Such is generally the fascination of sin; it darkens the understanding, and deadens the conscience, and renders men insensible to their real condition. It is the great object of the enemy of our souls, an object in which he too often fatally succeeds, to make us blind, not only to the heinousness and danger, but also to the very existence of guilt: so that, however acute we may be in perceiving the transgressions of others, and however severe in reprobating and condemning them, we are, in very frequent instances, utterly regardless of our own. Many, it is to be feared, there are, who persist in a course of sin day after day, and year after year, without once feeling any lively or serious compunction; while they have frequently, in that time, been reproachfully animadverting upon the mote which they have detected in their brother’s eye. Perhaps of all the temporal consequences of sin, the operation of this evil habit is one of the most calamitous; for it not only prevents us from a repentance of the past, but serves as an encouragement to our reckless perseverance in sin; it destroys the very principle of vital religion; removing entirely from our hearts the love and fear of God; and filling us with “envy, hatred, and malice and all uncharitableness.” Let David’s infatuation be a warning to us, let it induce us to take diligent heed, lest we be irreclaimably “hardened by the deceitfulness of sin;” lest the conscience be at length so entirely seared, as to become callous to the very perception of iniquity; as to make us “call evil good, and good evil; to put darkness for light, and light for darkness; to put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” {177} Before, however, we further proceed to the practical inferences which may be drawn from this subject, it may be proper to notice some irreverent and reproachful remarks, which have been made on the flagrant crimes of a person so distinguished as David. Is it possible, some have urged, that such guilt, and such hardihood in guilt, could have been found in the “man after God’s own heart?” {178} But this honourable appellation, be it observed, was given to David, not on account of his moral or spiritual purity, but on account of the excellence of his character as a king; he was so named in opposition to Saul, who had acted in wilful disobedience to the divine commands, and therefore, in the administration of his government, was not a man after God’s own heart; that is, he did not (as David did, in this particular,) perform God’s will.