that when the same writer, in the very same paragraph, classes all his opponents under the appellation of " Calvinists," that this proceeds from "vulgar bigotry”-- . or that it was intended as a term of "reproach”-no, indeed; how is it possible that "Unitarians"'-a class of Christians of such "refined taste," so universally |