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? III. 1. I believe there is, because that is the plain, natural meaning 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_.