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.
Since therefore the testimony of his Spirit must precede the love of
God and all holiness, of consequence it must precede our consciousness
thereof.
6. And here properly comes in, to confirm this scriptural doctrine,
the experience of the children of God: the experience not of two or
three, not of a few, but of a great multitude which no man can number.
It has been confirmed, both in this and in all ages by _a cloud of_
living and dying _witnesses_. It is confirmed by _your_ experience and
_mine_. The Spirit itself bore witness to my spirit, that I was a child
of God, gave me an _evidence_ hereof, and I immediately cried, _Abba,
Father_! And this I did, (and so did you) before I reflected on, or
was conscious of any fruit of the Spirit. It was from this testimony
received, that love, joy, peace, and the whole fruit of the Spirit
flowed. First I heard,
Thy sins are forgiven! Accepted thou art!
I listened, and heaven Sprung up in my heart.
7. But this is confirmed, not only by the experience of the children of
God, thousands of whom can declare, that they never did know themselves
to be in the favour of God, ’till it was directly witnessed to them
by his Spirit: but by all those who are convinced of sin, who feel the
wrath of God abiding on them. These cannot be satisfied with any thing
less than a direct testimony from his Spirit, that he is _merciful to
their unrighteousness, and remembers their sins and iniquities no more_.
Tell any of these, “You are to know you are a child, by reflecting on
what he has wrought in you, on your love, joy and peace:” and will he
not immediately reply, by all this I know, I am a child of the devil.
I have no more love to God than the devil has: my carnal mind is enmity
against God. I have no joy in the Holy Ghost: my soul is sorrowful
even unto death. I have no peace: my heart is a troubled sea: I am
all storm and tempest. And which way can these souls possibly be
comforted, but by a divine testimony, (not that they are good, or
sincere, or conformable to the scripture in heart and life, but) that
God _justifieth the ungodly_: him that ’till the moment he is justified,
is all ungodly, void of all true holiness? _Him that worketh not_, that
worketh nothing that is truly good, ’till he is conscious that he is
accepted, _not for_ any _works of righteousness which he hath done_,
but by the mere, free mercy of God? Wholly and solely for what the Son
of God hath done and suffered for him? And can it be any otherwise,
if _a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law_? If so,
what inward or outward goodness can he be conscious of, antecedent to
his justification? Nay, is not the _having nothing to pay_, that is,
the being conscious that _there dwelleth in us no good thing_, neither
inward nor outward goodness, essentially, indispensably necessary,
before we can be _justified freely, thro’ the redemption that is in
Jesus Christ_? Was ever any man justified since his coming into the
world, or can any man ever be justified, ’till he is brought to that
point,
“I give up every plea, beside
Lord, I am damned――But thou hast died!”
8. Every one therefore who denies the existence of such a testimony,
does in effect deny justification by faith. It follows, that either he
never experienced this, either he never was justified, or that he has
forgotten, (as St. _Peter_ speaks,) τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ τῶν πάλαι ἁμαρτιῶν,
_the purification from his former sins_, the experience he then had
himself, the manner wherein God wrought in his own soul, when his
former sins were blotted out.
9. And the experience even of the children of the world, here confirms
that of the children of God. Many of these have a desire to please God:
some of them take much pains to please him. But do they not, one and
all, count it the highest absurdity, for any to talk of “_knowing_ his
sins are forgiven?” Which of _them_ even pretends to any such thing?
And yet many of them are conscious of their own sincerity. Many of
them undoubtedly have, in a degree, the testimony of their own spirit,
a consciousness of their own uprightness. But this brings them no
consciousness, that they are forgiven, no knowledge that they are the
children of God. Yea, the more sincere they are, the more uneasy they
generally are, for want of knowing it: plainly shewing that this cannot
be known, in a satisfactory manner, by the bare testimony of our own
spirit, without God’s directly testifying, that we are his children.
IV. But abundance of objections have been made to this; the chief of
which it may be well to consider.
1. It is objected first, “Experience is not sufficient, to prove
a doctrine which is not founded on scripture.” This is undoubtedly
true; and it is an important truth; but it does not affect the present
question. For it has been shewn, that this doctrine is founded on
scripture. Therefore experience is properly alledged to confirm it.
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.
8. It is objected, fifthly, that “The direct witness of the Spirit,
does not secure us from the greatest delusion. And is that a witness
fit to be trusted, whose testimony cannot be depended on? That is
forced to fly to something else, to prove what it asserts?” I answer.
