But some one will say that the proof of our argument does not yet regard the question. For even if it were granted that the name of “Godhead” is a common name of the nature, it would not be established that we should not speak of “Gods”: but by these arguments, on the contrary, we are compelled to speak of “Gods”: for we find in the custom of mankind that not only those who are partakers14    Reading κοινωνοὺς for κοινωνίας, with Oehler. in the same nature, but even any who may be of the same business, are not, when they are many, spoken of in the singular; as we speak of “many orators,” or “surveyors,” or “farmers,” or “shoemakers,” and so in all other cases. If, indeed, Godhead were an appellation of nature, it would be more proper, according to the argument laid down, to include the Three Persons in the singular number, and to speak of “One God,” by reason of the inseparability and indivisibility of the nature: but since it has been established by what has been said, that the term “Godhead” is significant of operation, and not of nature, the argument from what has been advanced seems to turn to the contrary conclusion, that we ought therefore all the more to call those “three Gods” who are contemplated in the same operation, as they say that one would speak of “three philosophers” or “orators,” or any other name derived from a business when those who take part in the same business are more than one. I have taken some pains, in setting forth this view, to bring forward the reasoning on behalf of the adversaries, that our decision may be the more firmly fixed, being strengthened by the more elaborate contradictions. Let us now resume our argument.

Ἀλλ' οὔπω τις ἐρεῖ πρὸς τὸ ζητούμενον βλέπειν τὴν κατασκευὴν τοῦ λόγου. οὐδὲ γὰρ εἰ δοθείη κοινὴ τῆς φύσεως ἡ κλῆσις τῆς θεότητος εἶναι, ἤδη τὸ μὴ δεῖν λέγειν θεοὺς διὰ τούτου κατεσκευάσθη. τοὐναντίον μὲν οὖν ἐκ τούτων ἀναγκαζόμεθα μᾶλλον λέγειν θεούς. εὑρίσκομεν γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης συνηθείας οὐ μόνον τοὺς τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως κοινωνοὺς ἀλλά, κἄν τινες τοῦ αὐτοῦ ὦσιν ἐπιτηδεύματος, οὐχ ἑνικῶς τοὺς πολλοὺς μνημονευομένους καθό φαμεν ῥήτοράς τε πολλοὺς καὶ γεωμέτρας γεωργούς τε καὶ σκυτοτόμους καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ὡσαύτως. καὶ εἰ μὲν φύσεως ἦν ἡ τῆς θεότητος προσηγορία, μᾶλλον ἂν εἶχε καιρὸν κατὰ τὸν προαποδοθέντα λόγον ἑνικῶς τὰς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις περιλαμβάνειν καὶ ἕνα θεὸν λέγειν διὰ τὸ τῆς φύσεως ἄτμητόν τε καὶ ἀδιαίρετον: ἐπεὶ δὲ κατεσκευάσθη διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων ἐνέργειαν σημαίνειν καὶ οὐχὶ φύσιν τὸ τῆς θεότητος ὄνομα, περιτρέπεταί πως πρὸς τοὐναντίον ἐκ τῶν κατασκευαζομένων ὁ λόγος, ὡς δεῖν ταύτῃ μᾶλλον λέγειν τρεῖς θεοὺς τοὺς ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἐνεργείᾳ θεωρουμένους: ὥς φασι τρεῖς λέγεσθαι φιλοσόφους ἢ ῥήτορας ἢ εἴ τί ἐστιν ἕτερον ἐξ ἐπιτηδεύματος ὄνομα, ὅταν πλείους ὦσιν οἱ τοῦ αὐτοῦ συμμετέχοντες. ταῦτα φιλοπονώτερον ἐξειργασάμην, τὸν τῶν ὑπεναντίων ἀνθυποφέρων λόγον, ὡς ἂν βεβαιότερον ἡμῖν παγείη τὸ δόγμα ταῖς εὐτονωτέραις τῶν ἀντιθέσεων κρατυνόμενον. οὐκοῦν ἐπαναληπτέος πάλιν ὁ λόγος.