Chapter V.--Proof that God is one and not many.
We have, then, adequately demonstrated that there is a God, and that His essence is incomprehensible. But that God is one [1453] and not many is no matter of doubt to those who believe in the Holy Scriptures. For the Lord says in the beginning of the Law: I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt. Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me [1454] . And again He says, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord [1455] . And in Isaiah the prophet we read, For I am the first God and I am the last, and beside Me there is no God. Before Me there was not any God, nor after Me will there be any God, and beside Me there is no God [1456] . And the Lord, too, in the holy gospels speaketh these words to His Father, And this is life eternal, that they may know Thee the only true God [1457] . But with those that do not believe in the Holy Scriptures we will reason thus.
The Deity is perfect [1458] , and without blemish in goodness, and wisdom, and power, without beginning, without end, everlasting, uncircumscribed [1459] , and in short, perfect in all things. Should we say, then, that there are many Gods, we must recognise difference among the many. For if there is no difference among them, they are one rather than many. But if there is difference among them, what becomes of the perfectness? For that which comes short of perfection, whether it be in goodness, or power, or wisdom, or time, or place, could not be God. But it is this very identity in all respects that shews that the Deity is one and not many [1460] .
Again, if there are many Gods, how can one maintain that God is uncircumscribed? For where the one would be, the other could not be [1461] .
Further, how could the world be governed by many and saved from dissolution and destruction, while strife is seen to rage between the rulers? For difference introduces strife [1462] . And if any one should say that each rules over a part, what of that which established this order and gave to each his particular realm? For this would the rather be God. Therefore, God is one, perfect, uncircumscribed, maker of the universe, and its preserver and governor, exceeding and preceding all perfection.
Moreover, it is a natural necessity that duality should originate in unity [1463] .
[1453] Various reading, but that He is one.
[1454] Exod. xx. 2, 3.
[1455] Deut. vi. 4.
[1456] Isai. xliii. 10.
[1457] St. John xvii. 3.
[1458] See Thomas Aquin. I. quæst. 11, Art. 4; also cf. Book iv., c. 21 beneath. The question of the unity of the Deity is similarly dealt with by those of the Fathers who wrote against the Marcionites and the Manichæans, and by Athenagoras.
[1459] Or, infinite; aperigrapton.
[1460] Infr. lib. iv. c. 21.
[1461] Greg. Nyss., Prol. Catech.
[1462] Greg. Naz., Orat. 35.
[1463] Cf. Dionys., De div. nom., c. 5, 13.
Chapter VI.--Concerning the Word and the Son of God: a reasoned proof.
So then this one and only God is not Wordless [1464] . And possessing the Word, He will have it not as without a subsistence, nor as having had a beginning, nor as destined to cease to be. For there never was a time when God was not Word: but He ever possesses His own Word, begotten of Himself, not, as our word is, without a subsistence and dissolving into air, but having a subsistence in Him and life and perfection, not proceeding out of Himself but ever existing within Himself [1465] . For where could it be, if it were to go outside Him? For inasmuch as our nature is perishable and easily dissolved, our word is also without subsistence. But since God is everlasting and perfect, He will have His Word subsistent in Him, and everlasting and living, and possessed of all the attributes of the Begetter. For just as our word, proceeding as it does out of the mind, is neither wholly identical with the mind nor utterly diverse from it (for so far as it proceeds out of the mind it is different from it, while so far as it reveals the mind, it is no longer absolutely diverse from the mind, but being one in nature with the mind, it is yet to the subject diverse from it), so in the same manner also the Word of God [1466] in its independent subsistence is differentiated [1467] from Him from Whom it derives its subsistence [1468] : but inasmuch as it displays in itself the same attributes as are seen in God, it is of the same nature as God. For just as absolute perfection is contemplated in the Father, so also is it contemplated in the Word that is begotten of Him.
[1464] alogon; without Word, or, without Reason.
[1465] Greg. Nyss., Catech., c. 1.
[1466] In R. 2427 is added, Who is the Son.'
[1467] dieretai, i.e. distinguished from the Father. Objection is taken to the use of such a verb as suggestive of division. It is often employed, however, by Greg. Naz. (e.g. Orat. 34) to express the distinction of persons. In many passages of Gregory and other Fathers the noun diairesis is used to express the distinction of persons. In many passages of Gregory and other Fathers the noun diairesis is used to express the distinction of one thing from another: and in this sense it is opposed both to the Sabellian confusion and the Arian division.
[1468] Reading hupostasin. Various reading, huparxin, existence.