To secure us from all delusion, God gives us two witnesses that we are
his children. And this they testify conjointly. Therefore _what God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder_. And while they are
joined, we cannot be deluded: their testimony can be depended on. They
are fit to be trusted in the highest degree, and need nothing else to
prove what they assert.
“Nay, the direct witness only asserts, but does not prove any thing.”
By two witnesses shall every word be established. And when the Spirit
_witnesses with our Spirit_, as God designs it to do, then it fully
proves that we are children of God.
9. It is objected, sixthly, “You own the change wrought is a sufficient
testimony, unless in the case of severe trials, such as that of our
Saviour upon the cross. But none of us can be tried in that manner.”
But you or I may be tried in such a manner, and so may any other child
of God, that it will be impossible for us to keep our filial confidence
in God, without the direct witness of his Spirit.
10. It is objected, lastly, “The greatest contenders for it, are some
of the proudest and most uncharitable of men.” Perhaps some of the
_hottest_ contenders for it, are both proud and uncharitable. But many
of the _firmest_ contenders for it, are eminently meek and lowly in
heart: and indeed in all other respects also,
True followers of their lamb-like Lord.
The preceding objections are the most considerable that I have heard,
and I believe contain the strength of the cause. Yet I apprehend
whoever calmly and impartially considers those objections and the
answers together, will easily see, that they do not destroy, no, nor
weaken the evidence of that great truth, that the Spirit of God does
_directly_, as well as _indirectly_ testify, that we are children of
God.
V. 1. The sum of all is this. The testimony of the Spirit is an
inward impression on the souls of believers, whereby the Spirit of God
directly testifies to their spirit, that they are children of God. And
it is not questioned, whether there is a testimony of the Spirit? But
whether there is any _direct testimony_? Whether there is any other
than that which arises from a consciousness of the fruit of the Spirit?
We believe there is: because this is the plain natural meaning of the
text, illustrated both by the preceding words, and by the parallel
passage in the epistle to the _Galatians_: because, in the nature of
the thing, the testimony must precede the fruit which springs from it,
and because this plain meaning of the word of God is confirmed by the
experience of innumerable children of God: yea, and by the experience
of all who are convinced of sin, who can never rest, ’till they have a
direct witness: and even of the children of the world, who not having
the witness in themselves, one and all declare, none can _know_ his
sins forgiven.
2. And whereas it is objected, that experience is not sufficient to
prove a doctrine unsupported by scripture: that madmen and enthusiasts
of every kind, have imagined such a witness: that the design of that
witness is to prove our profession genuine, which design it does not
answer: that the scripture says, _The tree is known by its fruit;
examine yourselves; prove your ownselves_; and mean time the direct
witness is never referred to in all the book of God: that it does not
secure us from the greatest delusions: and, lastly, that the change
wrought in us is a sufficient testimony, unless in such trials as
Christ alone suffered. We answer, 1. Experience is sufficient to
_confirm_ a doctrine, which is grounded on scripture: 2. Tho’ many
fancy they experience what they do not, this is no prejudice to real
experience: 3. The design of that witness is, to assure us we are
children of God. And this design it does answer. 4. The true witness
of the Spirit is known by its fruit, love, peace, joy; not indeed
preceding, but following it: 5. It cannot be proved, that the direct,
as well as the indirect witness, is not referred to in that very text,
_Know ye not your ownselves that Jesus Christ is in you_? 6. The Spirit
of God _witnessing with our spirit_ does secure us from all delusion:
and, lastly, we are all liable to trials, wherein the testimony of
our own spirit is not sufficient; wherein nothing less than the direct
testimony of God’s Spirit can assure us that we are his children.
3. Two inferences may be drawn from the whole. The first, let none
ever presume to rest, in any supposed testimony of the Spirit, which is
separate from the fruit of it. If the Spirit of God does really testify
that we are children of God, the immediate consequence will be the
fruit of the Spirit, even, _love_, _joy_, _peace_, _long-suffering_,
_gentleness_, _goodness_, _fidelity_, _meekness_, _temperance_. And
however this fruit may be clouded for a while, during the time of
strong temptation, so that it does not appear to the tempted person,
while _Satan_ is _sifting him as wheat_, yet the substantial part of
it remains, even under the thickest cloud. It is true, joy in the Holy
Ghost may be withdrawn, during the hour of trial. Yea, the soul may be
_exceeding sorrowful_, while _the hour and power of darkness_ continue.
But even this is generally restored with increase, till we rejoice
_with joy unspeakable and full of glory_.
