# Theological Oration 5: On the Holy Spirit - Author: [Gregory of Nazianzus](https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/authors/gregory-of-nazianzus/) - Latin title: *Oratio 31, De Spiritu Sancto* - Date: 380 (probable) - Source: Arthur James Mason, ed., The Five Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899) (Greek text: Arthur James Mason, ed., The Five Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899), digitized by the First Thousand Years of Greek project (Open Greek and Latin), CC BY-SA 4.0) - Translation: Claude, from the original text, unless a passage says otherwise; each passage below gives the translator - Editions and translations: Paul Gallay, ed., Grégoire de Nazianze, Discours 27-31 (Discours théologiques), Sources Chrétiennes 250 (Paris: Cerf, 1978) - Work page: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/ - Passages: 33 ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 1 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-1 - Source: Mason, 145–146 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Having defended the Son, Gregory turns to those who reject the Holy Spirit’s Godhead as unscriptural. ### Greek text Ὁ μὲν δὴ περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ λόγος τοιοῦτος· καὶ οὕτω διαπέφευγε τοὺς λιθάζοντας, διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν. ὁ λόγος γὰρ οὐ λιθάζεται, λιθοβολεῖ δέ, ὅταν ἐθέλῃ, καὶ σφενδονᾷ θηρία, λόγους κακῶς τῷ ὄρει προσβαίνοντας. τί δʼ ἂν εἴποις, φασί, περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος; πόθεν ἡμῖν ἐπεισάγεις ξένον θεὸν καὶ ἄγραφον; τοῦτο ἤδη καὶ οἱ περὶ τὸν υἱὸν μετριάζοντες. ὅπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ὁδῶν εὑρεῖν ἐστὶ καὶ τῶν ποταμῶν, σχίζονταί τε ἀπʼ ἀλλήλων, καὶ εἰς ἄλληλα συνάγονται· τοῦτο κἀνταῦθα συμβαίνει διὰ τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς ἀσεβείας, καὶ τοὺς τὰ ἄλλα διεστῶτας ἐν ἄλλοις συμφέρεσθαι, ὥστε μηδὲ γινώσκειν καθαρῶς δύνασθαι τὸ συμφέρον ἢ τὸ μαχόμενον. ### English translation (Claude) Such, then, is our account of the Son; and so it has escaped those who would stone it, passing through their midst. For the Word is not stoned, but stones when he wishes, and slings at beasts, words that approach the mountain wickedly. “But what would you say,” they ask, “about the Holy Spirit? Where do you get this strange God, not found in Scripture, that you bring in on us?” This is said now even by those who are moderate about the Son. For as one finds with roads and rivers, which split off from one another and join together again, so it happens here too, through the abundance of impiety: people who disagree on other points agree on this one, so that one cannot clearly tell where they agree and where they conflict. ### Scripture references - John 8:59: allusion, high confidence - Luke 4:30: allusion, high confidence - Exod 19:13: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - John 8:59 and Luke 4:30; Exod 19:12–13 (beasts stoned at the mountain, compare Or. 28.2). The objection is set in quotation marks; “moderate about the Son” refers to those who accept the Son’s Godhead but not the Spirit’s. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 1 (Mason, 145–146; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-1). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 2 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-2 - Source: Mason, 146–147 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Gregory admits the difficulty of the subject and leaves to others a word study of “spirit” and “holy,” turning directly to the argument. ### Greek text ἔχει μὲν οὖν τι καὶ δυσχερὲς ὁ περὶ τοῦ πνεύματος λόγος, οὐ μόνον ὅτι ἐν τοῖς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ λόγοις ἀποκαμόντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι θερμότερον τῷ πνεύματι προσπαλαίουσι· χρὴ γάρ τι πάντως αὐτοὺς ἀσεβεῖν, ἢ οὐδὲ βιωτός ἐστιν αὐτοῖς ὁ βίος· ἀλλʼ ὅτι καὶ ἡμεῖς τῷ πλήθει τῶν ζητημάτων ἀποκναισθέντες ταὐτὸ πάσχομεν τοῖς κακοσίτοις, οἱ ἐπειδὰν πρός τι