1. The Witness of the Spirit. A Treatise on the Evidence of the Believer s Adoption. By Daniel Walton, Author of "The Mature Christian."New-York: Lane & Tippett, 1847.

2. The Witness of the Spirit with our Spirit. Illustrated from the Eighth Chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans; and the Heresies of Montanus, Pelagius, &-c, &-c. In Eight Sermons, preached before the University of Oxford, in 1846, at the Lecture founded by the late Rev. John Bampton, M.A., Canon of Salisbury. By Rev. Augustus Short, M. A., Vicar of Ravensthorpe, Northamptonshire, Rural Dean, and late Student of Christ Church. Oxford: J. U. Parker. London: F. & J. Rivington. 1846.

3. Edwards' Treatise on the Religious Affections.

4. Wesley's Sermons, and Watson's Theological Institutes.

It is a most important question to the Christian whether an assurance of his adoption into the divine family, of his acceptance with God, can be gained in this life. The attainableness of this assurance has been maintained, with more or less distinctness, in all ages of the church. This was one of the prominent doctrines characterizing the great revival of religion, a century ago, under the ministry of the Wesleys and Whitefield. "John Wesley was early led,"says his biographer, "to believe that it was the privilege of a real Christian to have a comfortable persuasion of being in a state of salvation, through the influence of the Holy Spirit."In modern times, the doctrine of the direct witness of the Spirit may be considered as peculiar to the Wesleyans and the Moravians, as churches; yet it is distinctly stated and enforced by distinguished theologians of different countries, periods, and denominations. Quotations, establishing this point, might be made from the Homilies of the Church of England, the writings of Bishop Hooper, Witsius, Bishop Andrews, Hooker, Bishop Brownrigg, Bishop Pearson, Archbishop Usher, Dr. Barrow, Dr. Owen Caryll, Dr. S. Clark, Dr. Watts, and many others.

Calvin says that "our mind of itself, independently of the preceding testimony of the Spirit, could not produce this persuasion, that we are the sons of God."Matthew Poole says: "The Spirit of adoption doth, by an inward and secret suggestion, raise our hearts to this persuasion, that God is our Father, and we are his children. This is not the testimony of the graces and operations of the Spirit, but of the Spirit itself."

Mr. Walton presents the Wesleyan view of this doctrine. His work will not render a perusal of the writings of Wesley and Watson unnecessary to those who desire a full understanding of the subject; yet its simplicity and clearness, and the good judgment manifested in the selection of its arguments and illustrations, will render it more acceptable to general readers than any other on the same subject. The writer is clear, calm, and dispassionate; there is nothing imaginative or fanatical in his work. We think much good may be done by its general circulation.

Mr. Short's views differ from Mr. Walton's. He admits that "effects may be wrought in the Christian of full age, so real and palpable, so varied yet harmonious, as to satisfy every devout inquirer that he is indeed ' a habitation of God, through the Spirit,' no less so than the saints who first trusted in Christ; even though supernatural gifts were poured upon them, in addition."— P. 6. But he maintains that this assurance can only be gained by a careful consideration of the tests Scripture supplies, and comparison between these and the character of the believer.

Mr. Short thinks he has avoided the errors on this subject which have resulted from "a skeptical or Pelagian tone of mind,"on the one hand; and "the unreal familiarity with which fanatics are wont to speak of spiritual influences, on the other."

That his design, and the extent of his inquiry, may be understood, he remarks: —

"It may be thought, perhaps, that we are about to enter upon a field of inquiry"of which the limits are unknown, and the landmarks capricious, if not imaginary. It were so indeed, if we were about to describe the whole life of grace; its downward progress, as well as its noonday brightness. Ours is a less arduous task. For what mortal eye can discern the first quickening into life of the immortal spirit? Who can mark where the viewless breeze arises, or testify the moment when the hue of health first revisits the pale cheek of sickness? The witness of the Spirit, which we would reverently survey, is not as manifested in the infancy of grace; but when the believer is in 'understanding a man,' and 'renewed in knowledge, after the image of Him that created him.'. . . . Our inquiry is into the evidences and marks of the presence of the Holy Ghost in those of 'full age,'. . . . . who, by reason of use, have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."— P. 4.

The first six lectures are founded on Rom. viii, 4, 5, 9, 13, 15, 16, 23. The subjects introduced are ably treated; several passages of Scripture are happily illustrated. There are some beautiful and forcible passages, and the sentiments generally are such as those who believe in the direct witness of the Spirit would urge full as strongly as the author, considering them as the fruits of the Spirit, which must be manifested by all who have its witness of adoption. In these lectures he declares that the fruits of the Spirit constitute the witness of adoption, and that there is no other; but this last point he does not attempt to prove: yet on this point rests nearly the whole controversy between the Wesleyans and the writers of whom Mr. Short may be considered a representative.

In these lectures some of the favorite doctrines of the Church of England are strongly set forth, and the defection from them manifested by many is classed among the most grievous and dangerous errors of the times.

In the seventh lecture the author gives a sketch of the heresies of Macedonius and Pelagius, relative to the personality and the agency of the Comforter — the heresies emanating from unbelief. His strictures on these leaders, and their followers of the present day, although severe, yet in the main are just.

The eighth lecture is devoted to the consideration of"those fanatical sects which, from the second century to the present day, by their unfounded pretensions to extraordinary illumination and gills of the Spirit, have not ceased to trouble the church."Toward this class the author is more merciful; "in their case, the unforgiven sin does not seem to be committed."He "arraigns rather their want of wisdom than substantial piety."He has "more sympathy for the enthusiast than the heretic."— Pp. 153, 154. He believes that ecclesiastical history presents the recurrence of like errors; hence he goes back to the second century, and finds their author lo be the "fanatic Montanus."

"An analysis of the feelings and principles which lay at the bottom of his proceedings resolves them into two; namely, his own personal illumination by the Holy Spirit, and his authority as a teacher specially called of God to reform his church. . . . . In these principles, then, we seem to find the type of religious fanaticism in all ages; and the prolific sources of schism. As reason abused leads to heresy, so the doctrine of grace is perverted to division."— Pp. 162, 163.

The author passes rapidly through ecclesiastical history. He finds the principles of Montanus at work in the great African schism of the Donatists, exhibited also by the Cathari and the Waldenses. He pauses awhile at the Reformation, where he finds Montanism again revived, and censures strongly the Puritans, who, "like the Montanists of old, first disregarded, and then superseded, episcopacy. Freeing themselves also from the restraints of a liturgy, they boldly pretended to the immediate influence of the Spirit in congregational prayer."— Pp. 165, 166.

He asserts that they claimed special impulses and extraordinary illuminations of the Spirit; first, —

"For authenticating and interpreting the Holy Scriptures; thus superseding the prophetical office of the church, as the witness and keeper of holy writ, and its authority in controversies of faith. Secondly, for the personal assurance of salvation and comfort of the Christian; and, lastly, for his readiness in prayer, so that the words and petitions might assume the authority of immediate inspiration."—P. 166.

The author continues: "Calvin indeed, in his Institutes, had laid the foundation for these extravagant claims." He mentions as Calvin's opinions, "that holy writ bears upon its face the character of truth as palpably as any white or black substance its color." "The Bible is the witness, not only of its own truthfulness and inspiration, but also to the authenticity and genuineness of its moral parts." He states that Calvin believed all the books of Holy Scripture to be far superior to all others; but that Luther doubted the inspiration both of the Apocalypse and the Epistle of St. James; and then draws the following conclusion: —

"Hence it becomes evident, that if we discard the testimony of the church to the canon of Scripture, or weaken that testimony by casting off its ancient episcopal succession, we are thrown upon the restless ocean of rationalist speculation, and drift at the mercy of every wind of opinion."— P. 167.

Truly, there must be a wonderful conservative influence in the belief of the dogma of episcopal succession; and very dangerous must it be to renounce it! We are bound to consider Mr. Short sincere, otherwise we should consider his argument an ironical one from some opposer of his much-cherished doctrine.

He asserts that the Puritans maintained the doctrine of the direct witness of the Spirit. In other respects he does them injustice. It is true they had not much respect for "episcopal succession:" they claimed the right of private judgment, in matters of faith and practice; to lay aside forms of prayer, and to ask for those things of which they felt the need, and to express their desires to God in their own language. While the propriety of these claims will be denied by high churchmen, we presume they will be sanctioned by the members generally of the only tine church.

The last specimen of the alledged recurrence of Montanism, which the author thinks it behooves him to notice, is announced as "the outbreak of enthusiasm in the early phenomena and principles of Methodism."

The saying, that "no one suddenly becomes base," has passed into a proverb. So our author represents that J. Wesley, "nurtured in the bosom of the church," did not at once become a heretic. The sentiments he at first proclaimed were comparatively harmless. But, says Mr. Short, —

"Not satisfied with such statements, he [Mr. Wesley] soon began to preach instantaneous conversion, and then identified it with the new birth of the Spirit. . . . . At an early period also of the Methodist association the schismatic tendency of the supposed outpouring of the Spirit began to show itself. . . . . It soon began to be asserted among the brotherhood, that any Christian might preach and administer the sacraments; and that Christianity knew nothing of any distinct order of men as spiritual church officers. Long and firm was the resistance made by J. Wesley to this attempt. Time, however, modified his views, or enfeebled his judgment. It rarely, if ever, happens that one false step in religion is retrieved. In his eighty-second year he was induced to complete his work of schism, by ordaining three missionaries for America. Here, then, was at length reproduced the likeness of Montanism. The apostolic authority of episcopacy was infringed, or superseded, even as ecstatic illumination had before been claimed; so perpetually does human nature move in the same vicious circle, and the unruliness of man's heart display itself in one unvarying form."— Pp. 168-170.

The misrepresentations of the author must be evident to any one who has even a slight acquaintance with the facts. The insinuation that it was the imbecility of age that led Wesley to ordain three missionaries for America is unworthy of attention. It is, moreover, hardly necessary to say that the resemblance between Methodism and Montanism is wholly imaginary. • He very summarily disposes of the views of large bodies of Christians who differ from him: assuming that the doctrines of his own church alone are Scriptural, he declares all opposing doctrines to be erroneous, a mere recurrence of Montanism, Donatism, or some other ism of ancient times. We are far from believing that the power of devising evil and error was exhausted in the first ages of the church: while the errors of former times occasionally reappear, every age gives origin to errors peculiar to itself. It is not probable that age enfeebled the judgment of Mr. Short in the interval between his writing his first lectures and the last; but we think it not improbable that bigotry and prejudice, not fully aroused till he came to the eighth lecture, produced the same effect. His reasoning, in his last lecture, is unworthy of one who has given evidence of possessing ability to do so much better. All opinions that lead to a separation from the church, that is, the Church of England, he considers as erroneous and fanatical. His strictures on the Puritans, Calvin, and Wesley, all relate to the alledged schismatic tendency of their opinions.

His argument amounts to this: the Church of England is the only true church; and whatever leads to a separation from it is schismatical and fanatical.

The views of the Puritans, Calvin, and Wesley, &c, relative to the operations and gifts of the Holy Spirit, led to such a result.

Therefore these views are schismatical and fanatical.

We shall not pause to discuss the merits of this argument, feeling assured that no ordinary exhibition of its absurdity, or of the truth, will have any effect on those who perceive any validity in it.

A careful examination of the doctrine of the direct witness of the Spirit, as held by Methodists, will convince the candid inquirer that most that has been written against it has no reference to the doctrine as held by them. All that Shepherd, Edwards, Dwight, Chalmers, James, Short, &c, urge relative to the importance of the believer's having a consciousness that he possesses the fruits of the Spirit; and also against the fanaticism and folly of pretending to be children of God while these fruits are wanting; is as forcibly urged by them. They believe in a twofold witness. What these eminent divines set forth as the witness of the Spirit, is, with some little modification, regarded by them as the witness of our own spirit: but they believe that the direct witness of the Spirit precedes and accompanies this; the Spirit witnesses with our spirit that we are the children of God. That many of the followers of Wesley perverted his doctrines, and, in their enthusiasm, brought reproach on the cause of Christ, is not doubted; but the man must be very uncandid, or ignorant relative to his writings, who can maintain that he justified these enthusiasts, or that the doctrine, as taught by him, was fanatical. No one has urged more strongly the necessity of rigid self-examination. He says expressly: "Let none ever presume to rest in any supposed testimony of the Spirit which is separate from the fruit of it."— Sermons, vol. i, p. 100. Addressing one of those enthusiasts, with whom many seek to class him, he says: —

"Discover thyself, thou poor self-deceiver; thou who art confident of being a child of God; thou who sayest, 'I have the witness in myself,' and therefore defiest thy enemies. Thou art weighed in the balance, and found wanting, even in the balance of the sanctuary. The word of the Lord hath tried thy soul, and proved thee to be reprobate silver. Thou art not lowly of heart; therefore thou hast not received the Spirit of Jesus unto this day. Thou art not gentle and meek; therefore thy joy is nothing worth; it is not joy in the Lord. Thou dost not keep his commandments; therefore thou lovest him not, neither art thou partaker of the Holy Ghost. It is, consequently, certain, and as evident as the oracles of God can make it, his Spirit doth not bear witness with thy spirit that thou art a child of God."— Vol. i, p. 91.

