96                                 OF A PLURALITY IN THE GODHEAD, &c,

BOoK I.

three, inasmuch as they, are not only said to be one, that
is, one God; and their witness is called the witness of
God, v 9. but of a Trinity of Persons, in the unity of
the divine essence; unity of essence, or nature, is asserted
and secured, by their being said to be one; which re-
spects not a mere unity of testimony, but of nature; for
it is not said of them, as of the witnesses on earth, that
they agree in one; but that they are one. And they may
be called a Trinity, inasmuch as they are three; and a
Trinity of PersonS, since they are not only spoken of as
distinct from each other, the Father fi'om the Word and
Holy Ghost, the Word from the Father and the Holy
Ghost, and the Holy Ghost from the Father and 'the
Word; but a personal action is ascribed to each of them;
for they are all three said to be testifiers, or to bear re-
cord; which cannot be said of mere names and characters;
nor be understood of..one person under different names;
for if the one living and true God only bears record, first
under the character of a Father, theu under the character
Of a Son, or the Word, and then under the character 6f
the Holy Ghost; testimony, indeed, would be bore three
times, but there would be but one testifier, and not three,
as the apostle asserts. Suppose one man should, for
one man may bear the characters, and stand in the rela--
tions of father, son, and master; of a father to a child
of his own; of a son, Iris father being living; and of a
master to servants imder him; suppose, I say, this man
should come into a court of judicature, and be admitted
to bear testimony in an affair there depending, and should
give his testimony first under the character of a thther,
then under the character of a son, and next under the
character of a master; every one will conclude, that
though here was a testimony three times bore, yet there
was but one, and not three, that bore record. This text
is so glaring a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, that
the enemies of it have done all they can to weaken its
authority, and have pushed hard to extirpate it from a
place in the sacred writings. They object, that it is
wanting in the Syriac version; that the old Latin inter-
preter has it not; that it is not to be found in many
Greek manuscripts; and is not quoted by the ancient
fathers who wrote against the Arians, when it might have
been of great service to them. To all which it may be
replied; that as to the Syriac version, though an ancient
one, it is but a version, and till of late appeared a very
defective one; the history of the adulterous woman in
the eighth of John, the second epistle of Peter, the
second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude,
and the book of Revelatibn, were all wanting, till re-
stored from a copy of archbishop Usher's, by De Dieu
and Dr. Pocock; and who also, from an Eastern copy,
has supplied the version with this text, so that now it
stands in it. And as to the old Latin interpreter, it is
certain that it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts
of an early date, and is in the vulgate Latin version of
the London Polyglot Bible; and the Latin translation
which bears the name of Jerom has it; and who, in an
episle to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of those
canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it, by

:z Vid. Wittichii Theolog. Pacific. c. 17. s. e54.
~a Vid. Socrat. Eccl. tlist. 1.7. c. 3~.
~4 Respons. contr. Arian- Obj. 10. et de Trinitate, c. 4.
ts Contr. Ariare, p. 109. de Unit. Deitat. Trin. ad Theoph. 1. l. p. 399.

unthithful interpreters. As to its being wanting in some
Greek manuscripts, it need only be said, it is found in
many others; it is in the Complutensian edition, the
compilers of which made use of various copies; out of
sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, ~fine of them
had it; and it is also said to be in an old British copy.
As. to its not being quoted by some of the ancient fathers,
this can be no proof of its not being genuine; since it
might be in the original copy, and not in that used by
them, through the c. arelessness aud unfaithfulness of tran-
scribers; or through copies erased falling into their hands,
such as had been corrupted before the times of Arius,
even by Artemon, or Iris disciples, who lived in the
second century; who held that Christ was a mere man;
by ,,vhom it is said {12}, this passage was erased; and certain
it is, that this epistle was very early corrupted; as the
ancient writers t --~ ,3
tesuxy: or it might be in the copies used
by the fathers, and yet not quoted by them, having scrip-
tures enow withont it, .to prove and defend the doctrine
of it; and yet, after all, it appears plainly to be quoted
by many of them; by Fulgentius {14}, in the begii. ming of
the sixth century, against the Arians, without any scruple
or hesitation: and Jerom, as before observed, has it in
his translation, made iu the latter end of the fourth cen-
tury: and it is quoted by Athauasius {15}, about the middle
of it; and before him by Cyprian {16}, in the middle of the
third century: and is manifestly referred to by Tertul-
lian {17}, in the beginning of it; and by Clemens of Alex-
andria % towards the end of the second century: so that
it is to be traced up within a hundred years, or less,
the writing or' the epistle; which is enough to satisfy any
one of the genuineness of this text. And, besides, it
should be observed, that there never was any dispute
about it, until Erasmus left it out in the first edition of
Iris translation of the New Testament; and yet he him-
self, upon the credit of the old British copy, before
mentioned, put it into another e›!ition of his translation.
Yea, the Socinians themselves have not dared to leave it
out iu their German Racovian version, A. C. 1630. To
which may be added, that the context requires it; the
connection with the preceding verse shows it, as well as
its opposition to, and distinction fi'om, the following
verse; and in v 9. is a plain reference to the divine wit-
nesses in this; for the inference in it would not be' clear,
if there was no mention before made of a aivine testi-
mony. But I shall not rest the proof of the doctrine
of the Trinity on this single passage; but on the whole
current and universal consent of scripture, where it is
written as with a sun-beam; according to which, a Trinity
of Persons in the Godhead appears in the works of
creation, providence, and grace; in all things respecting
the office and work of Christ; in God's acts of grace
towards and upon Iris people; and in their worship and
duties of religion enjoined them, and practised by them.
1. In the works of creation:. as by these the eternal
power and godhead are made .manliest, so in them are
plain traces of a Trinity of persons; that God the Father
made the heavens, earth and sea, and all that are. in them,
tinder which character the aposties addressed him as dis-

~6 De Unitat. Eccles. p. '255. et in Ep. 73. ad Iubajan. p. 18~t.
~ Adv. Praxeam, c. ~5.
,s Pa~dagog. I. 3. in fine.