LETTER FROM DR. WATTS.

119

comforts as well as supports. Pray for us, that we may both profit by our loss.

At dinner I was reminded of another subject of thanks: I tasted your kindness in my pickles: at breakfast, remember and pray for you, over my cracknels; at dinner, over my samphire. My very grateful acknowledgements to your mother: I hope for an interest in her prayers at this time of need; she always has in mine. Mrs. T. lies near to my heart, and is never forgotten. My love to Mr. K. and family. My blessing on all your children. Again, and again, I beseech you to pray for

W. ROMAINE.

SIR,

LETTER FROM DR. WATTS.

Stoke Newington, near London, Jan. 21, 1735.

Yorn letter, dated about the middle of October, should have been answered long ago, had I not been withheld from my study by long illness; nor am I yet fully recovered. I take pleasure, Sir, to find your honest enquiries after truth, and that you are not willing either to put off your children, or to be contented yourself with a mere set of words, instead of clear and intelligible

doctrines.

I will therefore write you my thoughts, in a few lines, of that impotency and inability of man to believe, and repent, and return to God, which arises from the Fall, and which is, I think, the best and the only way to secure our thoughts from running into the extremes of Antinomian opinions on the one side, or Arminian on the other.

This impotency, though it may be called Natural, or rather native, as it comes to us by nature in its present corrupted state, yet it is not a want of natural powers, either of understanding or will, to know or chuse that which is good; for if there were not natural powers sufficient for this purpose, I do not see how men could be charged as criminals, in not receiving the gracious offers of the gospel. This impotence, therefore, is what our Divines usually call a Moral Impotence, i. e. their mind will not learn divine things, because they shut their eyes; their will refuse the proposals of grace, they shut it out of their hearts, they have a delight in sin, and dislike to Christ and his salvation: they have a rooted obstinacy of will against the methods of divine inercy, and against the holiness which is connected with happiness. And yet this Moral Impotency is described in Scripture by such methods as represent us "blind," or "dead in sin." and that we can no more change our nature than the "Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard his spots ;" and the reason of these strong expressions, is, because God knows this natural aversion to grace. and holiness is so strong and rooted in their hearts, that they will

never renounce sin and receive the salvation of Christ, without the powerful influence of the Spirit of God; even that same Spirit which can cure those who are naturally blind, or can raise the dead.

Now that this weakness of man to do that which is good is a Moral Impotence, appears by the moral remedies which are applied to cure it: viz. commands, promises, threatenings, which sort of methods would be useless and ridiculous to apply to Natural Impotence; that is, to make the blind see, or the dead arise. It must be concluded, therefore, that man has a natural ability, i. c. natural powers, to do what God requires, but at the same time, such a native aversion of will, that he never will do it without divine grace. Thus there is a fair way laid for the necessity of divine grace, and yet at the same time a just foundation laid for the condemnation of impenitent sinners. I have spoken more largely to this subject in the eleventh of the BuryStreet Sermons, which were published last year in 2 vol. 8vo.

May the wisdom and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ direct you to walk in a safe way to eternal life, and to lead your children therein at the same time assuring you, that the happening to take a little different turn of thought in some of the difficult enquiries, is not of so vast importance as some persons would make it to be, with respect to our salvation, provided we do but maintain a constant dependence upon the grace of the Spirit of God in all our duties to assist us, and on the perfect righteousness or obedience and sufferings of Christ, as our atonement for sin, and the only effectual ground of our acceptance with God. I am, Sir, under frequent returning weaknesses rendered unable to write much, and therefore subscribe

your friend and humble servant, unknown,

I. WATTS.

ON THE

DIVINE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

"GOD, who" in the last days of the Mosaic dispensation, 66 spoke to us by his Son, did, at sundry times and in divers manners, speak to the fathers by the prophets."

The historical and internal evidence of the Old Testament, the predictions which it contains, and the miracles by which it has been attested, are such proofs of its divine origin as must bear conviction to every unprejudiced and honest mind.

Infidels, however, profess to disbelieve it. This we attribute both to a destructive prejudice against the purity of its truths, and to a culpable neglect in examining its various evidences. What is truth? said Pilate to the Saviour: and why did he receive no answer? Was Jesus Christ reluctant to instruct man

THE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

121 kind? no; he took the greatest delight in it. Nothing is so pleasing to God as the humble inquiring mind: but the careless, the irreverent, and the proud, may long seek and never find instruction. These are they who are "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

It is proposed to state a few of the many arguments which might be adduced in proof of the divine origin of the Old Testament. The Divinity of the Christian Scriptures may be the subject of another paper.

The books of the Old Testament appear to be the genuine writings of those persons to whom they are generally attributed. It is true, the two books of Samuel could not have been entirely written by that prophet; nor the last chapter of Deuteronomy by Moses. The account of Moses' death was, no doubt, added by way of supplement, perhaps by Joshua. Samuel's history was probably continued by Nathan and other of the Lord's prophets; or it is not unlikely they may contain the writings of Gad the Seer. So, in recent days, our esteemed commentary, although Matthew Henry did not quite complete the work, yet it is universally called by his name. It would not, however, derogate from the divine inspiration of some of these books, supposing the enemies of revelation could prove that they were not written by the persons to whom they have been commonly attributed. For instance, it is of little importance whether the story of Esther was written by the queen herself, or by Mordecai; both were capable of relating the several circumstances of the history. And so of the book of Ruth, which may have been written by Ezra.