Addressing one professing to have the witness of the Spirit of adoption, he says: —

"See that not only thy lips, but thy life, show forth his praise. . . . . 'Cleanse thyself from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God;' and let all thy thoughts, words, and works, be a spiritual sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, through Christ Jesus."—Vol. i, p. 93.

Wesley thus defines the witness of the Spirit: —

"By the testimony of the Spirit I mean an inward impression on the bouI, whereby the Spirit of God immediately and directly witnesses to my spirit that I am a child of God; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me; that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God."— Vol. i, p. 94.

Walton adopts the definition given by Rev. E. Grindrod, in the Wesleyan Methodist Mag., Jan., 1835, namely: "A satisfactory and joyful persuasion, produced by the Holy Ghost in the mind of a believer, that he is now a child of God."— P. 65.

Watson's view of the subject is substantially the same. These Writers do not undertake to describe the mode in which the Holy Spirit produces the joyous persuasion in the minds of believers of their adoption. Most objectors to the doctrine of the direct, immediate witness of the Spirit, speak of it as though its advocates represented it as always communicated by a voice from heaven, a supernatural vision, or the sudden presentation of certain texts of, Scripture to the mind. This view of the subject is expressly disclaimed by Wesley, Watson, and other standard writers among the Methodists. The circumstances attendant on this work of the Spirit are alledged to be various, often diverse. It is not, however, denied that the Spirit sometimes applies to the heart particular passages of Scripture, or that sometimes supernatural manifestations may be given; such as are related in the Life of Colonel Gardiner, by Dr. Doddridge. We suppose also that it is generally admitted that the mind, in certain conditions of deep and intense feeling, finds it difficult to distinguish between what is powerfully impressed on it, not through the medium of the senses, and what is actually addressed to the outward ear, or exhibited to the eye. This will readily explain many things claimed to be supernatural by many inexperienced persons, susceptible of strong emotions, but having little knowledge of mental phenomena. On this subject Walton says: —

"We wish it to be clearly understood, that the doctrine of the witness of the Spirit by no means includes any enthusiastic expectation of voices audibly addressed to the believer, nor the occurrence of any thing that is, properly speaking, miraculous. Neither do we speak of a testimony communicated by a supernatural vision. All, therefore, which has been spoken at various times by zealous opponents against the doctrine of the witness of the Spirit, on the ground that we rely too much on visions and voices, is quite wide of the mark. For we lay no stress on visions nor voices at all; and encourage no expectation of them. They would add nothing to the evidence, even supposing they were given. The witness of the Spirit is something entirely distinct from them, and of a different nature."— P. 62.

Speaking of alledged supernatural manifestations, he says: —

"But we wish it to be understood that even in those instances no one who is wise will lay any stress on what was visionary in the communication, or look upon it in any other light than as a circumstance altogether extraneous to the great point to be decided. It is not itself the witness of the Spirit. It is, properly speaking, no part of the evidence; and neither adds to, nor detracts from, its credibility. Should the witness of the Spirit, therefore, be thus given, it would not be the visionary representation accompanying it which would give it any part of its value. It would not be either the more or the less certain; it would not claim either more or less confidence for being so accompanied."— P. 64.

In order to guard this doctrine still further from misapprehension, it may be proper to remark that "the doctrine of assurance, as held by the founder of Methodism, was not the assurance of eternal salvation, as held by Calvinistic divines; but that persuasion which is given by the Holy Spirit to penitent and believing persons, that they are now accepted of God, pardoned, and adopted into God's family." — Watson's Life of Wesley, p. 163.

The great majority of distinguished divines opposed to the doctrine we advocate, admit that believers have obtained an assurance of acceptance with God, or that such assurance is now attainable. Dr. Dwight, in his sermon on Full Assurance of Hope, remarks, that he does not see how such faith can be reasonably doubted. He thinks, however, that the number who obtain this evidence is small. (Dwight's Theologly, sermon xc.) Edwards maintains this doctrine much more strongly. (Affections, pp. 71-73.) In the pages referred to, we think he conclusively proves that this assurance is the privilege of all Christians. Our limits will forbid the introduction of this extract, and many others from different authors, substantiating the same position. From the theory of these authors it almost necessarily results that they limit the attainment of this assurance to Christians of much experience, those of mature age; yet, as they hold it to be the privilege of all Christians to become thus perfect, they virtually admit that all may attain this assurance.

As Methodists we do not claim this witness to substantiate the truth of any particular doctrines; and of course we are not chargeable with the errors of Millerism. It is not asserted that this testimony of the Spirit is given by a voice, or that it is in any way addressed to the senses. Nevertheless, all who believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures must admit that the Holy Spirit can move men, so that they may know that they speak with divine authority. Furthermore, we do not deny, but strongly insist on, the necessity of the witness of our own spirit, or the evidence derived from a comparison of our lives and hearts with the tests of Scripture. On the other hand, all that admit the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit, and his agency in regeneration, admit that assurance oi acceptance with God is attainable. The only question at issue is, — Is there, preceding and accompanying the evidence derived from a consciousness of possessing the characteristics of a believer, as given in Scripture, a direct and immediate witness of the Spirit to the believer that he is adopted into the divine family?

