6. Neither is it questioned, whether there is an _indirect_ witness or testimony, that we are the children 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 itself beareth 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 good works 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.
5. That _the testimony of the Spirit of God_, must in the very nature of things, be antecedent to _the testimony of our own spirit_, may appear from this single consideration. We must be holy in heart and life, before we can be conscious that we are so. But we must love God before we can be holy at all, this being the root of all holiness. Now we cannot love God, ’till we know he loves us: _we love him, because he first loved us_. And we cannot know his love to us, ’till his Spirit witnesses it to our spirit. ’Till then we cannot believe it: we cannot say, _the life which I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me_.
Then, only then we feel Our interest in his blood, And cry with joy unspeakable, Thou art my Lord, my God.