The proof of authenticity does not depend upon the name; it arises more from the time and circumstances in which the book was written, the character of the author, the contents of the work, and its general reception. This last consideration is sufficient to satisfy any candid mind of the genuineness and divine authority of the sacred books. The Jews were ever a people, the leading features of whose character were obstinancy, rebellion, and unbelief. This the martyr Stephen well testified before the Sanhedrim. Now, could they have proved that their religion was not divine, doubtless, they would at one time or other have exposed its origin. But this they never attempted. As then the apostacy of Judas, in all its circumstances, affords a presumptive argument in favour of Christianity, so the frequent rebellions and apostacies of the Jews afford no inconsiderable proof that their Scriptures were divinely inspired. Glad would they have been in the midst of their rebellion to have cast off the yoke; yet, on the contrary, every age greedily received these books as divinely inspired, and the laws of Moses as a divine establishment.

The enemies of revelation are aware that much depends upon the genuineness and authenticity of the Five Books of Moses; consequently, they have levelled almost all their artillery against them. If the Pentateuch was written in the time of Moses, and

if he was the author, it is manifest that the Jewish polity and religion were of God; for, under those circumstances, is it possible that they could be a forgery? Were not all the Israelites witnesses of the miracles performed in Egypt? Were not all under the cloud? and did not all pass through the sea? Did not all the camp surround Sinai, see its lightnings and hear its thunders? Would the many thousands of Israel believe a story of a mountain in flames, and water gushing from a rock, if they did not see it with their eyes? Could a whole nation momentarily bury the past in oblivion and tamely receive such a forgery, yca, continue everafter blind to the deceit? Impossible!

Now that Moses was the Jewish Legislator, and author of the five first Books of the Old Testament, is a truth which, on the one hand, has never been disproved, and which, on the other, has in its favour substantial evidence.

Who, even among cavilling infidels, ever doubted but that Solon was the mild legislator of Athens, or that Lycurgus composed the sanguinary code of the Lacedemonians? Yet these men can object to the superior evidence for Scripture facts!

The remains of profane history corroborate the truth of the Old Testament. Moses is particularly celebrated by many Heathen authors. Eusebius, in his Evangelical Preparation (particularly book ix) has collected a great variety of such testimo

nies.

The other books of the Old Testament always suppose the priority of the Books of Moses, and frequently refer to his laws as divinely sanctioned; where there is a golden chain of evidence, proving at once that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and that the other Books of the Old Testament were written at different periods, and by different authors. Some would inform the

world, that the first five books were written in the time of Ezra ; but, unfortunately for such, Ezra himself bears witness against them, for he ascribes them to Moses*. And here an obvious and very important argument arises against every supposition that these books were written at any subsequent period to that of Mores; for when Ezra, Nehemiah, and others refer to them, their reference is not to any private or uncertain writings, but to the public records, to the well knowır statutes of the realm.

The religious institutions of Moses were observed with little intermission from the first period of their establishment in the wilderness, to the capture of Jerusalem by Titus.

The internal evidence from the mode of writing in the Pentateuch, discovers its author to be Moses. Observe his apparent familiarity with the court of Pharaoh, and recollect his education in Egypt. Notice the minute geographical description given of the journey through the Arabian desert, and remember the author lived forty years in the land of Midian. We are also

* Ezra vi. 8. ch. iii. 2. Neh. xii. 1.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

123

pointed to the author by many antiquated expressions which the fearned discover, and which were obsolete in the days of David and Solomon. What is still more to the point, there are a few Egyptian words; and it is remarkable that hat Moses has expressed by a word that is purely Egyptian, Isaiah has expressed by one purely Hebrew.

We now turn to the Old Testament at large. The Naturalist reads proofs of the general deluge in the bowels of the earth; and the student of antiquity observes the grand facts of the Sacred Volume abundantly established by external testimony. The miracles of Scripture are fully attested; and many of its prophecies have been already accomplished. We are all witnesses that the Messiah has appeared; and, indeed, every thing which goes to prove the inspiration of the New Testament, comes in as additional confirmation of the Old; for the testimony of Jesus was the spirit of ancient prophecy." There are three things further which perhaps should not be omitted, tho' there is little room for enlargement.

1. That the Books of Moses are preserved in the Samaritan language. All competent judges highly prize this most ancient translation, which was indubitably made before the return of the Jews from the Babylonish Captivity. But that the Samaritans should ever have had the Pentateuch at all, considering their deep-rooted aversion to the Jews, supposing there was any room to doubt of its divinity, is incredible. Yet they not only possessed it, but owned it as the basis of their religion.

2. The constitution and government of the Jewish nation was peculiarly suited to perpetuate the memorial of divine interpositions and signal miracles. Thus not only did all witness the wonders in Egypt, but by the annual celebration of the passover, the most awful of them was perpetuated through every age. Of the promulgation of the law from Sinai, the feast of Pentecost was a commemoration; and other annual feasts were instituted in memorial of great public events.

3. The nature of the truths in the Sacred Books prove them to be inspired. Many revealed truths lie far beyond the reach of human knowledge, or the heights of human imagination; others are expressive of a source of infinite purity. Who could invent a law so holy, just, and good? Who could describe so truly the human heart? or, Who declare, in a manner that so attesis itself to the conscience, the ruin and the remedy, the hope and the destiny of man? A religion so holy, so opposed to every Lust of corrupt nature, could proceed from none beside the holy God.

These few observations may suffice as arguments; and it is apprehended that, viewed together, they form evidence which cannot reasonably be controverted.

It is a pity that Infidels do not candilly confess the cause of their unbelief. In many cases, however, it is unnecessary. Even