What is not in dispute
Now, what is the matter of dispute concerning this? Not whether there is a witness or testimony of the Spirit. Not whether the Spirit does testify with our spirit that we are the children of God. No one 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.
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 as the testimony of a good conscience toward God. And it 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 that everyone 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 by all, and so is no matter of controversy.
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 afterward. Neither joy nor peace always stays at one level. No, nor does love. And the testimony itself is not always equally strong and clear.
But the point in question is whether there is any direct testimony of the Spirit at all. Whether there is any other testimony of the Spirit than that which arises from a consciousness of the fruit.
1771 text
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 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?
About this text
Rendered in modern English, to be read and heard. Open the 1771 text under each part to check the claims and the scripture.
Rendered in modern English. The 1771 panel is his own Pine printing of the Works. It is public domain.
Catalogue & scope
Sermon 11 in the 1771 Works. Romans 8:16. The second discourse on the witness of the Spirit.
This is an AI-assisted study translation. Source fidelity and completeness have not been independently certified. It is not a complete critical edition.