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

To conclude it is commonly said that infused Habits, infunduntur ad m• dum acquisitorum; and therefore the habit of Faith in the Intellect must be caused by an Impress of evidence: Though the Spirits supernatural act be moreover necessary, yet that makes not other causes unnecessary.

Rada, who concludes, that Theologia nostra non est evidens, gives but these two poor reasons (and I should as soon look for strong ones from him, as almost any man of his Religion or party) 1. Principia Conclusionum nostrae Theologiae non sunt nobis Evidentia, sed Condita: therefore nec Conclusiones, &c. I deny the Antecedent, which he proves nor; Veracitas Divina est formale objectum fidei, and that is evident, so is the Revelation, as is said. 2. He saith, Si conclusions nostrae Theologiae essent Evidentes, possemus convincere Infideles, ut fidem nostram susciperent, quia Evidentia convincit Intellectum. I answer, 1. The greatest Evidence supposeth other necessary concurrents for conviction, as a Will to understand, and divers other things which the wicked want. As it is not for want of Evidence of present Objects, but for want of good eyes that a blind man seeth not; so it is here. 2. Many Infidels do Believe without special Grace: though not so deeply and clearly as to prevail with their Wills for a through conversion; yea the Devils themselves believe. And whereas he adds Pauls words, 2 Cor. 5. We walk by Faith, not by sight; it speaks not of Rational Evidence, but of sensitive, and that we confess is wanting. Faith is the Evidence of things not seen, Heb. 11.1. Were it not for digressing too far, I would examine the 9. Quest. Mater. 14. de fide of Aquinas de Veritate, and show how ill he answers the nine Arguments, which he undertakes to answer, and how weak his own Arguments are for the proving that fides non potest esse de rebus scitis. And I should show that Faith is a kind of Science; or if we will distinguish it from Science, it must not be so widely as is usual, nor upon the reason that it wanteth Evidence. But I suppose he that will impartially read Aquinas ubi sup. will without any help see the weakness of his answers, and how he seemed to stagger himself.