III.  We are to consider his temper and conduct when reproved by the prophet.

These are the same which we should expect, did we know him to have been then a penitent.  He was indeed taken by guile, and made to condemn himself before he perceived that he was the guilty person of whom the prophet complained.  But had he till that time continued impenitent, it is not probable that he would have been instantly humbled, and immediately confessed his sin with true contrition.  It is much more probable that he would have resented the application to himself, as an affront offered to royalty, and avenged himself on the Lord’s messenger.

God hath power instantly to change the sinner’s heart without previous awakenings; but this is not the method of grace.  Convictions, ordinarily, if not invariably, antecede conversion, prepare for it, and lead to it.

Neither is this the method of grace, only with the sinner at the first great change, termed the, new birth, but with the saint who falls into heinous sins, and thereby resembles the sinner.  When a good man yields to temptation and falls from his stedfastness, God commonly hides his face from him—­for a term, and often for a considerable term, he sits in darkness—­is ready to give up his hope—­to conclude that he hath believed in vain—­never loved God or hated sin—­never passed from death into life.  In fine, he feels similar pains, and passeth in many respects, a similar change, when renewed again by repentance, as when first made a new creature.

Do we ever see persons who have been seduced into great and heinous sins, brought back to God, and comforted with his presence without sensations of this kind?  We presume the instance cannot be adduced.  We should look with a jealous eye on one who pretended to be an example of it.  From the methods of grace at present, we may judge of them in times past.  God is the same—­sin equally his aversion, and sinners alike the objects of his displeasure.

The supposition that a person is one moment a hardened sinner; the next a thorough penitent, pardoned, restored and comforted of God, is so diverse from his common manner of treating great offenders, that it should not be admitted in a given case, without clear and strong evidence; and in the case before us there is no evidence; even circumstances have a different aspect.

No sooner was this offender reproved, than he discovered a humble penitent disposition.  He, freely confessed his sin, both to God and man, as one who had thought on his ways and repented of his transgressions; which could not have been expected of one who after the commission of such crimes, remained thoughtless and secure, till the moment when his guilt and danger were set before him.

But if David was a penitent before he was visited by Nathan, why had he concealed his repentance?  Why spread a veil over it and neglected to glorify God by a confession of his sins?  Did he think it sufficient to confess to God, and humble himself in secret?