be had for money in the greatest abundance, and that these secure to us the heavenly treasure, nothing in the world can be easier than the salvation of a rich man; and nothing so difficult (no not the passing of a camel through the eye of a needle) as the salvation of a poor man.

We have noticed the similarity in the pretended origin of Jewish and Romish traditions, and have shown that these supplements to the sacred writings, in both cases, have tended to the same points. 1. The corruption of divine worship. 2. The depravation of morals. 3. The pecuniary advantage of the holy order. Now as the two sets of doctrine correspond with each other as to their derivation and character, they must have the same author. But our Saviour has settled the question with regard to the Jewish traditions, and shown that they were from the devil; and this decision is sufficient to satisfy us that the traditions of Rome are from the same source. Is it to be credited that he should denounce the traditions of the synagogue as derived by a regular succession from the Jewish lawgiver, and that he should institute a new set, of pretty much the same character, and to be derived from himself in the same way? He tried traditions, pretending to a heavenly origin, by the holy writings, and he found them wanting. And encouraged by his example, we shall fearlessly pursue the same

course.

Oral teaching was practised among the Jews, as well as among the christians; and the gospel ministry was instituted by our Saviour with a special view to the conversion of mankind. The oral teaching under the law was to be tested by the sacred writings: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah viii. 20.) Till the gospels were committed to writing, there was no other way of giving christian instruction, than by tradition; but during that period there was no danger of mistake, since the apostles were living, who had been the teachers of the

churches, and which they preserved by their inspiration from error. But these divinely inspired servants of Christ committed their traditions to writing, and in this state, left them to the churches as the only test of divine truth, by which all traditions are to be tried.

The church of Rome, we have seen, denounces those accursed who do not receive her unwritten traditions, as of the same authority with the scriptures. In opposition to this, I will show that the scriptures contain all that is necessary to salvation. The apostle's commendation of Timothy is strikingly to our purpose: "From thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. iii. 15.) The scriptures could not instruct us to salvation by the faith of Christ, if they did not contain the faith of Christ, at least, so far as is necessary to salvation.

It is a matter of no consequence in this controversy, whether "the holy scriptures," in this text, be restricted to the Old Testament, or, in addition to that, take in a part of the New. If the former, then the Old Testament contained a revelation of Christ sufficient to give illumination and salvation to a Jewish child. Under the former dispensation, the sacred writings are uniformly represented as containing all saving truth. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." (Psalm xix. 7.) By the law and the testimony must be meant the written word; because our Lord denounced the traditions as lies. To the scriptures, then, is attributed the power of illuminating the ignorant, and restoring the depraved; and nothing more could be necessary to salvation. But it is not clear that by the holy scriptures, the Old Testament, exclusively, is intended. Timothy, it is plain, at the time the first epistle was addressed to him, was but a young man; for the apostle says, "Let no man despise thy youth." 1 Tim. iv. 12.) That the second epistle was written within a year of the first, most chronologers are agreed,

and that Matthew's gospel was written twenty years, and upwards, prior to either of them. At the date of the gospel, therefore, it is pretty certain that Timothy had not passed the age of infancy; and from the christian faith and piety ascribed to his mother and grandmother, (1 Tim. i. 5,) we cannot doubt but they would furnish him with the christian scriptures, as well as with the Jewish.

According to this interpretation a Romanist perhaps, will say, then the whole of the New Testament is not necessary to salvation; but only the gospel of St. Matthew. The answer is, First. If only this gospel was published during the childhood of Timothy, then it contained all that was necessary to be believed and practised at that time. The obligation of scriptures cannot precede their publication. But that disposition of mind which engages a person to embrace one portion of the scriptures, will prepare him to receive the remainder when presented to him for acceptance. Second. Though a protestant maintains that the sacred writings contain all that is necessary to salvation, he does not suppose that they contain nothing more, or that the same truths are not to be found in different parts of the Bible. "But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." (Isaiah xxviii. 13.) The various and rich privileges of the gospel are compared to a feast; but that cannot be esteemed as a feast which is barely sufficient to preserve the guests from perishing. In our heavenly father's house, the hired servants "abound with bread;" and the return of the son is celebrated with a feast on the fatted calf, and with music and dancing. (Luke xv.) This banquet is not to be served up with the herbs of unwritten traditions, which are poisonous as well as bitter.

The following verse of this epistle gives a character to the holy writings, generally, which is fatal to all pretensions in favour of traditions. "All scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to

correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.) The note on this verse in the popish Testament is as follows: "Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament; without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it." A few notes on this singular note will be proper:

The words, "All scripture inspired of God," must include the New Testament, since the Romanists are obliged to grant that it is, equally with the Old, divinely inspired. I have given a reason, which I think a very valid one, in proof that the scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy were not those of the Old Testament alone. Several of the books which compose the New Testament were certainly written prior to this epistle; and, with the exception of the gospel and epistles of St. John, there is no satisfactory proof that any of them were written after it. And it would be preposterous in the extreme to suppose that the apostle, in characterising the sacred writings generally, should, without any notice, except those published by himself and his contemporaries. And if the sacred writings, which were afterwards published, were not in accordance with the great design of those which preceded them, it would no longer be true, that "all scripture inspired of God is profitable," for the purposes stated to Timothy. We must, therefore, if we would not oppose the text, include in the words, all scripture, not only the whole which existed at the date of the epistle, but also in subsequent times, the whole which might justly be added to the sacred canon.

When it is said, "Every part of divine scripture is

certainly profitable for all these ends," the writer is certainly under a mistake. For if every part were profitable for all these ends, then, as every chapter, every verse, every word, every letter, of the Bible is a part of it,—each of these must be profitable for all the ends enumerated; which is rather too absurd, I conceive, for even the faith of a papist. For the ends proposed by the apostle are not merely "to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice;" but also "that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." Every minute part of scripture is not, and cannot be, so profitable as to perfect the christian, and furnish him for the practice of every virtue. But grant that every part of the Bible is sufficient to accomplish the ends proposed in the text, and what is the consequence? Why, that after having selected any part of the Bible, we could spare all the rest ; and not that in addition to the whole Bible, we should need a countless multitude of traditions.

But while "every part of scripture" is made to answer the end of" all scripture," every part is not allowed to furnish "the whole rule of faith and practice." The whole Bible, it should seem, is inadequate for this purpose, without taking along with it "the traditions of the apostles," etc. And where did the infallible interpreters learn this? Common sense would suggest that if the Bible be so profitable as to perfect the character of a christian, it must supply him with the whole rule of christian faith; for to talk of a perfect christian having an essentially imperfect faith, is a perfect contradiction; and if the christian by the Bible "be furnished to every good work," it must contain "the whole rule of christian practice." The sup plementary part of" the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it," is added without any argument to support it, and in contradiction of the whole sense of the text.

When the apostle speaks of the scriptures as profitable to teach, etc., the papist concludes that other things,