1.  Are they co-ordinate as agent and re-agent;

2.  Or is the one subordinate to the other, as effect to cause, and which is the cause or ground, which the effect or product;

3.  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.  The most rational doctrine is perhaps, for some purposes, at least, the ’rem credimus, modum nescimus’; next to that, the doctrine of the Sacramentaries, that it is ‘signum sub rei nomine’, as when we call a portrait of Caius, Caius.  But of all the remainder, Impanation, Consubstantiation, and the like, I confess that I should prefer the Transubstantiation of the Pontifical doctors.

Ib. p. 6.

The proof of this comes to this one point, that we may have sufficient evidence of the being of a thing whose nature we cannot conceive and comprehend:  he who will not own this, contradicts the sense and experience of mankind; and he who confesses this, and yet rejects the belief of that which he has good evidence for, merely because he cannot conceive it, is a very absurd and senseless infidel.

Here again, though a zealous believer of the truth asserted, I must object to the Bishop’s logic.  None but the weakest men have objected to the Tri-unity merely because the ‘modus’ is above their comprehension:  for so is the influence of thought on muscular motion; so is life itself; so in short