Some perverse and worldly-minded persons have made a very different use of the lamentable case before us; it has encouraged them in wilful transgression; it has served them as a “cloak for their sin.” Surely, say they, if David could so flagrantly transgress, how can we be expected to preserve our integrity? If he was accepted of God, indulgence would readily be extended to the comparatively trifling offences of inferior servants. True; we cannot be perfect; we may hope for pardon; but we are not, on that account, to sin presumptuously; not to offend, because God is merciful: this did not David. Whoever deliberately sins from the hope of God’s mercy, is taking the surest was to deprive himself of that mercy. There is frequently great error in the notion of trifling offences: no offence is trifling in the sight of an infinitely holy God: much less any wilful offence. The magnitude of a fault chiefly depends upon the circumstances under which it is committed; much more readily could we urge an excuse for him, who is heedlessly or suddenly borne away by impetuous passion and carnal desire, than for him, who presumes deliberately to trample upon the law of God, because another has been forgiven. Shall we thus abuse the mercies of redeeming love? “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” { 183} Would we find the favour that David did, we must seek it, like him, in the true spirit of penitence and devotion; we must “confess our wickedness, and be sorry for our sin:” we must hate the works and workers of iniquity: we must imitate David, not in his crimes, but in his repentance and reformation.
Let us learn another lesson from the history before us; let it teach us the importance of being always disposed and ready to receive spiritual counsel; of being in the habit of applying to ourselves every opportunity of improvement, with which we may be blessed. Too many, like David, are extremely backward to receive an intimation of their own errors, and to avail themselves of the benefit of reproof. They are sufficiently quick-sighted in discovering the applicability of reproach, to their neighbour; without even suspecting that it may suit their own case and condition. How many have acknowledged the propriety and force of admonitions and rebuke, which they have heard in the house of God, without ever taking them home to their own breasts; and this undoubtedly is one cause, why the voice of public instruction produces, in general, so little effect upon the characters and conduct of men. While they are pleased to imagine, that the representations and censures of the preacher are suited to others rather than to themselves, no wonder that they retain their neglectful, sinful, unprincipled habits, in defiance of every remonstrance, and every warning. Instead of torturing their ingenuity, to discover to what particular persons in the congregation a discourse may be most fitly and beneficially applied, let them rather be anxious to inquire, how far it may be accommodated to their own case; and to all those, who presume to make a further inquiry, who are looking around for the delinquencies of their neighbour, we would say, restrain thy wandering eye, and look within, “Thou art the man.”