tota ei Patris substantia, eadem numero, communicata fuit._ See _Volkel. de vera Rel. l._ 5. _c._ 12. upon which consequence well discerned, your predecessors were constrained to desert Arianism, or semi-Arianism, and to take in other respects a more desperate way, of denying any pre-existence of our Lord before his Incarnation: To return then to our business. All Scripture being equally true; you know, no Text thereof can be pronounced clear in such a sense, which others, as clear contradict. The non-consideration of which by the passionate or unlearned, is the mother of all errors. The Texts therefore that you produce here so manifest on your side, that they may not contradict many more others as clear against you, are to be understood to speak of our Lord only according to his _Incarnation_, _Messias_ and _Mediatorship_, in which he hath an inferiority to the Father and is our _Lord_, by a special Redemption with his blood, in another manner, than He together with his Father, in the same essence, is the one true God. _Soc._ All the Texts you have mentioned have been diligently considered, and answered by our party. _Prot._ And your Answers are new, forced, absurd, as may clearly appear to any rational and indifferent person perusing _Volkelius_ l. 5. from the 10. to the 14. Chapter. But to omit this dispute, as now beside my purpose. If your sense of the Scriptures, you have urged, be so manifest and clear, as you pretend; how comes so great a part of the Christian world (doubtless rational men), in the sense of these very Scriptures so much to differ from you? Therefore here I cannot but still suppose in you the defect of a _due industry_, well comparing these Scriptures, and void of pride, passion, and other interest.