This, we conceive, to be the most baleful conclusion which is drawn from this history.  And could it be made to appear that such was David’s state, for so long a term, we see no way to avoid the conclusion—­see not but the idea which the scriptures give of religion as a holy principle, productive of a holy life, must be relinquished.

Such is the idea which the scriptures do give of religion—­they teach, that it changeth the heart, and forms the new creature—­that “in this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the Devil; that whomever doeth not righteousness is not of God; that by their fruits we are to know men.”

Thus speaks that holy book which we believe to be from God, and to shew us the way of salvation.  But if the children of God are not made to differ from others, if they may live in allowed disregard of the law of God, like others, these distinctions are idle and unworthy our regard.  This matter demands our attention.

From the subject before us, the errors now mentioned draw their chief support.

We do not flatter ourselves that we can stop mouths of scoffers, or so clearly elucidate this dark part of the book of God, that it will no more be abused to the purposes of depravity; but believe that it may be made apparent that it hath been mistaken and perverted; and thereby rendered the more mischievous.  This will now be attempted.

That David remained unconcerned and devoid of repentance for the sins which he committed in the matter of Uriah, till awakened to consideration by the ministry of Nathan, seems to have been taken for granted, and to have been the ground of these abuses.  This may have been the common opinion.  Whether it is founded in reality, we will now inquire.

Or those who argue from a supposition that this was the case, we ask evidence that it was so.  That we have no express declaration that Nathan found him a penitent, we conceive to be all that can be alleged as evidence that he remained till that time impenitent.  To which may be rejoined, that we have no express declaration that Nathan found him impenitent.  The fact is, both scripture and profane history are silent respecting the state of David’s mind from the commission of the sins, till he was visited by the prophet.  We are left therefore to judge the matter on other grounds.  And on what grounds can we form a more profitable opinion than by considering the general character of the man—­the nature and effects of renewing grace—­and the temper and conduct of the delinquent when he was reproved by the prophet?  From a consideration of these we may derive the most probable solution of the question, or judge what was probably the state in which David was found by Nathan.

It may be proper to premise,