extremely ridiculous; and, were it not that some worthy, but credulous persons might be imposed upon, we should not think it worth our while to adduce a serious argu

ment.

In opposition to "the Christians," we assert, that the general tendency of the Apocryphal books, is to promote the interests of piety and virtue. The books of Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon, were written by men who must have imbibed a large portion of the spirit of heavenly wisdom, from the writings of the Old Testament. The history of the Maccabees, is highly interesting, important, and edifying. The persevering zeal, and undaunted fortitude, displayed by these celebrated disciples of Moses, in defence of their religion, is worthy of all commendation, and has obtained the honourable testimony of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Even the book of Tobit, the subject of so much abuse and ridicule, if we except the fabulous part, which can neither injure nor mislead any reader of common sense, presents an admirable example of filial piety and parental tenderness, of a zealous devotion to the religion of the Old Testament, of a disinterested attachment to the cause of piety, and of the most noble sacrifice of self, in behalf of the sufferers for righteousness' sake. We maintain, that no unprejudiced person can rise from the serious perusal of the Apocrypha, without experiencing an increase of religious knowledge, and receiving additional incentives to a pious and a virtuous life. Yet, notwithstanding our firm conviction of the beneficial tendency of the Apocrypha, we are no advocates for the circulation of these books, bound up with the Holy Scriptures, if the pure Word of God could be generally circulated without them. We would have them published in a separate work. But we are taught in the New Testament, which we receive as the rule of our faith and life," that we who are strong in the Lord, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one please his neighbour, for his good to edification." Wherefore, in accordance with the advice of the Apostle, we should submit to the prejudices of others in favour of the Apocrypha, thinking it infinitely preferable, that they should have the Holy Scriptures, though accompanied with these books, than that they should be denied the use of the Scriptures altogether. The Bible is able to make men wise unto salvation; and

66

we have not so little confidence in the efficacy of the word of divine truth, as to imagine that any erroneous doctrine that the Apocrypha may contain, would counteract its influence. We have faith in the operation of the divine principles of Christianity, and cannot for a moment imagine, that the Apocrypha could, if its general spirit was in opposition to the spirit of the gospel, exert a pernicious influence on the mind of the Christian. All consistent believers in the divine mission of Christ, receive the New Testament only as the rule of their faith, and the guide of their conduct. Having a more sure word of prophecy," even the doctrines and precepts of the holy Jesus and his Apostles, we cannot discover the cause of the apprehension of evil, from the circulation of the Apocrypha with the Bible; and we can have but a poor opinion of those principles, which can manifest so much distrust of the efficacy of the doctrines of the gospel, as to allow men to declare, "it is doubtful whether we have not more reason to lament the evil the Bible Society has committed, by circulating the Apocrypha with the Scriptures, than to rejoice at the good it has accomplished." The principles and practices of the Jews, as recorded in the Old Testament, are no rule of faith and life to Christians, much less are the Apocryphal books studied by the disciples of Jesus, to ground themselves in the principles of religion. Christians read the lives of the Patriarchs, not for examples of piety, temperance, and benevolence, for they indulged in many practices, the imitation of which, the world, in its present improved state, would reprobate. Yet the Christian can derive edification from contemplating the characters of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The bitter spirit of imprecation, which David often breathed against his enemies, is utterly repugnant to the benign religion of Jesus. And yet, Christians may read the Psalms of the sweet singer of Israel, without receiving any injurious impressions. The divine spirit of piety, the sublime strains in which the attributes of the Deity are described, will awaken kindred sentiments in the wellregulated mind. The Christian, instructed by his divine Master, reads with the spirit and with the understanding also. Whilst he feels the full influence of these devout strains of sublime piety, he rejoices in the more enlarged and generous spirit of that religion which Jesus Christ has communicated. The disciple of Christ, may, then, be

permitted to read the Apocrypha, which, we venture to assert, contains nothing half so objectionable as many passages in Solomon's Song. It is strange, that this book should ever have been admitted within the Sacred Canon. It may be the work of Solomon, but as it contains not a word relative to religion, no precepts of wisdom, we may conclude, that it was dictated in some voluptuous mood, when "his wives had turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God." The notes at the head of the chapters of this book (though the Bible is "said to be published without note or comment"), would force our thoughts to Christ, and prefigure the love of Jesus and his church, in the connubial endearments of the idolatrous voluptuary and his heathen spouse. That we may not be considered very heterodox, in this our opinion of Solomon's Song, we shall quote a passage from Dr. Durell, Principal of Hertford College, Oxford, and Prebendary of Canterbury;