τῶν βρωμάτων ἀηδισθῶσι, πρὸς πάντα λόγον ὁμοίως, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνοι πρὸς τροφήν, δυσχεραίνομεν. ὅμως διδότω τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ ὁ λόγος δραμεῖται, καὶ ὁ θεὸς δοξασθήσεται. τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐπιμελῶς ἐξετάζειν καὶ διαιρεῖσθαι, ποσαχῶς ἢ τὸ πνεῦμα ἢ τὸ ἅγιον παρὰ τῇ θείᾳ γραφῆ νοεῖται καὶ λέγεται, μετὰ τῶν προσφόρων τῇ θεωρίᾳ μαρτυριῶν, καὶ ὅ τι παρὰ ταῦτα ἰδιοτρόπως τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν συνημμένον, λέγω δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἑτέροις παρήσομεν, οἲ καὶ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἡμῖν ταῦτα πεφιλοσοφήκασιν, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡμεῖς ταῦτα ἐκείνοις. αὐτοὶ δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἑξῆς τοῦ λόγου τρεψόμεθα. ### English translation (Claude) The account of the Spirit has a special difficulty, not only because people, worn out by arguments about the Son, wrestle more hotly against the Spirit (for they must be impious about something, or life is not worth living for them), but also because we ourselves, exhausted by the number of questions, suffer what those with poor appetites suffer: when they have taken a dislike to one food, they are put off all food alike, and we are put off every argument in the same way. Still, may the Spirit grant it, and the word will run, and God will be glorified. To examine carefully and distinguish in how many senses “spirit” or “holy” is understood and used in the divine Scripture, with testimonies suited to the inquiry, and in what special sense the combination of the two, I mean “Holy Spirit,” is used besides, we will leave to others, who have worked this out for themselves and for us, as we have for them. We ourselves will turn to what follows in our discourse. ### Scripture references - 2 Thess 3:1: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - 2 Thess 3:1. The “others” are probably Basil (On the Holy Spirit) and like-minded writers; uncertain. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 2 (Mason, 146–147; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-2). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 3 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-3 - Source: Mason, 147–148 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Applying John 1:9 in turn to Father, Son, and Spirit, Gregory proclaims one light and one God in three. ### Greek text Οἱ μὲν οὖν, ὡς ξένον τινὰ θεὸν καὶ παρέγγραπτον εἰσαγόντων ἡμῶν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, δυσχεραίνοντες, καὶ σφόδρα προπολεμοῦντες τοῦ γράμματος, ἴστωσαν ἐκεῖ φοβούμενοι φόβον, οὗ μὴ ἔστι φόβος, καὶ σαφῶς γινωσκέτωσαν ὅτι ἔνδυμα τῆς ἀσεβείας ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἡ φιλία τοῦ γράμματος, ὡς δειχθήσεται μικρὸν ὕστερον, ἐπειδὰν τὰς ἐνστάσεις αὐτῶν εἰς δύναμιν διελέγξωμεν. ἡμεῖς δὲ τοσοῦτον θαρροῦμεν τῇ θεότητι τοῦ πνεύματος, ὃ πρεσβεύομεν, ὥστε καὶ τῆς θεολογίας ἐντεῦθεν ἀρξόμεθα, τὰς αὐτὰς τῇ τριάδι φωνὰς ἐφαρμόζοντες, κἄν τισι δοκῇ τολμηρότερον. ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ὁ πατήρ. ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ὁ υἱός. ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ὁ ἄλλος παράκλητος. ἦν, καὶ ἢν, καὶ ἦν· ἀλλʼ ἓν ἦν. φῶς, καὶ φῶς, καὶ φῶς· ἀλλʼ ἓν φῶς, εἷς θεός. τοῦτό ἐστιν ὃ καὶ Δαβὶδ πρότερον, λέγων· Ἐν τῷ φωτί σου ὀψόμεθα φῶς. καὶ νῦν ἡμεῖς καὶ τεθεάμεθα καὶ κηρύσσομεν, ἐκ φωτὸς τοῦ πατρὸς φῶς καταλαμβάνοντες τὸν υἱὸν ἐν φωτὶ τῷ πνεύματι, σύντομον καὶ ἀπέριττον τῆς τριάδος θεολογίαν. ὁ ἀθετῶν ἀθετείτω, ὁ ἀνομῶν ἀνομείτω· ἡμεῖς ὂ νενοήκαμεν, καὶ κηρύσσομεν. ἐπʼ ὄρος ὑψηλὸν ἀναβησόμεθα καὶ βοήσομεν, εἰ μὴ κάτωθεν ἀκουοίμεθα. ὑψώσομεν τὸ πνεῦμα, οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα. εἰ δὲ καὶ φοβηθησόμεθα, ἡσυχάζοντες, οὐ κηρύσσοντες· ### English translation (Claude) Those who are indignant with us for bringing in the Holy Spirit as a strange God, falsely enrolled, and who fight hard for the