Much dependence is placed, by the advocates of the affirmative of this question, on Rom. viii, 15, 16, as clearly sustaining their views. But there is a controversy relative to the meaning of almost every important word in this passage. Some alledge that by the spirit of bondage is meant a personification of the genius of the law; because, as they say, there was that in the law which naturally produced a servile dread of God, a want of confidence in him. But all who were under the law certainly did not manifest this servile spirit. The careless and unawakened Pharisees, who were most anxious to obtain justification by the law, did not feel this bondage. When the Pharisee and the publican went up to the temple to pray, the publican had the spirit of bondage unto fear; but the Pharisee pressed boldly forward, and justified himself before God. If the meaning of the expression were a personification of the genius of the law we might naturally expect that those who were under the law, and most anxious to obtain justification by it, would feel this spirit most. The apostle Paul was not the subject of this bondage when he tells us he was alive without the law, or quite alive, in his own apprehension, before the law came home to his conscience with its convincing energy, as revealed by the Holy Ghost in its proper spiritual meaning. Thus it appears that it is the Holy Spirit, in its convincing operations, that constitutes the spirit of bondage unto fear. When, through its influence, a man is convinced of sin; when brought to consent to the law, that it is good; when he desires to do good, and yet finds evil present with him; and discovering his defects, and groaning under a weight from which he cannot release himself, exclaims, "0 wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me?" he then truly may be said to have received the spirit of bondage unto fear.

The next point in dispute in these two verses is the meaning of the phrase, "the Spirit of adoption." Edwards says (Religious Affections, p. 127) it means love. But love is one of the fruits, and certainly then it cannot be the Spirit from which it originates; moreover, there is no proof offered to sustain the supposition. Those who consider the "spirit of bondage" as the personified genius of the law, regard the "Spirit of adoption" as the genius of the gospel personified. But this Spirit of adoption must refer to the Holy Spirit himself. In the 16th verse it is said that "the Spirit itself, or himself, or that same Spirit, beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God." In the parallel passage in Galatians we read, "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." By the Spirit of his Son we presume it will be admitted is meant, not the genius of the gospel, but the Holy Spirit; consequently, by the Spirit of adoption is meant the same Holy Spirit. Two of the offices of the Spirit are here mentioned; first, it brings us into bondage, by its operation in convincing of sin, and leading us to seek deliverance from it in Christ; and, secondly, then giving us a blessed testimony and assurance of our adoption into the family. of God.

In the verses preceding the 15th and 16th of Rom. viii, the Spirit of whom St. Paul speaks is called "the Spirit of God," "the Spirit of Christ," "the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus from the dead." He is represented as dwelling in believers; as enabling them to mortify the deeds of the body; as leading and guiding the sons of God. We presume no one will assert that by the Spirit, in the various passages in which it occurs in the first part of the chapter, is to be understood the genius of the gospel. It evidently means the Holy Spirit. The works mentioned are those in other parts of Scripture ascribed to him; now it is the same Spirit which is represented in the fifteenth and sixteenth verses as the Spirit of adoption, bearing witness to the believer that he is accepted by God. And furthermore, as in almost every previous verse of the chapter, the Spirit is spoken of personally, as operating directly on the human mind, not through the medium of the word: consistency would certainly require that in its agency as the Spirit of adoption it should be considered as operating in the same manner.

The meaning of the word συμμαρτυρεῖ, rendered "beareth witness with," has been controverted. Those who alledge that there is but one witness of the believer's adoption assert that the word should be rendered beareth witness to our spirit, &c. They do not undertake to show that it never has the meaning given in our version, but they labor to prove that such is not its meaning there. We cannot regard this discussion as of much importance. We claim that the Holy Spirit witnesses both to and with our spirit; and if only one witness, that of the Spirit, is here established, the witness of our own spirits is abundantly sustained by other passages. Nevertheless, we think that the proof is clear that not only is the general meaning of the word "to bear witness with" but that such is its meaning in Rom. viii, 16. Such being the case, two witnesses are necessarily implied; and all arguments to show that the only witness of adoption is the Spirit operating through the word must be futile.

The word συμμαρτυρέω is thus defined in Liddell and Scott's Lexicon: "To bear witness with, or in accordance with, another." Donnegan defines it: 44 To bear witness with another; to be a joint witness."

"None of the Lexicons which possess the greatest authority give any intimation that the compound verb is ever used to signify, 'I bear witness to' Stephens' immense Thesaurus, Scapula, Hederic, and all the rest which possess any weight, render it by 'Unà tcstor' — 'I bear witness together with;' 'Simul tcstificor' — 'I testify in conjunction with;' 'Testimonio meo comprobo' — 'I give concurring evidence by my own testimony.'"— Walton's Witness of the Spirit, p. 227.

In connection with the introduction of several quotations from Greek authors, all confirming these views, Mr. Walton remarks: —

"Both Mr. Wesley and Bishop Gibson concur in the sentiment, that on the very face of the word συμμαρτυρεῖ two witnesses appear plainly to be intended. Or, to slate the same thing in other words, the Greek term, from its very construction, and from its use by the best writers, must necessarily imply at least two witnesses testifying, in conjunction with each other, to the existence of the very same thing.

"Now the amplest researches will prove these two scholars to have been perfectly correct in this decision. I have never found the word used in a different sense by any writer in any one instance. There are al ways, as far as I have been able to judge, two witnesses implied as concurring in their testimony — both witnessing the same thing — and the one, by his testimony, confirming the authority of the other."— P. 222.

This word occurs in only two other passages in the New Testament, namely, Rom. ii, 15, and ix, 1. In both it has the same meaning. In the first the concurrence of testimony is between the inward conscience of the persons spoken of, and their external acts in their reasonings with each other. In the second passage the apostle asserts solemnly an important truth: "I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not." Here is the first witness. The second is found in the direct testimony given by the Holy Ghost to the apostle's conscience: "My conscience also bearing me witness" (συμμαρτυρούσης- — bearing a concurrent testimony) "in the Holy Ghost."

We think these passages, Rom. viii, 15, 16, conclusively establish the proposition that the Spirit of God directly witnesses with our spirits that we are the children of God.

This doctrine is proved by many other passages of Scripture, which our limits forbid us to consider. The Scriptures not only speak of the Spirit as witnessing, but also as sealing believers: "That we," says the apostle, (Eph. i, 12, 13,) "should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." (See also Eph. iv, 30; 2 Cor. i, 21, 22.) It cannot appear inconsistent that God's children, who have the seal and stamp of Heaven, should receive assurance from him of their acceptance with him. In Eph. i, 14, the apostle, speaking of believers as scaled with that Holy Spirit of promise, says, "which is the earnest of our inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." (See also 2 Cor. v, 5.) The word earnest, says Walton,

"signifies a pledge given; binding the party who gives it to fulfill conditions involving other and more valuable gifts, upon the production of the pledge at some future day. It refers, therefore, both to the present and the future. It denotes a present relation, into which the person is taken who receives the earnest. He is taken into the divine family; into such a state, that, if he continue therein, he shall be everlastingly saved. The earnest, therefore, decides the present absolutely and positively. It is a pledge of present favor, and it decides the future conditionally; no change being to be apprehended (for none is possible) in God; and the only condition being that the pledge or earnest has been retained, and can be produced."— P. 53.