"This poem, the Song of Solomon, is generally considered as an Epithalamium composed by Solomon, on his marriage with the daughter of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt. And this appears to me the only point of view in which it ought to be considered. In respect to the mystical sense which it is supposed to contain, I must frankly acknowledge, that I cannot perceive the least foundation for it. This notion, I suppose, was originally derived from the Targum, and adopted soon after, by some of the fathers, who, with more piety than judgment, thought, that, as St. Paul compares the union of Christ to his church to a marriage, this poem ought also to be interpreted with reference to the same subject. But how is it consistent with this idea, that neither the name of God, nor of Christ, ever occurs in it? that there is not one religious or moral sentiment to be found? that it is not once either quoted, or most distantly alluded to, in any part of the sacred writings."

Let the Edinburgh Committee, therefore, who pretend to be so zealous for the dissemination of the Word of God, pure and undefiled, consider, whether they are not circulating as Holy Scripture, a book which may have no pretensions to this character.

(To be Continued.)

SIR,

To the Editor of the Christian Pioneer.

I hope you will be candid enough to insert

the enclosed Answer to the Letter by an Old Hearer to Dr. Wardlaw, and oblige,

Your very obedient Servant,

GLASGOW, 1st Nov. 1826.

A FREE INQUIRER.

SIR,

To "An Old Hearer" of Dr. Wardlaw.

Ir may probably surprise you, to be addressed on the subject of your Letter to Dr. Wardlaw, which appeared in No. I. of "The Christian Pioneer;" and many others may think it idle in me to answer that Letter. Were it nothing else than a desire, that a publication which professes to be liberally conducted, and which, certainly has given an earnest of future respectability, should not be stained by such productions as the one to which I am about to advert, it is not unworthy of notice. What is of more moment, however, the interests of “fearless free inquiry,” demand that its weakness should be exposed.

Considering, then, the importance of the subject on which it professes to treat, I am constrained to say, that, to me at least, it seems to be one of the most flimsy productions which the vanity of human nature ever laid before the public. It is written in a style the very reverse of Christian urbanity-it discovers prejudices the most blind and bigoted, for the party who has accepted of its feeble suffrages-it deals most illiberally with that system of faith, under which its author lived from "boy to manhood;" it is inconsistent-contradictory-unmeaning.

Notwithstanding these its forbidding features, had your Letter been characterised by any thing like sound reasoning, useful information, or an attempted refutation of the principles to which it simply proclaims itself an enemy, it might have possessed some redeeming qualities. But such is not the case. There is no substance in it. You have avoided saying any thing which is, in the smallest degree, of a tangible nature, and left the accuracy of your opinions, to be tried by the test of feeling and fancy, not by that of reason or argument.

H

But its merits will be more apparent, upon a closer examination. And what, I would ask, is its real object? Not, confessedly, "to enter into a comparison of the Trinitarian and Unitarian creeds,"-not to state the arguments or Scriptural proofs which weighed in your mind, in judging of a controversy which had, for ages, distracted the Christian world. No. The whole scope of your Letter is, without a word of argument, to proclaim the simple fact, that its author was at one time a hearer of Dr. Wardlaw, but that now he has seen fit to become a member of the Unitarian Congregation.

It is true, you profess to state the reasons which led you to doubt Trinitarianism,-to examine the Bible for yourself, and to become a firm believer in that religion which Dr. Wardlaw opposed. It is with regret, I perceive this to be a profession only, for, had you really given such reasons for becoming that "firm believer," I should then have been enabled to examine them. But the account you give of your conversion, I repeat it, is just that such a conversion took place; that, having been led to peruse your Bible, to read Mr. Yates' and Dr. Wardlaw's books, you became a Unitarian. In the present days of enlightened understanding, when every one is able to give a reason for the faith that is in him-when not even the most celebrated professor in science or theology, would be justifiable in promulgating sentiments peculiar to himself, far less in controverting those of others, without calling in to his aid, the testimony of argument or Scripturethe "calm contemplation and poetic ease," with which you repose in the naked announcement of your belief, is, to say the least of it, a presumption truly reprehensible. Such a mode of writing is manifestly opposed to the genius of these times of rational inquiry, is calculated to extinguish the noblest privilege of a rational mind-the use of reason in religious matters,-and, by slow processes, to introduce an arbitrary and domineering system of controversy, which, ere long, if encouraged, would be felt in its heaviest and deadliest weight.

To the injustice, also, of writing as you have done, I cannot but advert. In every communication of a controversial kind, it is unjust to attack opinions in such a manner, as to deprive your opponents of the opportunity of examining the validity of the arguments which led to that attack. Fair and ingenuous controversy acts not the part