§. 15.
R. B. I Confess your first on-set (so sudden, so causless against a feigned Ad∣versary) made me suspect you to be some pugnacissimum animal (as Dr. Twiss cals his Adversary) but your prosecution puts me out of doubt. 1. Had you confined these speeches of yours only to the Creatures Acts, you had said but as many others have done before you: But it is Gods acts that you speak of, as you ascertain us in your application [and if so, sure Immanent acts in God must needs inferre an alteration.] But indeed do you believe that God is compounded of Substance and Accident? Yea doth the contentious disposition so potently carry you on, that you dare speak in such confident language, as to say that it is [an accident questionless] which you attribute to God? What could Vorstius have said more? I thought you had concurred in opinion with your Brethren, that use to call Gods Immanent acts, as diversified and as distinct from his Es∣sence, only Extrinsick Denominations: But it seems you think otherwise (for a little time, while your hast doth hurry you that way per modum naturae.) 2. If you say, That you meant onely this much [Immanent acts are Accidents inherent in man: Therefore they inferre an alteration in God] You might so easily fore∣know that I would deny your Consequence, that me thinks so great a Disputant should not so drily have passed over the proof. I do not stick on the strangeness of the Conclusion it self, that [Immanent acts in God must needs inferre an alte∣ration;] which is against your self and all Divines, who maintain that there are Immanent acts in God. For I doubt not but your haste which the disputing itch provoked you to, caused you to put [Immanent acts] for new Immanent acts.] 3. But its strange, that you could bethink you of no answer that might be made to your Question [If an Accident, in what Subject?] when you know it is so common to deny that Inhesion is necessary to every Accident; And when you know that in this case an esse ab, or a dependant Egresse, is affirm∣ed sufficient by so many. I cited the words of Schibler to that sense even now, where he purposely opposeth that which you asserted, lib. 2. cap. 10. Tit. 3. n. 54, 55. I will not trouble you to rehearse them, it being a Book so farre be∣low you. Now to your Proof.