The Holy Spirit is given unto believers as a seal of present favor, and a pledge of future blessedness.

One great objection in the minds of many to the doctrine of the witness of the Spirit, as held by Methodists, is, that they hold to the direct and immediate operation of the Spirit on the soul. It is asserted, on the contrary, that the Spirit acts indirectly through the medium of the word. That the Spirit of God accompanies the word to the heart, opens the eyes of our understanding to perceive its requirements; that he reveals the suitableness and glory of Christ, and guides and comforts the believer; is not denied, as some strangely alledge, by the Wesleyans, but strongly maintained. But in all these operations the action of the Spirit is immediate and direct. By the Spirit's operating through the word must be understood, that, when our attention is directed to it, the Spirit operates on our hearts to understand and apply the truth. No one will assert that the Spirit speaks to, or moves upon, the word, and it then calls our attention, and communicates influence or knowledge received from the Spirit: this would be absurd. There is no indirect influence of the Spirit. It may operate in connection with the word, or some events of Providence, but its action on the soul of man is immediate and direct.

All who acknowledge the necessity of conversion, the agency of the Spirit in regeneration, its power to reprove and convince of sin, must admit its direct agency. Now, admitting that the Holy Spirit gives the sinner a perception of danger resulting from the number and aggravations of his sins; that through repentance he leads the soul, through Christ, to God; why do they pause at this point? If the Spirit by its direct agency makes the penitent sorrowful, if it brings him into bondage, it surely cannot be unreasonable to suppose that it will make glad; that as it gives the knowledge of guilt, it will also give the knowledge of its removal. In the language of Walton:—

"If it is reasonable to believe that in reproving, convincing, and converting, the Spirit's influence on the mind is plainly taught in the Scripture, it cannot be unreasonable to believe that in comforting us, and sealing our adoption, the same influence is exerted, and in a method substantially the same."— P. 74.

Not only do we think that the doctrine for which we contend is directly taught by many passages of Scripture, but also that its general tenor, and the nature of its fundamental doctrines, confirm and show the absolute necessity of it. In no other way, by no other agent, than that of the Holy Spirit witnessing their adoption, can believers be assured that they are reconciled to God. Whenever we believe in Christ with the faith which God requires, we are pardoned and justified; but this act of mercy is one which lakes place in the mind of God, and, till it pleases him to reveal it, it must remain unknown: "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."1 Cor. ii, 11. "The Spirit of God, which searcheth all things, even the deep things of God," "which alone knoweth the things of God," is the only witness who can make known to the believer the fact that God has pardoned him, and adopted him into his family. There are no signs of acceptance on which we can depend, unless, as the apostle says, we "receive the Spirit which is of God; that we may know the things which are freely given to us of God."1 Cor. ii, 12.

Wesley's argument for the antecedence of the witness of the Spirit is as follows: —

"That this testimony of the Spirit of God must needs, in the very nature of things, be antecedent to the testimony of our own spirit, may appear from this single consideration: we must be holy of heart, and holy in life, before we can be conscious that we are so; before we can have the testimony of our spirit that we are inwardly and outwardly holy. But we must love God before we can be holy at all; this being the root of all holiness. Now, we cannot love God till we know he loves us: ' We love him, because he first loved us.' And we cannot know his pardoning love to us till his Spirit witnesses it to our spirit. Since, therefore, this testimony of his Spirit must precede the love of God, and all holiness, of consequence it must precede our inward consciousness thereof, or the testimony of our spirit concerning them."— Vol i, p. 88.

The first propositions of this argument are incontrovertible; but in saying that we cannot know his pardoning love to us till his Spirit witnesses it to our spirit, he seems to assume the point to be proved. Reasons have already been advanced, however, in support of this proposition, and there are many others that establish it. And here we may well ask those who deny this doctrine, what evidence, aside from the witness of the Spirit, can a man have of his adoption, when first pardoned? Penitence, contrition, and fear, cannot be allcdged as proofs of pardon, since they suppose that we are still under condemnation. And though faith should be added to repentance, and we should be conscious of both, still this would be no evidence of our forgiveness; our spirit would, in that case, witness the fact of our repenting and believing, but that would be no witness to the fact of our adoption. Moreover, repentance and faith are exercised in order to pardon, which must therefore be subsequent to both; and they cannot, for that reason, be the evidence of it, or the evidence of pardon might be enjoyed before pardon is actually received, which is manifestly impossible.

On this subject Watson thus remarks: —

"But it has been said, 'that we have the testimony of God in his word, that where repentance and faith exist, God has infallibly connected pardon with them, from the moment they are perceived to exist; and so it may be surely inferred from them.' The answer is, that we have no such testimony. We have, through the mercy of God, the promise of pardon to all who repent, and believe; but repentance is not pardon, and faith is not pardon, but they are its prerequisites; each is a sine qua non, but surely not the pardon itself: nor can either be considered the evidence of pardon without an absurdity. They are means to that end; but nothing more: and though God has 1 infallibly connected' the blessing of pardon with repentance and faith, he has not connected it with any kind of repentance, nor with any kind of faith: nor with every degree of repentance, nor with every degree of faith. How, then, shall we ever know whether our repentance and faith are accepted, unless pardon actually follow them? And as this pardon cannot be attested by them, for the reason above given, and must therefore have an attestation of higher authority, and of a distinct kind, the only attestation conceivable which remains is the direct witness of the Holy Spirit."— Watson's Institutes, vol. ii, pp. 277, 278.

It must be admitted that faith, both as assent and confidence, has every possible degree. It is capable of mixture with doubt and self-dependence; and, without some definite character being given, some marks of the essential degree, we could never with confidence conclude that our faith was justifying faith. But there is no such particular description of faith given, nor are we authorized to make ourselves the judges of the case, and conclude that God has adopted us. The apostle has assigned this office to the Holy Spirit.

It is, by many, maintained that we become assured of our adoption when we perceive the fruits of the Spirit in our experience; that this is the only evidence of pardon. St. Paul (Gal. v, 22, 23) gives a most important enumeration of these fruits of the Spirit. He says: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." It will not be denied, we presume, that this fruit is found only in such as are justified, and that it is the result of adoption. We think it may be shown, moreover, that these fruits cannot exist till we know we are forgiven; and, consequently, they cannot be an evidence of pardon. Many separate the fruits of the Spirit, and fix their attention on gentleness, meekness, and temperance; forgetting that love, joy, and peace, must also be found in this evidence of reconciliation with God.

