ordained preachers, 155 licentiates, and 30,440 members.

2. THE SCRIPTURES OUR ONLY RULE OF

FAITH AND PRACTICE. The Holy Scriptures are the writings of the Old and New Testaments. The apostle says, 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.

It should not be understood, that all those whose words are recorded in Scripture were divinely inspired; for the Bible contains the words of wicked men and devils; but that the authors of the sacred books were inspired to write what they have recorded, all of which is designed for our instruction. That the Scriptures are authentic and given by inspiration, may be clearly proved, independently from their own testimony. The following arguments respect the New Testament, and these, or similar ones, might also be applied to the Old Testament.

1. The Scriptures were written at the age they purport. Their style bears the impress of that age. Shortly after the time in which they purport to have been written, they were collected, translated into different languages, and read in different countries. They have been quoted, or referred to, by a connected series of writers, both infidel and Christian, beginning with the cotemporaries of the

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God-; that the man of God may be perfect,

reputed authors, and extending to the present day. No Scripture, purporting to be the New Testament, and to have been written at any other time, has been quoted or referred to by any writer. Therefore, the evidence is clear, that the books of the New Testament were written neither anterior nor posterior to the time they pretend to have been written.

2. The books of the New Testament_were written by the authors whose names they bear. They cannot be the production of one man, as they are so different in style and give relations of the same facts with such slight variations, (not contradictions,) as might be expected from different beholders, giving their relation separately, at different times, and under various circumstances. The cotemporaries of the apostles, whose writings are now extant, and the early writers both Christian and infidel, ascribe these Scriptures to the authors whose names they bear. If they are not authentic, some others of the same age, and existing under similar circumstances, must have been their authors. But it is much less credible that any other persons wrote the Scriptures, than those who are reputed to have written them; and even if they had, the imposi

thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Consequently, the Scriptures have the high

tion would have been exposed, and those to whom they were sent would have rejected them, especially as their reception was the source of great trouble.

3. Those authors were virtuous men and gave a true account. Had they been vicious men, they could not, at this corrupt age, have conceived of so high a standard of morality; and, even if they could, it is incredible to suppose that they would have intruded upon their own criminal indulgences, by publishing it to the world. A wicked man would not be likely to publish a lie, which he could not expect to advance his interest, ease, or reputation. But instead of having the prospect of this, those who came out so much at variance with the prevailing customs of the times, as did the authors of the Scriptures, exposed themselves to infamy and suffering. The Scriptures are not the production of designing priests, or aspiring politicians, as they are in direct opposition to the interests of such men. Then, of necessity, their authors must have been honest men. If they were honest, they would relate only what they knew to be the truth. Another argument in favour of their sincerity, is, that they frankly relate their own faults and errors, and

est authority over man, so far as they reveal the will of God concerning his duty, and should be known, believed, and obeyed,

do not conceal from the world an honest avowal of the crosses, difficulties, and troubles, connected with embracing their new religion.

4. Those writers had the means of knowing the truth of what they related, so that they could not be mistaken. Take one circumstance for an example. Their Master raised a dead man, Lazarus. Had he designed to impose upon their credulity, he could not in that case; for this man was raised after he had been dead four days: he lived some time afterwards, and was seen by enemies as well as friends. Another relation which they gave, was, that their Leader at one time fed five thousand men, and at another seven thousand, besides all the women and children present, with a very small portion of food; and that, after they had all satisfied their hunger, more food was taken up in fragments than there was at first. This case offered no opportunity for deception, there being so many, both foes and friends, who ate.

Then we have a moral certainty, proved by arguments but little short of mathematical demonstration, that the Scriptures are authentic, genuine, and a divine revelation,

without addition, deduction, or alteration. If they are able to make one wise unto salvation, perfect, and thoroughly furnished unto all good works, they reveal the will of God sufficiently to direct us in all important duties, and should be held by every Chris-. tian as his only infallible rule of faith and practice. Randal, on giving the Scriptures a critical examination, became convinced that erroneous constructions had been put upon certain portions of them by the different denominations. Hence, he and his associates, from a sense of duty, took a stand by themselves, and publicly advocated their doctrine. As other denominations receive the Scriptures as the foundation of their belief, it is asked, 'Does the Bible contain different systems of doctrine? If not, where is the line of distinction between the Freewill Baptists and others?' Answer. The Bible contains one, and only one, system of doctrine; and this, if rightly understood, is perfectly harmonious. The line of distinction is not in the Bible, but in the different constructions put upon it by men.