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