When the penitent is weighed down under the burden of sin; when the very depth of his repentance leads him to feel most sensibly his unworthiness; when his soul appears stained with sin, marking his every act, the enormity of which he had not before perceived, can he, in his anguish, his eyes dimmed with blinding tears, discern the graces of the Spirit in his character? Can he, by inferences, by searching, find joy and peace in his soul, when the more he examines himself the greater reason he finds for humility and mourning? Can he by reasoning remove his doubts and alarm, and, by virtue of his own discovery, cry, having the Spirit of adoption, Abba, Father? This, from the very nature of the case, is impossible. Love is a part of the fruit of the Spirit; but we cannot love God till we know he loves us: we love him because he first loved us. We cannot know that he loves us individually, till he reveal the fact. Here we remark that love to God cannot, as is often alledged, be produced from a consideration of God's general love to mankind, as manifested in the gift of his Son, and in his dealings with them. In Scripture, Christians are spoken of as children and heirs; their love is represented as love to God as their Father. The love of the justified is not admiration and gratitude, which many feel who are not reconciled to God, and certainly do not have a persuasion of his pardoning love to them individually; but they love God as a Father, as their God in covenant, who calls himself "their God," and them "his people." They love his justice, his holiness, all his attributes; "the awful and alarming, as well as the encouraging and attractive." Seeking, though hoping, penitents cannot love God as God, as a Father, ill that special sense in which the word is the correlative of children and heirs, as having pardoned their sins, and being reconciled unto them; "this is what they seek, but have not found; and they cannot love God under relations in which they know and painfully feel he does not stand to them." "They know 'his general love to man,' but not his pardoning love to them; and therefore cannot love him as reconciled to them by the death of his Son." (See also Watson's Institutes, vol. ii, pp. 279, 2S0.)

The Christian's love to God rests upon his persuasion of his personal and individual interest in pardoning and adopting mercy; and by him who has no evidence that he personally enjoys these benefits this kind of love cannot be found. Moreover, no one can have joy in God, or peace in believing, while he has no evidence of pardon, and while oppressed by fear and conscious guilt. The supposition that these fruits of the Spirit may exist under such circumstances is evidently absurd. Love, joy, and peace, cannot, in any sense, be considered as primary evidence of adoption, since this must be enjoyed before they can exist.

The truth appears to be, that the advocates of the doctrine we have been considering, among whom are Wardlaw, James, Edwards, Dwight, Short, and many others, do not meet the main point of controversy. They advocate strongly the evidence of adoption, as found in the possession and manifestation of the fruits of the Spirit, and bring abundance of proof to show that this evidence must be found in him who is assured of pardon. But the importance of all this is admitted, and as strongly urged, by the Wcsleyans. The question in dispute is, Does this constitute the first and only evidence of adoption? While they alledge the affirmative, they bring no proof to sustain it, or to show that the doctrine of a previous, and also accompanying, direct witness of the Spirit is unscriptural, or unreasonable. It is surprising that little more than assertions, unsupported by an attempt at argument, is found in their writings, on this the main point of controversy. The Scriptures say, with reference to believers: "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." These writers assert that the meaning of these passages is that the Spirit operates through the word; that there is a harmony between what the Spirit has wrought in us, and what the Spirit of God testifies in the word; and in proportion as our spirits have the inward consciousness of this harmony do we possess the witness of the Spirit that we are the children of God. St. Paul asserts, in these passages, that the testimony of the Spirit was given in the believer's heart; and it is certainly not a plain, obvious interpretation, that assumes we must understand by these words the Spirit is given in the Scriptures. This interpretation should not be adopted without strong reasons for its necessity.

As necessarily results from their views, these authors maintain that no one, in the first part of his Christian life, can have assurance that he is reconciled to God. This, they say, is the exclusive privilege of the mature Christian, who has had time to form the basis of his argument in Christian experience, and also has ability to compare his character and experience with the precepts of God's word; and can unhesitatingly, from his perception of their harmony, conclude that he has the Spirit of adoption. If the direct witness of the Spirit be denied, no other mode than this remains in which to obtain assurance. But the testimony of very many relative to their experience is clearly and directly in opposition to this view. After separating from the number those whose lives, subsequent to their pretended conversion, may have led others to suppose that they were mistaken, there will remain thousands whose lives exhibit the fruits of the Spirit, many of whom die in triumph, who unequivocally assert that they did not obtain the evidence of their adoption in this way. The simple story of their conversion is, that they felt deep sorrow of heart; they abhorred sin, and desired to be delivered from it; they went as humble penitents to the foot of the cross, believed on Christ, who justifies the ungodly, and at once obtained peace with God. Among them have been, and still are, many eminent for their attainments in literature, and for their influence on society; persons not subject to the imputation of fanaticism, or any kindred delusion. The records of missionaries furnish statements, that, in different places, very many have been suddenly converted: they have passed from a state of sorrow and anguish, suddenly, to one of peace and joy. These persons, in order to give an evidence of their adoption, neither instituted tin's rigid self-examination and comparison, nor were capable of thus doing. It is indeed a point of importance that there are in various branches of the church many pious persons whose lives give evidence of their sincerity, and who can confidently refer to the time of their conversion; yet who have not sufficient knowledge to institute that rigid examination of their characters, which is so strenuously insisted on by Edwards and others. The system that denies sudden conversions, or that a believer may know that he is pardoned as soon as God forgives his sins, and also denies the direct witness of the Spirit, is directly opposed to the testimony of a host, both of the learned and the ignorant. This fact furnishes a problem to be solved by its advocates. If they say that the testimony of these witnesses is false, or that they are fanatical and deluded, their course will strongly tend to undermine the foundation on which rests our belief in experimental religion, and the hopes of the Christian.

Edwards was a strong advocate of this system; yet we judge that he believed assurance is attainable by a much greater number than would be admitted by Dr. Dwight. In his invaluable work on the Religious Affections he devotes several pages to the doctrine of the witness of the Spirit. The views against which the most he has written is directed, are the false and fanatical opinions that have prevailed at different times. To the force and propriety of this we fully assent. It is evident, however, from the following and other passages of his Treatise, that he strenuously opposes the doctrine of the direct witness of the Spirit: —

"Many mischiefs have arisen from that false and delusive notion of the witness of the Spirit, that it is a kind of inward voice, suggestion, or declaration, from God to a man, that he is beloved, pardoned, elected, or the like, sometimes with and sometimes without a text of Scripture; for many have been the false and vain (though very high) affections that have arisen from hence. It is to be feared that multitudes of souls have been eternally undone by it."— P. 128.

