2. “But madmen, French prophets and enthusiasts of every kind have imagined they experienced this witness.” They have so. And perhaps not a few of them did, although they did not retain it long. But if they did not, this is no proof at all, that others have not experienced it: as a madman’s _imagining_ himself a king, does not prove, that there are no _real_ kings.
“Nay many who pleaded strongly for this, have utterly decried the bible.” Perhaps so; but this was no necessary consequence: thousands plead for it, who have the highest esteem for the bible.
“Yea, but many have fatally deceived themselves hereby, and got above all conviction.”
And yet a scriptural doctrine is no worse, tho’ men abuse it to their own destruction.
3. “But I lay it down as an undoubted truth, the fruit of the Spirit is the witness of the Spirit.” Not undoubted; thousands doubt of, yea flatly deny it: but to let that pass. “If this witness be sufficient, there is no need of any other. But it is sufficient, unless in one of these cases, 1. The _total absence_ of the fruit of the Spirit.” And this is the case, when the direct witness is first given: 2. “The _not perceiving it_. But to contend for it in this case, is to contend for being in the favour of God, and not knowing it.” True, not knowing it at that time any otherwise, than by the testimony which is given for that end. And this we do contend for: we contend, that the direct witness may shine clear, even while the indirect one is under a cloud.
4. It is objected, secondly, “The design of the witness contended for, is to prove that the profession we make is genuine. But it does not prove this.” I answer, the proving this, is not the design of it. It is antecedent to our making any profession at all, but that of being lost, undone, guilty, helpless sinners. It is designed to assure those to whom it is given, that they are the children of God; that they are _justified freely by his grace, thro’ the redemption that is in Jesus Christ_. And this does not suppose, that their preceeding thoughts, words and actions, are conformable to the rule of scripture. It supposes quite the reverse, namely, That they are sinners all over, sinners both in heart and life. Were it otherwise, God would _justify the godly_; and _their own works_ would be _counted to them for righteousness_. And I cannot but fear that a supposition of our being justified by works, is at the root of all their objections. For who ever cordially believes, that God _imputes_ to all that are justified, _righteousness without works_, will find no difficulty in allowing the witness of his Spirit, preceding the fruit of it.
5. It is objected, thirdly, “One evangelist says, _your heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him_. The other evangelist calls the same thing _good gifts_; abundantly demonstrating, that the Spirit’s way of bearing witness, is by giving good gifts.” Nay, here is nothing at all about _bearing witness_, either in one text, or the other. Therefore ’till this demonstration is better demonstrated, I let it stand as it is.
6. It is objected, fourthly, “The scripture says, _the tree is known by its fruits. Prove all things. Try the spirits. Examine yourselves._” Most true: therefore let every man who believes he _hath the witness in himself, try_ whether it be of God; if the fruit follow, it is, otherwise it is not. For certainly _the tree is known by its fruit_: Hereby we _prove_, if it be of God. “But the direct witness is never referred to in the book of God.” Not as standing alone, not as a single witness, but as connected with the other: As giving a _joint testimony_, testifying _with our spirit_, that we are children of God. And who is able to prove, that it is not _thus_ referred to, in this very scripture, _Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith: prove your ownselves. Know ye not yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?_ It is by no means clear, that they did not know this, by a _direct_ as well as a _remote_ witness. How is it proved, that they did not know it, first, by an inward consciousness, and then by love, joy and peace?
7. “But the testimony arising from the internal and external change, is constantly referred to in the bible.” It is so. And we constantly refer thereto, to confirm the testimony of the Spirit.
“Nay, all the marks _you_ have given, whereby to distinguish the operations of God’s Spirit from delusion, refer to the change wrought in us and upon us.” This likewise is undoubtedly true.