XIX.  But to my mind, he says, those things are said to be connumerated and of the same essence of which the names also correspond, as Three Men, or Three gods, but not Three this and that.  What does this concession amount to?  It is suitable to one laying down the law as to names, not to one who is asserting the truth.  For I also will assert that Peter and James and John are not three or consubstantial, so long as I cannot say Three Peters, or Three Jameses, or Three Johns; for what you have reserved for common names we demand also for proper names, in accordance with your arrangement; or else you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you assume for yourself.  What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, This is the famous passage of the Witnesses in 1 John v. 8.  In some few later codices of the Vulgate are found the words which form verse 7 of our A.V.  But neither verse 7 nor these words are to be found in any Greek ms. earlier than the Fifteenth Century; nor are they quoted by any Greek Father, and by very few and late Latin ones.  They have been thought to be cited by S. Cyprian in his work on the Unity of the Church; and this citation, if a fact, would be a most important one, as it would throw back their reception to an early date.  But Tischendorf (Gk. Test., Ed. viii., ad. loc.) gives reasons for believing that the quotation is only apparent, and is really of the last clause of verse 8. the Spirit and the Water and the Blood?  Do you think he is talking nonsense?  First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial.  For who would assert that these are consubstantial?  Secondly, because he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down.  For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?  What have you to say about the Crab, which may mean either an animal, or an instrument, or a constellation?  And what about the Dog, now terrestrial, now aquatic, now celestial?  Do you not see that three crabs or dogs are spoken of?  Why of course it is so.  Well then, are they therefore of one substance?  None but a fool would say that.  So you see how completely your argument from connumeration has broken down, and is refuted by all these instances.  For if things that are of one substance are not always counted under one numeral, and things not of one substance are thus counted, and the pronunciation of the name i.e. Though the things referred to many differ essentially, yet if the name by which they are known is the same, one utterance of it with one numeral is enough to express a collection of them all. once for all is used in both cases, what advantage do you gain towards your doctrine?