Again he says: —

"Here it may be proper to observe, that it is exceedingly manifest, from what has been said, that what many persons call the witness of the Spirit that they are the children of God, has nothing in it spiritual and divine; and, consequently, that the affections built upon it are vain and delusive. That which many call the witness of the Spirit, is no ether than an immediate suggestion and impression of that fact, otherwise secret, that they are converted or made the children of God, and so that their sins are pardoned, and that God has given them a title to heaven."— P. 121.

His reasoning in support of this opinion is very fallacious. He asserts that this assurance "is no divine sort of knowledge in itself; it requires no higher sort of idea for a man to have the apprehension of his own conversion impressed upon him, than to have the apprehension of his neighbor's conversion in like manner. He asserts that God, if he pleased, might impress on any one the knowledge that he had forgiven his neighbor's sins, and given him a title to heaven without any communication of his holiness. He adduces God's revelations to Balaam, Abimclech, and Laban, as instances of the impression of as important facts without gracious influence. Does this train of reasoning prove that God does not directly convince the believer of his adoption, or that he has not revealed it as his purpose thus to do in his word? Nearly the whole of section first, part third, of his work, is devoted to show,

"That all spiritual and gracious affections are attended with, and arise from, some apprehension, idea, or sensation of mind, which is in its whole nature different, yea, exceeding different, from all that is, or can be, in the mind of a natural man. The natural man discerns nothing of it, any more than a man without the sense of tasting can conceive of the sweet taste of honey; or a man without the sense of hearing can conceive of the melody of a tune; or a man born blind can have a notion of the beauty of a rainbow."— P. 104.

"So that the spiritual perceptions which a sanctified and spiritual person has are not only diverse, as the perceptions of the same sense may differ one from another, but rather as the ideas and sensations of different senses differ."— P. 102, also p. 106.

This is the basis of his argument against the witness of the Spirit. He first endeavors to show that all gracious affections or influences of the Spirit are peculiar, such as a natural man cannot experience, and the power of men and devils cannot produce anything of the same nature. He then asserts that God might, if he saw fit, communicate to a sinner the fact of his neighbor's conversion; and "it requires no higher sort of idea for a man to have the apprehension of his own conversion than to have the apprehension of his neighbor's impressed upon him." The inference is, that in the immediate communication of such facts there is nothing peculiar that a carnal mind cannot understand; hence the witness of the Spirit must be of a different character. This reasoning does not meet the point. It is evident that it is as impossible for one who does not repent of sin to receive directly from the Spirit an evidence of pardon, as it is for him to understand those gracious affections the Christian only knows. The proposition, so ably supported, that the carnal mind cannot discern the things of the Spirit, is Scriptural, and, of course, admitted. It is none the less true that there was a time when every converted person was under condemnation, a time when the mind, once carnal, became spiritual, and first began to understand the things of God, and to enjoy spiritual blessings. Edwards, so far as wo can learn, does not attempt to show how this change takes place, or how a mind once carnal, and receiving, as he asserts, no new faculties, is enabled to understand that which, previous to the simple acts of repenting and believing, it could not know. If the Spirit does not directly at first operate on it, how can it receive these peculiar spiritual perceptions? The important question to be considered is, Can these gracious affections spring up in the mind before an evidence of pardon and adoption is given? lie indirectly asserts the affirmative, but gives no proof; we, for reasons already given, maintain the negative, and assert that the Spirit first directly assures the penitent of his adoption, and then these gracious affections, with all the peculiarity he ascribes to them, follow. Several quotations are introduced from Stoddard, Shepard, and Flavel, confirming the author's views. All these eminent divines enforce strongly the importance of the evidence derived from the fruits of the Spirit, which they contend differs from that which is alledged to result from direct communication from the Spirit. This is admitted; but they do not show that there is no such direct communication, or that the fruits of the Spirit can be manifested unless an evidence first is given; neither do they show the necessity for giving so forced an interpretation as they present to certain plain passages of Scripture.

Edwards labors strenuously to show that all ideas of sound, words, forms, light, appearances of the Saviour, immediate suggestion of passages of Scripture to the mind, &c., have nothing spiritual or divine in their character. No assurance of conversion can be drawn from them. All these the devil can counterfeit and suggest, and there is nothing in them but what natural men are capable of.

Many, without doubt, having a vivid imagination, have, without reason, attributed their strong emotions to the Holy Spirit, and enthusiastically, yet falsely, supposed they had received a peculiar manifestation of the love of God, from an idea excited in their mind of a smiling countenance, or of some other pleasant outward appearance, or from an idea exerted in the imagination of pleasant words spoken or written, or from some pleasant bodily sensation. It may be true, as Edwards says, —

"Such sort of experiences and discoveries make a mighty uproar in both soul and body. And a very great part of the false religion that has been in the world from one age to another, consists in such discoveries as these, and in the affections that flow from them."

He enumerates many classes of enthusiasts and teachers of false doctrines that have flourished at different times, and speaks severely of the pernicious influence of these vagaries; but he has no warrant for the assertion that all alledged direct communications from the Spirit must be classed with these delusions, or that no confidence is to be placed in any supposed agency of the Spirit in suggesting passages of Scripture, and impressing them on the mind. Many, not justly chargeable with fanaticism, have asserted that they have received such impressions, and their testimony is not to be lightly regarded. Nor is it true, as Flavel asserts, that it is impossible to determine whether such a revelation is of God or a counterfeit of Satan. God, who in times past spake by dreams, visions, voices, and in divers manners, unto men, certainly can communicate his will through any of the ordinary modes of communication, or in any other way he may choose, and at the same time give assurance that the revelation has divine authority. This evidence neither Satan, nor any other being, can imitate. If the Spirit chooses to impress a promise or any other passage of Scripture on the mind of any one, he can assuredly do it in such a manner that he who receives the impression shall know that it comes from God. Not only is there no impossibility in this, but the word of God gives no authority for the assertion it is never done.

It should be remembered, however, that, in maintaining the doctrine of the direct witness of the Spirit, we lay no stress on any evidence of this kind, nor encourage any to expect it.

