Or are they co-ordinate, but not inter-dependent, that is, 'per harmonium praestabilitam'.
Ib.p.

4.
Now so far as we understand the nature of any being, we can certainly tell what is contrary and contradictious to its nature; as that accidents should subsist without 'their subject', &c.
That accidents should subsist (rather, exist) without a subject, may be a contradiction, but not that they exist without this or that subject.
The words 'their subject' are 'a petitio principii'.
Ib.
These and such like are the manifest absurdities and contradictions of Transubstantiation; and we know that they are so, because we know the nature of a body, &c.
Indeed! Were I either Romanist or Unitarian, I should desire no better than the admission of body having an 'esse' not in the 'percipi', and really subsisting, ([Greek: auto to chraema]) as the supporter of its accidents.

At all events, the Romanist, declaring the accidents to be those ordinarily impressed on the senses ([Greek: ta phainomena kai aisthaeta]) by bread and wine, does at the same time declare the flesh and blood not to be the [Greek: phainomena kai aisthaeta] so called, but the [Greek: noumena kai auta ta chraemata].

There is therefore no contradiction in the terms, however reasonless the doctrine may be, and however unnecessary the interpretation on which it is pretended.

I confess, had I been in Luther's place, I would not have rested so much of my quarrel with the Papists on this point; nor can I agree with our Arminian divines in their ridicule of Transubstantiation.