What, then, is the reason that when we count one by one those who are exhibited to us in one nature, we ordinarily name them in the plural and speak of “so many men,” instead of calling them all one: while in the case of the Divine nature our doctrinal definition rejects the plurality of Gods, at once enumerating the Persons, and at the same time not admitting the plural signification? Perhaps one might seem to touch the point if he were to say (speaking offhand to straightforward people), that the definition refused to reckon Gods in any number to avoid any resemblance to the polytheism of the heathen, lest, if we too were to enumerate the Deity, not in the singular, but in the plural, as they are accustomed to do, there might be supposed to be also some community of doctrine. This answer, I say, if made to people of a more guileless spirit, might seem to be of some weight: but in the case of the others who require that one of the alternatives they propose should be established (either that we should not acknowledge the Godhead in Three Persons, or that, if we do, we should speak of those who share in the same Godhead as three), this answer is not such as to furnish any solution of the difficulty. And hence we must needs make our reply at greater length, tracing out the truth as best we may; for the question is no ordinary one.

Τί δήποτε τοίνυν ἐν τῇ καθ' ἡμᾶς συνηθείᾳ καθ' ἕνα τοὺς ἐν τῇ φύσει τῇ αὐτῇ δεικνυμένους ἀπαριθμήσαντες πληθυντικῶς ὀνομάζομεν, τοσούσδε λέγοντες τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ οὐχὶ ἕνα τοὺς πάντας, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς θείας φύσεως ἐκβάλλει τὸ πλῆθος τῶν θεῶν ὁ τοῦ δόγματος λόγος, καὶ ἀριθμῶν τὰς ὑποστάσεις καὶ τὴν πληθυντικὴν σημασίαν οὐ προσδεχόμενος; Ἔστι μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὸ πρόχειρον τοῦτο τοῖς ἁπλουστέροις εἰπόντα δόξαι τι λέγειν, ὅτι φεύγων ὁ λόγος τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς πολυθεΐας τὴν ὁμοιότητα θεοὺς ἐν πλήθει ἀριθμεῖν παρῃτήσατο, ὡς ἂν μή τις καὶ τῶν δογμάτων νομισθείη κοινότης, εἰ μὴ μοναδικῶς ἀλλὰ πληθυντικῶς καὶ παρ' ἡμῶν ἀριθμοῖτο τὸ θεῖον καθ' ὁμοιότητα τῆς παρ' αὐτοῖς συνηθείας. τοῦτο δὲ τοῖς μὲν ἀκεραιοτέροις λεγόμενον ἴσως ἄν τι δόξειε λέγεσθαι, ἐπὶ δέ γε τῶν τὸ ἕτερον αὐτοῖς τῆς προτάσεως στῆναι ζητούντων ἢ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν ἐπὶ τῶν τριῶν τὴν θεότητα ἢ τρεῖς πάντως ὀνομάζειν τοὺς τῆς αὐτῆς κοινωνοῦντας θεότητος, οὔπω τοιοῦτόν ἐστι τὸ εἰρημένον, οἷον ἐμποιῆσαι λύσιν τινὰ τοῦ ζητήματος. οὐκοῦν ἐπάναγκες διὰ πλειόνων ποιήσασθαι τὴν ἀπόκρισιν, ὅπως ἂν οἷόν τε ᾖ, τὸ ἀληθὲς ἀνιχνεύοντας: οὐ γὰρ περὶ τῶν τυχόντων ὁ λόγος.