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 damn'd-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, το καθαρισμό των παλαι αμαρτιων, 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

be depended on. They are fit to be trusted in the Best degree, and need nothing else to prove what they

.at.

Nay, the direct witness only asserts, but does not prove thing." By two witnesses shall every word be estabed. And when the Spirit "witnesses with our spirit," God designs it to do, then it fully proves that we are chiln of God.

3. It is objected, sixthly, "You own the change wrought sufficient testimony, unless in the case of severe trials, ch as that of our Saviour upon the cross. But none of us n be tried in that manner.' "" But you or I may be tried in ch a manner, and so may any other child of God, that it ll be impossible for us to keep our filial confidence in God, ithout the direct witness of his Spirit.

10. It is objected, lastly, "The greatest contenders for it, re some of the proudest and most uncharitable of men." erhaps some of the hottest contenders for it are both proud and uncharitable. But many of the firmest contenders for t, are eminently meek and lowly in heart: and, indeed, in ll 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

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 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 alleged 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.

66

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, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." And this does not suppose, that. their preceding 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, whoever 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 the one text or