On “Not Three Gods.” To Ablabius.

 Ye that are strong with all might in the inner man ought by rights to carry on the struggle against the enemies of the truth, and not to shrink from t

 In truth, the question you propound to us is no small one, nor such that but small harm will follow if it meets with insufficient treatment. For by th

 The argument which you state is something like this:—Peter, James, and John, being in one human nature, are called three men: and there is no absurdit

 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 o

 We say, then, to begin with, that the practice of calling those who are not divided in nature by the very name of their common nature in the plural, a

 Most men think that the word “Godhead” is used in a peculiar degree in respect of nature: and just as the heaven, or the sun, or any other of the cons

 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 com

 As we have to a certain extent shown by our statement that the word “Godhead” is not significant of nature but of operation, perhaps one might reasona

 Since, then, the character of the superintending and beholding power is one, in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as has been said in our previous argumen

 If, then, every good thing and every good name, depending on that power and purpose which is without beginning, is brought to perfection in the power

 It does not seem to me absolutely necessary, with a view to the present proof of our argument, to contend against those who oppose us with the asserti

 But if it pleases our adversaries to say that the significance of the term is not operation, but nature, we shall fall back upon our original argument

 As, then, the golden staters are many, but the gold is one, so too those who are exhibited to us severally in the nature of man, as Peter, James, and

 Indeed, it would be a lengthy task to set out in detail from the Scriptures those constructions which are inexactly expressed, in order to prove the s

 If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the P

 But in speaking of “cause,” and “of the cause,” we do not by these words denote nature (for no one would give the same definition of “cause” and of “n

 Thus, since on the one hand the idea of cause differentiates the Persons of the Holy Trinity, declaring that one exists without a Cause, and another i

Indeed, it would be a lengthy task to set out in detail from the Scriptures those constructions which are inexactly expressed, in order to prove the statement I have made; where, however, there is a risk of injury to any part of the truth, we no longer find in Scriptural phrases any indiscriminate or indifferent use of words. For this reason Scripture admits the naming of “men” in the plural, because no one is by such a figure of speech led astray in his conceptions to imagine a multitude of humanities, or supposes that many human natures are indicated by the fact that the name expressive of that nature is used in the plural. But the word “God” it employs studiously in the singular form only, guarding against introducing the idea of different natures in the Divine essence by the plural signification of “Gods.” This is the cause why it says, “the Lord our God is one Lord23    Deut. vi. 4.,” and also proclaims the Only-begotten God by the name of Godhead, without dividing the Unity into a dual signification, so as to call the Father and the Son two Gods, although each is proclaimed by the holy writers as God. The Father is God: the Son is God: and yet by the same proclamation God is One, because no difference either of nature or of operation is contemplated in the Godhead. For if (according to the idea of those who have been led astray) the nature of the Holy Trinity were diverse, the number would by consequence be extended to a plurality of Gods, being divided according to the diversity of essence in the subjects. But since the Divine, single, and unchanging nature, that it may be one, rejects all diversity in essence, it does not admit in its own case the signification of multitude; but as it is called one nature, so it is called in the singular by all its other names, “God,” “Good,” “Holy,” “Saviour,” “Just,” “Judge,” and every other Divine name conceivable: whether one says that the names refer to nature or to operation, we shall not dispute the point.

Καὶ μακρὸν ἂν εἴη τὰς σολοικοφανεῖς τοῦ λόγου συντάξεις ἐκ τῆς γραφῆς καταλέγειν εἰς τὴν τῶν εἰρημένων ἀπόδειξιν: ἐν οἷς δὲ κίνδυνός ἐστι βλαβῆναί τι τῆς ἀληθείας, οὐκέτι τὸ ἀβασάνιστόν τε καὶ ἀδιάφορον ἐν τοῖς γραφικοῖς εὑρίσκεται ῥήμασιν. διὰ τοῦτο ἀνθρώπους συγχωρεῖ πληθυντικῶς ὀνομάζειν διὰ τὸ μηδένα τῷ τοιούτῳ σχήματι τῆς φωνῆς εἰς πλῆθος ἀνθρωποτήτων ταῖς ὑπονοίαις ἐκπίπτειν, μηδὲ νομίζειν πολλὰς ἀνθρωπίνας φύσεις σημαίνεσθαι διὰ τὸ πληθυντικῶς ἐξαγγελθῆναι τὸ τῆς φύσεως ὄνομα: τὴν δὲ θεὸς φωνὴν παρατετηρημένως κατὰ τὸν ἑνικὸν ἐξαγγέλλει τύπον, τοῦτο προμηθουμένη, τὸ μὴ διαφόρους φύσεις ἐπὶ τῆς θείας οὐσίας ἐν τῇ πληθυντικῇ σημασίᾳ τῶν θεῶν παρεισάγεσθαι. διό φησι Κύριος ὁ θεὸς κύριος εἷς ἐστιν: ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν τῇ τῆς θεότητος ἀνακηρύσσει φωνῇ καὶ οὐ διαλύει τὸ ἓν εἰς δυϊκὴν σημασίαν, ὥστε δύο θεοὺς τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ὀνομάσαι, κἂν ἑκάτερος θεὸς παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων κηρύσσηται: ἀλλὰ θεὸς μὲν ὁ πατήρ, θεὸς δὲ ὁ υἱός, εἷς δὲ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κηρύγματι ὁ θεὸς διὰ τὸ μήτε φύσεως μήτε ἐνεργείας ἐνθεωρεῖσθαί τινα διαφορὰν τῇ θεότητι. εἰ γὰρ παρήλλακτο κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἠπατημένων ὑπόνοιαν ἐπὶ τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος ἡ φύσις, ἀκολούθως ἂν εἰς πλῆθος θεῶν ὁ ἀριθμὸς ἐπλατύνετο, τῇ ἑτερότητι τῆς οὐσίας τῶν ὑποκειμένων συνδιαιρούμενος. ἐπεὶ δὲ πᾶσαν ἀπωθεῖται τὴν κατ' οὐσίαν ἑτερότητα ἡ θεία τε καὶ ἁπλῆ καὶ ἀναλλοίωτος φύσις, ἕως ἂν μία ᾖ, πλήθους σημασίαν ἐφ' ἑαυτῆς οὐ προσίεται. ἀλλ' ὥσπερ μία λέγεται φύσις, οὕτω καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ἑνικῶς ὀνομάζεται, θεός, ἀγαθός, ἅγιος, σωτήρ, δίκαιος, κριτής, καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο τῶν θεοπρεπῶν ὀνομάτων νοεῖται, ὃ εἴτε πρὸς φύσιν εἴτε πρὸς ἐνέργειαν βλέπειν τις λέγει, οὐ διοισόμεθα.