Two witnesses in the text

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.