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

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 John, are many, yet the man in them is one. And although Scripture extends the word according to the plural significance, where it says “men swear by the greater22    Heb. vi. 16.,” and “sons of men,” and in other phrases of the like sort, we must recognize that in using the custom of the prevailing form of speech, it does not lay down a law as to the propriety of using the words in one way or another, nor does it say these things by way of giving us instruction about phrases, but uses the word according to the prevailing custom, with a view only to this, that the word may be profitable to those who receive it, taking no minute care in its manner of speech about points where no harm can result from the phrases in respect of the way they are understood.

ὥσπερ τοίνυν πολλοὶ μὲν οἱ χρύσεοι στατῆρες, χρυσὸς δὲ εἷς, οὕτω καὶ πολλοὶ μὲν οἱ καθ' ἕκαστον ἐν τῇ φύσει τοῦ ἀνθρώπου δεικνύμενοι, οἷον Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάννης, εἷς δὲ ἐν τούτοις ὁ ἄνθρωπος. κἂν ἡ γραφὴ πλατύνῃ τὸ ὄνομα κατὰ πληθυντικὴν σημασίαν ἐν τῷ λέγειν Ἄνθρωποι κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύουσι καὶ Υἱοὶ ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα, γνωστέον ὅτι τῇ συνηθείᾳ τῆς ἐπικρατούσης διαλέκτου κεχρημένη οὐχὶ νομοθετεῖ τὸ δεῖν οὕτως ἢ ὡς ἑτέρως κεχρῆσθαι τοῖς ῥήμασιν οὐδέ τινα τεχνικὴν περὶ ῥημάτων διδασκαλίαν ποιουμένη ταῦτα διέξεισιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν ἐπικρατοῦσαν συνήθειαν χρῆται τῷ λόγῳ, πρὸς τοῦτο βλέπουσα μόνον, ὅπως ἂν ἐπωφελὴς γένοιτο τοῖς δεχομένοις ὁ λόγος, οὐδὲν ἀκριβολογουμένη κατὰ τὴν λέξιν, ἐν οἷς οὐδεμία βλάβη κατὰ διάνοιαν ἐκ τῶν ῥημάτων συνίσταται.