9. “But how may one who has the real witness in himself distinguish it from presumption?” How, I pray, do you distinguish day from night? How do you distinguish light from darkness? Or the light of a star, or glimmering taper, from the light of the noon-day sun? Is there not an inherent, obvious, essential difference between the one and the other? And do you not immediately and directly perceive that difference, provided your senses are rightly disposed? In like manner, there is an inherent, essential difference between spiritual light and spiritual darkness: and between the light wherewith the Sun of righteousness shines upon our heart, and that glimmering light, which arises only from _sparks of_ our _own kindling_. And this difference also is immediately and directly perceived, if our spiritual senses are rightly disposed. 10. * To require a more minute and philosophical account of the _manner_ whereby we distinguish these, and of the _criteria_, or intrinsick marks, whereby we know the voice of God, is to make a demand which can never be answered; no, not by one who has the deepest knowledge of God. Suppose, when _Paul_ answered before _Agrippa_, the wise _Roman_ had said, “Thou talkest of hearing the voice of the Son of God. How dost thou know, it was his voice? By what _criteria_, what intrinsick marks, dost thou know the voice of God? Explain to me, the _manner_ of distinguishing this, from a human or angelic voice.” Can you believe, the apostle himself would have once attempted to answer so idle a demand? And yet doubtless the moment he heard that voice, he knew it was the voice of God. But _how_ he knew this, who is able to explain? Perhaps neither man nor angel. 11. * To come yet closer. Suppose God were now to speak to any soul, “Thy sins are forgiven thee.” He must be willing, that soul should know his voice; otherwise he would speak in vain. And he is able to effect this; for whenever he wills, to do is present with him. And he does effect it. That soul is absolutely assured, “This voice is the voice of God.” But yet he who hath that witness in himself, cannot explain it to one who hath not. Nor indeed is it to be expected that he should. Were there any natural medium to prove, or natural method to explain the things of God, to unexperienced men; then the natural man might discern and know the things of the Spirit of God. But this is utterly contrary to the assertion of the apostle, that _he cannot know them; because they are spiritually discerned_; even by spiritual senses, which the natural man hath not.