A27017:539
The Saints' Everlasting Rest
The saints everlasting rest, or, A treatise of the blessed state of the saints in their enjoyment of God in glory wherein is showed its excellency and certainty, the misery of those that lose it, the way to attain it, and assurance of it, and how to live in the continual delightful forecasts of it and now published by Richard Baxter ...The saints everlasting rest, or, A treatise of the blessed state of the saints in their enjoyment of God in glory wherein is shewed its excellency and certainty, the misery of those that lose it, the way to attain it, and assurance of it, and how to live in the continual delightful forecasts of it and now published by Richard Baxter ...
London: printed by Rob. White for Thomas Underhil and Francis Tyton, 1650
THE SAINTS Everlasting REST. PART II. › Chapter 4 › Section 2
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
SECT. II.1
- 1§ 2.
Toward the confirmation of the Minor, therefore I shall first lay these grounds.1 That there is so much certainty in some Humane Testimony, that may exclude all doubting, or cause of doubting; or there is some Testimony immediately Humane, which yet may truly be said to be Divine. 2That such Testimony we have of the *Miracles mentioned in Scripture. If these two be cleared, the Minor will stand firm, and the main work here will be done. First, I will therefore show you that there is such a certainty in some Humane Testimony. Both experience and Reason will confirm this. First, I would desire any rational man to tell me, Whether he that never was at London, at Paris, or at Rome, may not be certain by a Humane faith, that there are such Cities? For my own part, I think it as certain to me, nay more certain then that which I see: and I should sooner ⟨p. 194⟩question my own sight alone, then the eyes and credit of so many thousands in such a case. And I think the Sceptics Arguments against the certainty of sense, to be as strong as any that can be brought against the certainty of such a Testimony. Is it not somewhat more then probable, think you, to the multitudes that never saw either Parliament or King, that yet there is such an Assembly and such a person? May we not be fully certain that there was such a person as King James, as Queen Elizabeth, as Queen Mary, &c. here in England? Yea, that there was such a man as William the Conqueror? May we not be certain also that he conquered England? With many other of his actions? The like may be said of Julius Caesar, of Alexander the Great, &c. Sure those that charge all humane Testimony with uncertainty, do hold their lands then upon an uncertain tenure. Secondly, It may be proved also by reason. For if 1. the first testifiers may infallibly know it, and 2. also by an infallible means transmit it to posterity, and 3. have no intent to deceive, then their Testimony may be an infallible Testimony. But all these three may be easily proved (I had thought to have laid down here the Rules by which a certain Humane Testimony may be discerned from an uncertain, but you may easily gather them from what I shall lay down for the confirmation of these three Positions.) For the first, I suppose none will question, whether the first testifiers might infallibly know the truth of what they testify?