Dr. Dwight, in denying the direct witness of the Spirit, maintains that full assurance of faith is attainable by only a very small number. If the consciousness of possessing their characteristics were our only evidence that we are Christians, the difficulties he urges would be weighty, and instances of full assurance would be rare. We do not, however, think that his arguments against the general attainment of this state are consistent with his own theory. If the change experienced in regeneration is as entire and as instantaneous as he alledges, it would be difficult to explain why the subjects of it should not at once be conscious of this change.

He asserts, indeed, that this assurance is in mercy denied. He says: —

"I am of opinion that God, for wise and good reasons, administers his spiritual providence in such a manner as to leave his children destitute of the faith of assurance for their own good."

In support of this opinion his first argument is: — "It is perfectly plain that the evidence enjoyed by Christians is in no regular manner or degree proportioned to their real excellence of character. The proof of this position is complete, both from our own observation and from the history of experimental and practical religion given us in the lives of great multitudes of eminently good men."

The author seems to think the case "perfectly plain still the proof is not conclusive. It may be admitted that the experience of multitudes has been as asserted, but with the same positivencss we maintain that the experience of multitudes has been directly the reverse.

His second argument is thus stated: — "There is not, I believe, a single promise in the gospel to Christians, as such, of the faith of assurance; nor any direct intimation that they shall possess evidence of their piety proportioned to the degree in which it exists. All the promises of this nature seem to be indefinite; and to indicate that Christians shall enjoy some evidence of tins nature rather than to point out the degree in which it shall be enjoyed."

From the very nature of the evidence of justification, as set forth by Dr. Dwight, it must follow that this statement is erroneous. The fruits of the Spirit in the believer would at first be but imperfectly discerned, and the evidence of their existence would be weak; but as the Christian grows in grace, as these fruits and graces become more fully developed, his evidence of adoption must be stronger; and just in proportion to the degree of piety will be the strength of its evidence. '

His third argument against assurance is: — "There seems to be a plain and important reason why most Christiana should be left in some degree of uncertainty concerning this subject. In ail the earlier ages of their piety, and in all other cases in which it is not eminently vigorous, they would be prone, if they possessed high consolatory evidence, especially if they possessed full assurance of their renovation, imperfect as they always arc, to be at ease; to settle quietly down in that imperfect state; and in this manner to come far short of those religious attainments which now they actually make, and perhaps finally to fall away. As the case now is, their fears serve to quicken them, no less than their hopes; and by the influence of both, they continue to advance in holiness to the end of life Dwight's Theology, sermon xc, vol. iii, pp. 50, 51.

The objection here urged is a misapprehension of the subject. No one can have "full assurance of his renovation," and "remain at ease." This state of doubt is, moreover, inconsistent with the privileges of the Christian as set forth throughout the New Testament. Rest is promised those who come to Christ; this can only refer to freedom from doubts relative to acceptance and fears of condemnation. The believer is represented as rejoicing, as having peace with God, as having no condemnation. Nor has this doctrine a tendency to lead those who embrace it, "to continue to advance in holiness to the end of life." Its effect is the reverse. Believing that, while God assuredly has a people in the world, but few have an evidence of acceptance with him, they are led to quiet their fears, and to console themselves with the thought, that a state of darkness is the inevitable lot of the church. They remain in a state of inactivity, and strive not for the high attainments sought by such as consider this state of darkness one of condemnation. Many members of the churches in which the views of Dr. Dwight are received, are continually under the spirit of bondage, and live in despondency. President Mahan, in a sermon on "Fullness of Joy,"¹ makes the following statement: — "The ministers and elders of a leading presbytery had met some two or three years since for prayer and religious conversation. The brother who presided commenced the relation of Christian experience, saying, that the uniform character of his experience was that of despondency; and closed by saying that nothing but fear prevented his leaving the ministry. The other members, with the exception of the pastor and elders of a single church, who had embraced different views of the gospel from their brethren, followed in a similar strain." This is given as a fair representation of the state of a great part of the churches. It certainly is not the state that does honor to religion; and, we may add, it is not the state the churches would be in if the doctrine, that it is the duty of all to obtain a clear evidence of acceptance with God, were practically regarded.

Only one other objection to the doctrine of the direct witness of the Spirit will be noticed in this article. It is frequently said that those who profess to have this witness cannot describe it, or tell how the mental state which results from it differs from other mental states; in short, they cannot give an intelligible account of it to those who do not profess to have experienced it. Hence, it is argued, it must be the offspring of weakness and fanaticism. This is a popular argument with many who esteem themselves wise and philosophical, having a great regard for reason. But those who urge it wholly overlook the fact, that if the Spirit of God directly communicates a truth to the spirit of a believer, there must result in his mind a simple idea, differing from all others, and hence indescribable. In this respect it is like all other simple mental stales. No man can give an intelligible account of any emotion, affection, or simple idea, to any one who has not already an acquaintance with them. We cannot, indeed, directly communicate any simple ideas to others; all the knowledge derived from books and intercourse with men consists of complex ideas, formed by combinations of simple ideas already existing in our minds. This is, therefore, the weakest and most unphilosophical of all objections.

Since we commenced writing this article we saw the announcement of a work with the following imposing title-page: "The Doctrine of the Direct Witness of the Spirit, as taught by Rev. John Wesley, shown to be Unscriptural, False, Fanatical, and of Mischievous Tendency. By Frederic A. Ross. Published by Perkins & Purvis, Philadelphia." After diligent inquiry in Boston, New-York, and Philadelphia, we have not been able to obtain a copy. We have understood that it is circulated further south, being, perhaps, better suited to a southern latitude than elsewhere. It would afford us pleasure to examine the book, and to be convinced of error, if the author has really done what he so pompously announces. He is well known as a violent opposer of Methodism, and as the author of a series of articles first published in a southern periodical under the title of the "Great Iron Wheel," in which he compares class meetings to the Roman confessional. If a fair specimen of his candor and ability is given in those articles, we think the truth will not suffer much from his attacks. The doctrine of the direct witness of the Spirit is not a new doctrine. It has ever been in the church. It has been assaulted by skepticism, ridicule, and fanaticism, but it still survives; its influence is increasing; and we trust the time is not far distant when it will be generally and practically held as one of the important truths of the gospel.

Maiden, Dec. 3, 1847.

1) Published in the Oberlin Evangelist in 1841, and the Guide to Holiness, Feb., 1847.