Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression…

nisi enim ille sciat rationem qua nititur esse certam, ejus assensus nullo modo erit certus & stabilis. Now he confesseth that the object of Science must be evident: and here he saith, nisi scia• rationem esse certam. If he must scire certitudinem, then he must scire eviden•iam, if all objects of science are evident. And what is it to know, but to discern or understand a discernible, cognoscible, or evident object? How then can we scire certitudinem, nisi sciendo aliquam Certitudinis Evidentiam? I conceive ⟨p. 135⟩therefore that it is true proper evidence which is allowed to Divine Faith, under this name of Certainty, even by them that say it is not evident; I know what a stir the School-men make about this point. The Question is not only de Evidentia sidei, but de Evidenti Theologie also, which they distinguish from fides, as habitus primorum principi•rum, & scientia Conclusionum are distinct. Though the most of the School-men go the other way, yet some (as Henricus Quodlib. 12. q. 2. and Beza Archiepisc. Hispalens. qu. 1. prologue. art. 3. not. 3.4.) do affirm our Theology to have Evidence. Aquinas and his followers maintain it to be a Science; but that is, because they suppose it to be subalternate to the Science of God and the Glorified. And therefore Aquin. 22. qu. 1. art. 5. c. denieth those things to be scita quae communiter & simpliciter s•b fide c•ntinentur, and that because omnis scientia habetur per aliqua principia per se nota, & per consequens visa. But I think that per consequens visa, will not hold without exceptions and limitations; and I suppose it to be ex principiis per se notis originally: Yet in the foregoing Article, Aquinas grants that though quae subsunt fidei Considerata in speciali non possunt esse simul visa & Credita, tamen in generali sub communi ratione Credibilis sic visa sunt ab eo qui Credit. Non enim Crederet nisi videret ea esse Credenda, vel propter Evidentiam signorum vel propter aliquid hujusmodi. And I easily confess that matters of mere supernatural Revelation are not in themselves evident, nor ab Evidentia ipsius rei must we prove it; But that we have Evidence of the Verity of the Conclusions, by the Evidence of the great Principles and the Connection, I take yet for sound Doctrine. The Scotists in opposition to the Thomists make much a doe on the question Virum Theologia sit Scientia: