Reason they can alledge, that David ought to have put her away? Had Uriah indeed been living, and David had then taken away his Wife from him by Force, and upon his being remonftrated to by the Prophet on that Account, had notwithftanding ftill detained her from her Hufband, the Sincerity of his Repentance in that Cafe might with great Propriety have been called in Question, and his Confeffion have been moft juftly esteemed a foul Piece of Hypocrify. But as Uriah was dead, and he had already deflowed her, the taking her to Wife was then doing her the only Recompence he had left in his Power for the Injury he had offered her; and had he after that put her away, he had added ftill another Crime to thofe he had already committed. Befides, if the Behaviour of the Almighty towards David upon this Occafion ought to have any Weight with us, as one would fuppofe it should, we must then ceafe from cenfuring David for what God did not think him blameable. When the Child was born that Bathsheba bore him foon after their Marriage, the Lord ftruck it with a mortal Sickness, because it had been the Fruit of Luft and Debauchery, neither would he remit the Punishment, though greatly fought to by David on that Occafion, but the Child died as the Prophet had declared, by a Commiffion from

God

God himself. But when the afterwards brought him another Son, whom he named Solomon, God Almighty was fo far from being difpleased with what his Servant had done, that he fent by the Hand of the fame Prophet, whom he had commiffioned on the former Occafion, to call his Name Jedidiah, because the Lord loved him; the Meaning of which Phrase seems to import, that though the Birth of the former Child, on Account of the Sin that had been contracted at his Conception, was highly dif pleafing to God, yet as he had by fincere Sorrow and Repentance made an Atonement for the Sin he had then been guilty of, the Anger of his God on that Account was now pacified, and he would not deftroy this Child, as he had done the former. But had David's keeping Bathsheba ftill for his Wife been unlawful, and was therefore a Froof of his Repentance not being fincere, then the Almighty should now have equally teftified his Difpleasure against him, as he had formerly done. But who is the propereft Judge of what is right or wrong, lawful or unlawful? God, who is infinite Wisdom itself, and of purer Eyes than to behold Iniquity; or Man, who at the best is but fhort-fighted, whofe Will is perverfe, and whofe Heart is prone to do Evil. As therefore God on this Occafion has been fo far from condemning his Servant,

N 2

vant, that he has rather juftified him in what he has done, who is Man that he fhould condemn him? How foolish and impious then is it to pretend to be wise above what is written, and by being thus righteous overmuch, prove, that we are really very wicked. wicked. This therefore cannot be raised as an Objection of any any Weight to the Sincerity of David's Repentance, which will stand Proof against the foolish Cavils of vain Sophifters, to whom I cannot do any thing better, than exhorting them to confider that excellent Reproof of St. Paul, Rom. xiv. 4. Who art thou that judgeft another Man's Servant? To his own Mafter he ftandeth or falleth: Yea, he shall be bolden up: For God is able to make him ftand. Our Saviour has affured us, and them, and all Men, That with what Judgment we judge, we shall be judged; and that the fame Measure we mete to others, fhall be measured to us again. Matth. vii. 2. Let us then look to our own Ways, and our own Actions, for he that thinketh he ftandeth, and on that Account is continually cenfuring his Neighbour's Actions, may yet through Inadvertency and want of Circumfpection fall down headlong the fteep Precipice of Vice. How dreadful then will his State be, and how feverely cutting will be this Reproach and Taunt, Thou that preachedft to others that they should not Steal, didft thou Steal?

Thou

Thou that fayeft a Man fhould not commit. Adultery, hadft thou committed Adultery? May we then duly confider this, and inftead of cenfuring and condemning our Neighbours, let us take Heed to our own. Foot-steps, leaft while they are treading the Verdure of Temptation, they flip.

Having, I fhould hope, removed this first Objection to the Sincerity of David's Repentance, I now propofe to confider the fecond and laft that I fhall mention. It is this. David's placing Solomon, Bathsheba's Son, upon the Throne to the Prejudice of his other Children, and thereby depriving them of that Right which God and Nature had given them. If then his Repentance had been fincere, would he have acted in this unjust Manner in the very last Period of his Life? Here is an Objection, that at firft Sight really appears very plaufible; but I hope, if we confider it a little, we shall quickly fee on how flippery a Foundation

it is built.

Had David afcended the Throne of Ifrael by Right of Succeffion, his eldest Son had had the best Right to it after his De-` ceafe, in cafe he had not forfeited that Right by any flagrant Crime, fuch as Rebellion, Apoftacy from the true Religion, or any other of the like Nature. Now from the foregoing Part of this Treatise, it clearly appears, that David did not afcend the Throne

N 3

Throne of Ifrael by Right of Succeffion, but was elected thereto by God himself; His Children then could have no Right, 'till the Divine Disposer of it had established it in his Family by Succeffion. The Almighty was in Fact, as has been fhewn, the fupreme Sovereign of Ifrael. He therefore, by Virtue of that Authority, had the fame Right and Power to give it to which ever of David's Sons he fhould choose, as he had at first to elect Saul, and afterwards upon his Rejection to appoint David in his Room. From the Account the Divine Hiftorian has given us of Solomon's being anointed King over Ifrael, it is, I think, very apparent, that what David did on that Occafion was by the Order and Appointment of God himself. For Nathan's being at his Birth commiffioned by God to go and call his Name Jedidiah, because the Lord loved him, David always efteemed as a Defignation of him to the Government after his Decease; therefore what he did on this Occafion, was, as he thought, in Compliance with the Divine Will. Befides, the Action was approved of by Nathan, who, being a Prophet of the Lord, we need not doubt, had received proper Instructions from God, how to proceed on this Occafion. Indeed, the Author of the Life of King David has given us another Reason why Nathan approved and encouraged this Proce

dure