3. After twenty years further consideration, I see no cause to retract any part of this. Neither do I conceive, how any of these expressions maybe altered, so as to make them more intelligible. I can only add, that if any of the children of God will point out any other expressions, which are more clear, or more agreeable to the word of God, I will readily lay these aside.
4. Meantime let it be observed, I do not mean hereby, that the Spirit of God testifies this by any outward voice: no, nor always by an inward voice, altho’ he may do this sometimes. Neither do I suppose, that he always applies to the heart, (tho’ he often may) one or more texts of scripture. But he so works upon the soul by his immediate influence, and by a strong, tho’ inexplicable operation, that the stormy wind and troubled waves subside, and there is a sweet calm: the heart resting as in the arms of Jesus, and the sinner being clearly satisfied, that God is reconciled, that all his iniquities are forgiven, and his sins covered.
5. Now, what is the matter of dispute concerning this? Not, whether there be a witness or testimony of the Spirit? Not, whether the Spirit does testify with our spirit, that we are the children of God? None can deny this, without flatly contradicting the scripture, and charging a lie upon the God of truth. Therefore that there is a testimony of the Spirit, is acknowledged by all parties.
6. Neither is it questioned, whether there is an indirect witness or testimony, that we are thechildren of God. This is nearly, if not exactly the same with the testimony of a good conscience towards God; and is the result of reason, or reflection on what we feel in our own souls. Strictly speaking, it is a conclusion drawn partly from the word of God, and partly from our own experience. The word of God says, every one who has the fruit of the Spirit is a child of God. Experience, or inward consciousness tells me, that I have the fruit of the Spirit. And hence I rationally conclude, therefore I am a child of God. This is likewise allowed on all hands, and so is no matter of controversy.
7. Nor do we assert, that there can be any real testimony of the Spirit, without the fruit of the Spirit. We assert, on the contrary, that the fruit of the Spirit immediately springs from this testimony: not always indeed in the same degree, even when the testimony is first given. And much less afterwards; neither joy nor peace are always at one stay. No, nor love: as neither is the testimony itself always equally strong and clear.
8. But the point in question is, whether there be any direct testimony of the Spirit at all? Whether there be any other testimony of the Spirit, than that which arises from a consciousness of the fruit?
III. 1. I believe there is, because that is the plain, natural meaning of the text, the Spirit itselfbeareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. It is manifest, here are two witnesses mentioned, who together testify the same thing, the Spirit of God, and our own spirit. The late Bishop of London in his sermon on this text, seems astonished that any one can doubt of this, which appears upon the very face of the words. Now, “The testimony of our own spirit, says the Bishop is one, which is the consciousness of our own sincerity:” or, to express the same thing a little more clearly, the consciousness of the fruit of the Spirit. When our spirit is conscious of this, of love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, it easily infers from these premises, that we are the children of God.
2. It is true, that great man supposes the other witness to be “The consciousness of our own good works.” This, he affirms, is the testimony of God’s Spirit. But this is included in the testimony of our own spirit: Yea, and in sincerity, even according to the common sense of the word. So the Apostle. Our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity we have had our conversation in the world: where it is plain, sincerity refers to our words and actions, at least as much as to our inward dispositions. So that this is not another witness, but the very same that he mentioned before: the consciousness of our goodworks being only one branch of the consciousness of our sincerity. Consequently here is only one witness still. If therefore the text speaks of two witnesses, one of these is not the consciousness of our good works, neither of our sincerity: all this being manifestly contained in the testimony of our spirit.
3. What then is the other witness? This might easily be learned, if the text itself were not sufficiently clear, from the verse immediately preceding. Ye have received, not the Spirit of bondage, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. It follows, The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.
4. This is farther explained by the parallel text, Gal. iv. 6. Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father. Is not this something immediate and direct, not the result of reflection or argumentation? Does not this Spirit cry Abba, Father, in our hearts, the moment it is given? Antecedently to any reflection upon our sincerity, yea, to any reasoning whatsoever? And is not this the plain, natural sense of the words, which strikes any one, as soon as he hears them? All these texts then, in their most obvious meaning, describe a direct testimony of the Spirit.