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.