Thus, when it is faid of Afa*, that he did that which was "good and right in the eyes of the "Lord;" the reafon affigned for it is, "be"cause he took away the altars of the ftrange "gods, and the high places, and brake down "the images, and cut down the groves; and "commanded Judah to feek the Lord God of "their fathers, and to do the law and the "commandment." Not a word of his moral character, though from his doing that which was not only right but good, one might na turally have expected it, Again, when we are told that Solomon's heart was not perfect with the Lord his God; that he went not fully after the Lord as did David his father the proof alledged is, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods +. Whence it evidently appears, that the perfection of David's heart confifted principally in his inviolable attachment to the worship of the true God, from which he never deviated or turned afide," either to the right hand or to "the left."

If this explanation be, as it appears to be conformable to truth and Scripture, the fol

Chron. xiv. 2, 3, 4.

+ Kings xi. 4,

lowing very useful confequences do naturally and immediately flow from it.

I. That, in order to vindicate God's choice of "a man after his own heart," or the truth of the Scriptures in relating it, there is no neceffity to prove his moral conduct faultless, or to obviate all the accufations which have been brought against him; because this choice having proceeded on other principles, his private conduct is foreign to the question*,

II, That we cannot draw conclufions in favour of any crime, fo as to justify it in ourfelves, from its having been committed by "a

man after God's own heart." Because, though his conformity to the divine will in

It has been obferved, that David's moral character feems to be pronounced faultlefs, (1 Kings xv. 5.) except in the matter of Uriah. We reply, that the Scripture in this (as in many other places) muft neceffarily be understood to speak only in general; intimating, that King David's conduct was, in the main, good and right, and though he might be guilty of other faults, yet none of them were fo grofs and enormous, fo directly repugnant to the express commands of God, as this; and therefore not so neceffary to be pointed out, and particularly diftinguished. Whoever is well acquainted with the Scripture phraseology must allow, that it not only admits, but perpetually requires, fuch reftrictions as this. See Matth. v. 48. and Clarke's Sermons, vol, v. p. 61. and vol. ii. 61. and vol. ii. p. 404. Dublin edition, 8vo. 1751.

fome

fome very material inftances, did juftly entitle him to that appellation; yet every vicious excefs was in him, (as it must be in every human creature) the object of God's utter deteftation, and often too of his fevereft vengeance. very

III. That they who have taken fo much pains to ridicule and vilify the character of David, with a view of wounding the authority of the Scriptures through his fides, have only fhewn their malevolence, without effecting their purpose. Because their whole reafoning being founded on a prefumption, that David was felected by God, on account of fome peculiar moral excellency; this foundation being withdrawn, the whole fuperftructure of cavils and calumnies raised upon it, falls entirely to the ground.

Let it not, however, be inferred from any thing here faid, that king David's character ought, by any means, to be viewed in that odious light in which these wriers have endeavoured to place it. For although it must be confeffed, that his moral conduct is far from being irreproachable; yet it is no lefs true, that (excepting thofe known and acknowledged crimes, which no one pretends to palliate or deny, and

which he himself deplored with the deepest penitence and contrition) every stain which has with so much malevolent industry been thrown upon his name, may be, to a great degree, if not compleatly, done away. It is not my defign to enter here into a particular confutation of all the calumnies and accufations which have been brought against him. It would not be fuitable to the nature, or reducible to the ufual bounds of a discourse of this kind. But as the heaviest, and, indeed, the only plaufible charge, which has been urged, not only against David, but the whole Jewish nation, is that of cruelty; a charge, which, without any of those exaggerations it has received, is of itself apt to make the deepest impreffions on the honestest minds; for these reasons, I fhall fuggeft a few confiderations in regard to this particular; which may ferve to put the unwary a little upon their guard, to remove all unneceffary and invidious aggravations, and account, in some measure, for what, perhaps, can neither be wholly juftified nor excused.

We who live in thefe enlightened and polished times, when our manners are foftened by the liberal arts, and our fouls humanized

by

by the benevolent spirit of Christianity, are shocked beyond measure at many things, which, in the ruder ages of antiquity, were not looked upon with fo much abhorrence as they deserve. We cannot help bringing thofe tranfactions home to ourselves, referring them to our own age and nation, fuppofing them to be done under the fame advantages which we at present enjoy, and confequently as involving the fame degree of guilt that we ourselves should incur by the commiffion of the fame crimes. But though this is a very natural, it is by no means an equitable, way of judging. In deciding on the merit or demerit of any men, or fociety of men, in a remote period, we ought certainly to take into confideration the general character of the times in which they lived, the peculiar modes of thinking, and rules of acting, which then prevailed. If we apply this obfervation to king David, we fhall find, that he lived in an age when the world was funk in ignorance and barbarity; when men were divided into a number of petty kingdoms, and small communities; when they shut themselves up infenced cities," and feldom went out of them but to fight with their neighbours; for