4. The second inference is, let none rest in any supposed fruit of the
Spirit without the witness. There may be foretastes of joy, of peace,
of love, and those not delusive, but really from God, long before we
have the witness in ourselves, before the Spirit of God witnesses with
our spirits, that we have _redemption in the blood of Jesus, even the
forgiveness of sins_. Yea there may be a degree of long-suffering, of
gentleness, of fidelity, meekness, temperance, (not a shadow thereof,
but a real degree, by the preventing grace of God) before we are
_accepted in the Beloved_, and consequently before we have a testimony
of our acceptance. But it is by no means advisable to rest here; it
is at the peril of our souls if we do. If we are wise we shall be
continually crying to God, until his Spirit cry in our heart, _Abba,
Father_! This is the privilege of all the children of God, and without
this we can never be assured that we are his children. Without this we
cannot retain a steddy peace, nor avoid perplexing doubts and fears.
But when we have once received this _Spirit of adoption_, this _peace
which passes all understanding_, and which expells all painful doubt
and fear, will _keep our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus_. And when
this has brought forth its genuine fruit, all inward and outward
holiness, it is undoubtedly the will of him that calleth us, to give
us always what he has once given. So that there is no need, that we
should ever more be deprived, of either the testimony of God’s Spirit,
or the testimony of our own, the consciousness of our walking in all
righteousness and true holiness.
NEWRY, _April 4, 1767_.
SERMON XII.
THE WITNESS OF OUR OWN SPIRIT.
2 COR. i. 12.
_This is our rejoicing, the testimony of our conscience, that in
simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by
the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world._
1. SUCH is the voice of every true believer in Christ, so long as
he abides in faith and love. _He that followeth me_, saith our Lord,
_walketh not in darkness_: And while he hath the light, he rejoiceth
therein. _As_ he _hath received the Lord Jesus Christ, so_ he _walketh
in him_. And while he walketh in him, the exhortation of the apostle
takes place in his soul day by day, _Rejoice in the Lord always, and
again I say, rejoice_.
2. But that we may not build our house upon the sand, (lest when the
rains descend, and the winds blow, and the floods arise and beat upon
it, it fall, and great be the fall thereof) I intend, in the following
discourse, to shew, what is the nature and ground of a Christian’s joy.
We know, in general, It is that happy peace, that calm satisfaction
of spirit, which arises from such a testimony of his conscience, as is
here described by the apostle. But in order to understand this the more
throughly, it will be requisite to weigh all his words: whence will
easily appear, both what we are to understand by _conscience_, and what,
by the _testimony_ thereof; and also, how he that hath this testimony
rejoiceth evermore.
3. And, first, what are we to understand by _conscience_? What is the
meaning of this word that is in every one’s mouth? One would imagine,
it was an exceeding difficult thing, to discover this, when we consider,
how large and numerous volumes have been from time to time wrote on
this subject: and how all the treasures of ancient and modern learning
have been ransack’d, in order to explain it. And yet it is to be fear’d,
it has not received much light from all those elaborate enquiries.
Rather, have not most of those writers puzzled the cause; _darkening
counsel by words without knowledge_; perplexing a subject, plain in
itself, and easy to be understood? For set aside but hard words, and
every man of an honest heart will soon understand the thing.
4. God has made us thinking beings, capable of perceiving what
is present, and of reflecting or looking back on what is past. In
particular, we are capable of perceiving, whatsoever passes in our own
hearts or lives; of knowing whatsoever we feel or do; and that either
while it passes, or when it is past. This we mean when we say, man is
a _conscious_ being: he hath a _consciousness_ or inward perception
both of things present and past relating to himself, of his own tempers
and outward behaviour. But what we usually term _conscience_, implies,
somewhat more than this. It is not barely, the knowledge of our present,
or the remembrance of our preceding life. To remember, to bear witness
either of past or present things, is only one, and the least office of
conscience. Its main business is to excuse or accuse, to approve ♦or
disapprove, to acquit or condemn.
5. Some late writers indeed have given a new name to this, and have
chose to stile it, a _moral sense_. But the old word seems preferable
to the new, were it only on this account, that it is more common and
familiar among men, and therefore easier to be understood. And to
Christians it is undeniably preferable on another account also; namely,
because it is scriptural; because it is the word which the wisdom of
God hath chose to use in the inspired writings.
And according to the meaning wherein it is generally used there,
particularly in the epistles of St. _Paul_, we may understand by
conscience, a faculty or power, implanted by God in every soul that
comes into the world, of perceiving what is right or wrong in his own
heart or life, in his tempers, thoughts, words and actions.