letter, should know that they are afraid where there is no fear; and let them understand clearly that their love of the letter is a cloak for their impiety, as will be shown a little later, when we refute their objections as far as we can. For our part, we have such confidence in the Godhead of the Spirit whom we worship that we will begin our theology from here, applying the same words to the three, even if some think it too bold. “He was the true light that enlightens every man coming into the world”: the Father. “He was the true light that enlightens every man coming into the world”: the Son. “He was the true light that enlightens every man coming into the world”: the other Advocate. Was, and was, and was; but one was. Light, and light, and light; but one light, one God. This is what David long ago perceived when he said, “In your light we shall see light.” And now we have both seen and proclaim it, grasping from the light of the Father the light of the Son in the light of the Spirit: a concise and simple theology of the Trinity. Let him who rejects reject, let the lawless be lawless; what we have understood, we also proclaim. We will go up a high mountain and cry out, if we are not heard from below. We will exalt the Spirit; we will not be afraid. And if we are afraid, it will be by keeping silent, not by proclaiming. ### Scripture references - Ps 14:5 (13:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence - John 1:9: quotation, high confidence - John 14:16: allusion, high confidence - Ps 36:9 (35:10 LXX): quotation, high confidence - Isa 21:2: quotation, medium confidence - Isa 40:9: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Ps 14:5 (LXX 13:5, “fear where there is no fear”); John 1:9; John 14:16 (“another Advocate”); Ps 36:9 (LXX 35:10); Isa 21:2 (LXX); Isa 40:9. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 3 (Mason, 147–148; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-3). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 4 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-4 - Source: Mason, 148–149 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: If the Spirit were not eternal, the Godhead would once have been incomplete, and the Spirit could not deify us. ### Greek text Εἰ ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ πατήρ, ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱός. εἰ ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱός, ἦν ὅτε οὐδὲ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. εἰ τὸ ἓν ἢν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, καὶ τὰ τρία. εἰ τὸ ἓν κάτω βάλλεις, τολμῶ, καὶ λέγω, μηδὲ τὰ δύο θῇς ἄνω. τίς γὰρ ἀτελοῦς θεότητος ὄνησις; μᾶλλον δὲ τίς θεότης, εἰ μὴ τελεία; τελεία δὲ πῶς, ᾗ λείπει τι πρὸς τελείωσιν; λείπει δέ πὼς, μὴ ἐχούσῃ τὸ ἅγιον· ἔχοι δʼ ἂν πῶς, μὴ τοῦτο ἔχουσα; ἢ γὰρ ἄλλη τις παρὰ τοῦτο ἡ ἁγιότης ’ καὶ ἥ τις αὕτη νοεῖται, λεγέτω τις· ἢ εἴπερ ἡ αὐτή, πῶς οὐκ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς; ὥσπερ ἄμεινον ὂν τῷ θεῷ εἶναί ποτε ἀτελεῖ, καὶ δίχα πνεύματος. εἰ μὴ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ἢν, μετʼ ἐμοῦ τέτακται, καὶ εἰ μικρὸν πρὸ ἐμοῦ. χρόνῳ γὰρ ἀπὸ θεοῦ τεμνόμεθα. εἰ τέτακται μετʼ ἐμοῦ, πῶς ἐμὲ ποιεῖ θεόν, ἢ πῶς συνάπτει θεότητι; ### English translation (Claude) If there was a time when the Father was not, there was a time when the Son was not. If there was a time when the Son was not, there was a time when the Holy Spirit was not either. If the one was from the beginning, so were the three. If you cast down the one, I dare to say, do not set the other two up high either. What good is an incomplete Godhead? Or rather, what Godhead is it, if it is not complete? And how is it complete if something is missing for its completeness? Something is missing if it does not have the Holy; and how would it have it if it does not have this? Either holiness is something other than this (and let someone say what it is understood to be), or, if it is the same, how is it not from the beginning? As though it were better for God to be at some time incomplete and without the Spirit! If he was not from the beginning, he is ranked with me, even if a little before me; for it is by time that we are separated from God. If he is ranked with me, how does he make me God, or how does he join me to the Godhead? ### Translation notes - “How does he make me God”: Gregory’s argument from the Spirit’s work of deification. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 4 (Mason, 148–149; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-4). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 5 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-5 - Source: Mason, 149–151 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Gregory surveys opinions on the Spirit, from the Sadducees and Greek philosophers to Christians who call him an activity, a creature, or an undefined power. ### Greek text Μαλλὸν δὲ φιλοσοφήσω σοι περὶ αὐτοῦ μικρὸν ἄνωθεν. περὶ τριάδος γὰρ καὶ πρότερον διειλήφαμεν. τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον Σαδδουκαῖοι μὲν οὐδὲ εἶναι τὸ παράπαν ἐνόμισαν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀγγέλους, οὐδὲ ἀνάστασιν· οὐκ οἶδʼ ὅθεν τὰς τοσαύτας περὶ αὐτοῦ μαρτυρίας ἐν τῇ παλαιᾷ διαπτύσαντες. Ἑλλήνων δὲ οἱ θεολογικώτεροι, καὶ μᾶλλον ἡμῖν προσεγγίσαντες, ἐφαντάσθησαν μέν, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ· περὶ δὲ τὴν κλῆσιν διηνέχθησαν, νοῦν τοῦ παντός, καὶ τὸν θύραθεν νοῦν, καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα προσαγορεύσαντες. τῶν δὲ καθʼ ἡμᾶς σοφῶν οἱ μὲν ἐνέργειαν τοῦτο ὑπέλαβον, οἱ δὲ κτίσμα, οἱ δὲ θεόν, οἱ δὲ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ὁπότερον τούτων, αἰδοῖ τῆς γραφῆς, ὥς φασιν, ὡς οὐδέτερον σαφῶς δηλωσάσης. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὔτε σέβουσιν, οὔτε ἀτιμάζουσι, μέσως πὼς περὶ αὐτοῦ διακείμενοι, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ λίαν ἀθλίως. καὶ τῶν θεὸν ὑπειληφότων οἱ μὲν ἄχρι διανοίας εἰσὶν εὐσεβεῖς, οἱ δὲ τολμῶσιν εὐσεβεῖν καὶ τοῖς χείλεσιν. ἄλλων δὲ ἤκουσα μετρούντων θεότητα σοφωτέρων, οἳ τρία μὲν εἶναι καθʼ ἡμᾶς ὁμολογοῦσι τὰ νοούμενα, τοσοῦτον δὲ ἀλλήλων διέστησαν, ὡς τὸ μὲν καὶ οὐσία καὶ δυνάμει ποιεῖν ἀόριστον· τὸ δὲ δυνάμει μέν, οὐκ οὐσίᾳ δέ· τὸ δὲ ἀμφοτέροις περιγραπτόν· ἄλλον τρόπον μιμούμενοι τοὺς δημιουργόν, καὶ συνεργόν, καὶ λειτουργὸν ὀνομάζοντας, καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασι τάξιν καὶ χάριν τῶν πραγμάτων ἀκολουθίαν εἶναι νομίζοντας. ### English translation (Claude) Or rather, let me philosophize to you about him from a little further back; for we have already discussed the Trinity. The Sadducees did not think the Holy Spirit existed at all, any more than angels or resurrection; I do not know how they came to reject so many testimonies about him in the Old Testament. The more theological of the Greeks, who came nearer to us, had some notion of him, it seems to me, but disagreed about the name, calling him “mind of the universe,” “the mind from outside,” and the like. Of the wise among ourselves, some have taken him to be an activity, some a creature, some God, and some did not know which of these, out of reverence for Scripture, they say, since it has not clearly shown either. For this reason they neither worship nor dishonour him, holding a kind of middle position about him, or rather a very wretched one. Of those who have taken him to be God, some are pious in thought only, others dare to be pious with their lips as well. I have heard others, wiser in measuring Godhead, who confess, as we do, that there are three objects of thought, but set them so far apart from one another as to make the first unlimited in both substance and power, the second in power but not in substance, and the third circumscribed in both; imitating in another way those who name them Creator, Co-worker, and Minister, and who think that the order and grace of the names reflects the sequence of the realities. ### Scripture references - Acts 23:8: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Anaxagoras, B12 (Anaxagoras): allusion, low confidence - Aristotle, Gen. an. 2.3 736b (Aristotle (works)): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Acts 23:8. “Mind of the universe” recalls Anaxagoras; “the mind from outside” is Aristotle’s phrase (Generation of Animals 2.3, 736b). The last group ranks the three in descending degrees of substance and power. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 5 (Mason, 149–151; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-5). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 6 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-6 - Source: Mason, 151–153 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Spirit is not an accident or activity but a being who acts; and since we believe in him, he is not a creature but God. ### Greek text Ἡμῖν δὲ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς οὐδὲ εἶναι ὑπειληφότας οὐδεὶς λόγος, ἢ τοὺς ληροῦντας ἐν Ἕλλησιν. μηδὲ γὰρ ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐλαίῳ πιανθείημεν εἰς τὸν λόγον. πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἄλλους οὕτω διαλεξόμεθα. τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἢ τῶν καθʼ ἑαυτὸ ὑφεστηκότων πάντως ὑποθετέον, ἢ τῶν ἐν ἑτέρῳ θεωρουμένων· ὧν τὸ μὲν οὐσίαν καλοῦσιν οἱ περὶ ταῦτα δεινοί, τὸ δὲ συμβεβηκός. εἰ μὲν οὖν συμβέβηκεν, ἐνέργεια τοῦτο ἂν εἴη θεοῦ. τί γὰρ ἕτερον, ἢ τίνος; τοῦτο γάρ πως μᾶλλον καὶ φεύγει σύνθεσιν. καὶ εἰ ἐνέργεια, ἐνεργηθήσεται δῆλον ὅτι, οὐκ ἐνεργήσει, καὶ ὁμοῦ τῷ ἐνεργηθῆναι παύσεται. τοιοῦτον γὰρ ἡ ἐνέργεια. πῶς οὖν ἐνεργεῖ, καὶ τάδε λέγει, καὶ ἀφορίζει, καὶ λυπεῖται, καὶ παροξύνεται, καὶ ὅσα κινουμένου σαφῶς ἐστίν, οὐ κινήσεως; εἰ δὲ οὐσία τις, οὐ τῶν περὶ τὴν οὐσίαν, ἤτοι κτίσμα ὑποληφθήσεται, ἢ θεός. μέσον γάρ τι τούτων, ἤτοι μηδετέρου μετέχον, ἢ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν σύνθετον, οὐδʼ ἂν οἱ τοὺς τραγελάφους πλάττοντες ἐννοήσαιεν. ἀλλʼ εἰ μὲν κτίσμα, πῶς εἰς αὐτὸ πιστεύομεν, ἢ ἐν αὐτῷ τελειούμεθα; οὐ γὰρ ταὐτόν ἐστι πιστεύειν εἴς τι, καὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ πιστεύειν. τὸ μὲν γάρ ἐστι θεότητος, τὸ δὲ παντὸς πράγματος. εἰ δὲ θεός, ἀλλʼ οὐ κτίσμα, οὐδὲ ποίημα, οὐδὲ σύνδουλον, οὐδʼ ὅλως τι τῶν ταπεινῶν ὀνομάτων. ### English translation (Claude) With those who have not even thought that he exists, or with the triflers among the Greeks, we will have no discussion; may we not be anointed with the oil of sinners in our discourse. With the others we will argue like this. The Holy Spirit must be considered either among things that exist by themselves or among those observed in something else; those skilled in these matters call the first substance and the second accident. If he is an accident, he would be an activity of God; for what else, or of whom else, could he be? This in a way best avoids composition too. And if he is an activity, clearly he will be acted, not act, and he will cease as soon as he is acted; for that is what an activity is. How then does he act, say this and that, set apart, grieve, become provoked, and do all the things that clearly belong to one who moves, not to a movement? But if he is a substance, and not something that belongs to a substance, he will be taken to be either a creature or God. For something between these, sharing in neither or compounded of both, not even those who invent goat-stags could conceive. But if he is a creature, how do we believe in him, or how are we perfected in him? For to believe in something is not the same as to believe about it: the first belongs to the Godhead, the second to any matter. But if God, then not a creature, not a thing made, not a fellow servant, nor any of the lowly names at all. ### Scripture references - Ps 141:5 (140:5 LXX): allusion, high confidence - Acts 13:2: allusion, high confidence - Eph 4:30: allusion, high confidence - Isa 63:10: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Ps 141:5 (LXX 140:5); Acts 13:2; Eph 4:30; Isa 63:10. The “goat-stag” is a proverbial example of an impossible creature. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 6 (Mason, 151–153; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-6). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 7 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-7 - Source: Mason, 153–154 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Gregory rejects the Eunomian dilemma that the Spirit must be either unbegotten, a second son, or a grandson, and warns against applying bodily kinship terms to God. ### Greek text Ἑνταῦθα σὸς ὁ λόγος ’ αἱ σφενδόναι πεμπέσθωσαν, οἱ συλλογισμοὶ πλεκέσθωσαν. ἢ ἀγέννητον πάντως, ἢ γεννητόν. καὶ εἰ μὲν ἀγέννητον, δύο τὰ ἄναρχα. εἰ δὲ γεννητόν, ὑποδιαίρει πάλιν· ἢ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦτο, ἢ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ. καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, υἱοὶ δύο καὶ ἀδελφοί. σὺ δέ μοι πλάττε καὶ διδύμους, εἰ βούλει, ἢ τὸν μὲν πρεσβύτερον, τὸν δὲ νεώτερον ’ ἐπειδὴ λίαν εἶ φιλοσώματος. εἰ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ, πέφηνέ, φησι, καὶ υἱωνὸς ἡμῖν θεός· οὗ τί ἂν γένοιτο παραδοξότερον; ταῦτα μὲν οὖν οἱ σοφοὶ τοῦ κακοποιῆσαι, τὰ δὲ ἀγαθὰ γράφειν οὐ θέλοντες. ἐγὼ δὲ εἰ μὲν ἑώρων ἀναγκαίαν τὴν διαίρεσιν, ἐδεξάμην ἂν τὰ πράγματα, οὐ φοβηθεὶς τὰ ὀνόματα. οὐ γάρ, ἐπειδὴ κατά τινα σχέσιν ὑψηλοτέραν υἱὸς ὁ υἱός, οὐ δυνηθέντων ἡμῶν ἄλλως ἢ οὕτως ἐνδείξασθαι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὁμοούσιον, ἤδη καὶ πάσας οἰητέον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὰς κάτω κλήσεις, καὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας συγγενείας, μεταφέρειν ἐπὶ τὸ θεῖον. ἢ τάχα ἃν σύ γε καὶ ἄρρενα τὸν θεὸν ἡμῖν ὑπολάβοις, κατὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, ὅτι θεὸς ὀνομάζεται, καὶ πατήρ; καὶ θῆλύ τι τὴν θεότητα, ὅσον ἐπὶ ταῖς κλήσεσι; καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα οὐδέτερον, ὅτι μὴ γεννητικόν; εἰ δέ σοι καὶ τοῦτο παιχθείη, τῇ ἑαυτοῦ θελήσει τὸν θεὸν συγγενόμενον, κατὰ τοὺς παλαιοὺς λήρους καὶ μύθους, γεννήσασθαι τὸν υἱόν, εἰσήχθη τις ἡμῖν καὶ Μαρκίωνος καὶ Οὐαλεντίνου θεὸς ἀρρενόθηλυς, τοῦ τοὺς καινοὺς αἰῶνας ἀνατυπώσαντος. ### English translation (Claude) Here the argument is yours. Let the slings fly and the syllogisms be woven. “He is certainly either unbegotten or begotten. If unbegotten, there are two without beginning. If begotten, divide again: he is either from the Father or from the Son. If from the Father, there are two sons and brothers.” Make them twins too, if you like, or one older and the other younger, since you are so fond of the body. “If from the Son,” he says, “then we have a God who is a grandson; and what could be stranger than that?” This is what those say who are wise to do evil but will not write what is good. For my part, if I saw that the division was necessary, I would accept the realities without being afraid of the names. For because the Son is Son by a certain loftier relation, since we could not otherwise show that he is from God and consubstantial, it does not follow that we must think it necessary to transfer all the terms here below, including those of our kinship, to the divine. Or perhaps, by this reasoning, you would take our God to be male, because he is called God and Father; and the Godhead to be something female, as far as the names go; and the Spirit neuter, because it does not beget? And if you should play so far as to say that God, joining with his own will, according to the old nonsense and myths, begot the Son, we would have brought in the male-female God of Marcion and Valentinus, who shaped the novel aeons. ### Scripture references - Jer 4:22: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The Eunomian dilemma is set in quotation marks. Jer 4:22 (“wise to do evil”). “Consubstantial” renders ὁμοούσιον. The grammatical genders of θεός (masculine), θεότης (feminine), and πνεῦμα (neuter) are the point of the joke. Marcion and Valentinus are named for the Gnostic male-female deity and aeons. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 7 (Mason, 153–154; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-7). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 8 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-8 - Source: Mason, 154–155 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Spirit “proceeds” from the Father: neither unbegotten nor begotten, and therefore neither creature nor son, but God. ### Greek text Ἐπεὶ δέ σου τὴν πρώτην διαίρεσιν οὐ δεχόμεθα, τὴν μηδὲν ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ μέσον ὑπολαμβάνουσαν, αὐτίκα οἰχήσονταί σοι μετὰ τῆς σεμνῆς διαιρέσεως οἱ ἀδελφοὶ καὶ οἱ υἱωνοί, ὥσπερ τινὸς δεσμοῦ πολυπλόκου τῆς πρώτης ἀρχῆς λυθείσης συνδιαλυθέντες, καὶ τῆς θεολογίας ὑποχωρήσαντες. ποῦ γὰρ θήσεις τὸ ἐκπορευτόν. εἰπέ μοι, μέσον ἀναφανὲν τῆς σῆς διαιρέσεως, καὶ παρὰ κρείσσονος ἢ κατὰ σὲ θεολόγου, τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, εἰσαγόμενον; εἰ μὴ τὴν φωνὴν ἐκείνην τῶν σῶν ἐξεῖλες εὐαγγελίων, διὰ τὴν τρίτην σου διαθήκην, Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται· ὃ καθʼ ὅσον μὲν ἐκεῖθεν ἐκπορεύεται, οὐ κτίσμα· καθʼ ὅσον δὲ οὐ γεννητόν, οὐχ υἱός· καθʼ ὅσον δὲ ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ μέσον, θεός. καὶ οὕτω σου τὰς τῶν συλλογισμῶν ἄρκυς διαφυγὸν θεὸς ἀναπέφηνε, τῶν σῶν διαιρέσεων ἰσχυρότερος. τίς οὖν ἡ ἐκπόρευσις; εἰπὲ σὺ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν τοῦ πατρός, κἀγὼ τὴν γέννησιν τοῦ υἱοῦ φυσιολογήσω, καὶ τὴν ἐκπόρευσιν τοῦ πνεύματος, καὶ παραπληκτίσωμεν ἄμφω εἰς θεοῦ μυστήρια παρακύπτοντες· καὶ ταῦτα τίνες; οἱ μηδὲ τὰ ἐν ποσὶν εἰδέναι δυνάμενοι, μηδὲ ψάμμον θαλασσῶν, καὶ σταγόνας ὑετοῦ, καὶ ἡμέρας αἰῶνος ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι, μὴ ὅτι γε θεοῦ βάθεσιν ἐμβατεύειν, καὶ λόγον ὑπέχειν τῆς οὕτως ἀρρήτου καὶ ὑπὲρ λόγον φύσεως. ### English translation (Claude) Since we do not accept your first division, which assumes there is nothing between unbegotten and begotten, your brothers and grandsons will at once be gone, along with your august division, dissolved together like a complicated knot when the first loop is undone, and withdrawn from theology. For where will you put “the one who proceeds,” tell me, who appears in between the terms of your division, and is introduced by a better theologian than you, our Saviour? Unless you have removed that saying from your gospels for the sake of your third testament: “The Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father.” In so far as he proceeds from there, he is not a creature; in so far as he is not begotten, he is not a son; and in so far as he is between the unbegotten and the begotten, he is God. And so, escaping the nets of your syllogisms, he has shown himself God, stronger than your divisions. What, then, is procession? You tell me what the unbegottenness of the Father is, and I will give a natural account of the begetting of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both go mad for peering into the mysteries of God. And who are we to do this? We who cannot even know what lies at our feet, or count the sand of the seas, the drops of rain, and the days of eternity, let alone enter into the depths of God and give an account of a nature so ineffable and beyond reason. ### Scripture references - John 15:26: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 2:10: allusion, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Sir 1:2 (Sirach): allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - John 15:26. “Procession” renders ἐκπόρευσις (ἐκπορευτόν, “the one who proceeds”). The “third testament” is a jibe at those who would need new scriptures for their views. Sir 1:2 (sand, drops of rain, days of eternity); 1 Cor 2:10. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 8 (Mason, 154–155; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-8). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 9 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-9 - Source: Mason, 155–156 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Unbegottenness, begetting, and procession distinguish Father, Son, and Spirit as three persons in one divine nature, against both Sabellius and the Arians. ### Greek text Τί οὖν ἐστί, φησιν, ὃ λείπει τῷ πνεύματι, πρὸς τὸ εἶναι υἱόν; εἰ γὰρ μὴ λεῖπόν τι ἦν, υἱὸς ἃν ἦν. οὐ λείπειν φαμέν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐλλειπὴς θεός· τὸ δὲ τῆς ἐκφάνσεως, ἵν οὕτως εἴπω, ἢ τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα σχέσεως διάφορον αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν κλῆσιν πεποίηκεν. οὐδὲ γὰρ τῷ υἱῷ λείπει τι πρὸς τὸ εἶναι πατέρα, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔλλειψις ἡ υἱότης, ἀλλʼ οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο πατήρ. ἢ οὕτω γε καὶ τῷ πατρὶ λείψει τι πρὸς τὸ εἶναι υἱόν· οὐ γὰρ υἱὸς ὁ πατήρ. ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐλλείψεως ταῦτά ποθεν, οὐδὲ τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ὑφέσεως· αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ μὴ γεγεννῆσθαι, καὶ τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι, καὶ τὸ ἐκπορεύεσθαι, τὸν μὲν πατέρα, τὸν δὲ υἱόν, τὸ δὲ τοῦθʼ ὅπερ λέγεται πνεῦμα ἅγιον προσηγόρευσεν, ἵνα τὸ ἀσύγχυτον σώζηται τῶν τριῶν ὑποστάσεων ἐν τῇ μιᾷ φύσει τε καὶ ἀξίᾳ τῆς θεότητος. οὔτε γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς πατήρ, εἷς γὰρ πατήρ, ἀλλʼ ὅπερ ὁ πατήρ· οὔτε τὸ πνεῦμα υἱὸς ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἷς γὰρ ὁ μονογενής, ἀλλʼ ὅπερ ὁ υἱός· ἓν τὰ τρία τῇ θεότητι, καὶ τὸ ἓν τρία ταῖς ἰδιότησιν· ἵνα μήτε τὸ ἓν Σαβέλλιον ᾖ, μήτε τὰ τρία τῆς πονηρᾶς νῦν διαιρέσεως. ### English translation (Claude) “What, then,” he says, “does the Spirit lack to be a son? For if he did not lack something, he would be a son.” We do not say he lacks anything, for God has no deficiency. It is the difference of manifestation, so to speak, or of their relation to one another, that has made their names different. For neither does the Son lack anything to be Father (for sonship is not a deficiency), yet he is not therefore Father. Otherwise the Father too will lack something to be Son, for the Father is not Son. These things come not from deficiency nor from any inferiority in substance. It is precisely not being begotten, being begotten, and proceeding that have given the names Father, Son, and the one called the Holy Spirit, so that the distinctness of the three persons (hypostases) may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the Godhead. For the Son is not the Father, since there is one Father, but he is what the Father is; nor is the Spirit a son because he is from God, since there is one Only-begotten, but he is what the Son is. The three are one in Godhead, and the one is three in distinctive properties; so that the one is not Sabellian, nor the three of the present wicked division. ### Translation notes - The objection is in quotation marks. ὑπόστασις (“hypostasis”) is rendered “person”; Gregory uses it, like πρόσωπον, for each of the three, while οὐσία (“substance”) and φύσις (“nature”) name what is one. Sabellius taught one person under three names; “the present wicked division” is the Arian and Eunomian separation of the three. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 9 (Mason, 155–156; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-9). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 10 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-10 - Source: Mason, 156–158 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Spirit is God and consubstantial with the Father; although no earthly analogy is adequate, nature shows beings of one substance that come to be in different ways. ### Greek text Τί οὖν; θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα; πάνυ γε. τί οὖν, ὁμοούσιον; εἴπερ θεός. δὸς οὖν μοί, φησιν, ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τὸ μὲν υἱόν, τὸ δὲ οὐχ υἱόν, εἶτα ὁμοούσια, καὶ δέχομαι θεὸν καὶ θεόν. δός μοι καὶ σὺ θεὸν ἄλλον, καὶ φύσιν θεοῦ, καὶ δώσω σοι τὴν αὐτὴν τριάδα μετὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ὀνομάτων τε καὶ πραγμάτων. εἰ δὲ εἰς θεὸς μία φύσις ἡ ἀνωτάτω, πόθεν παραστήσω σοι τὴν ὁμοίωσιν; ἢ ζητεῖς πάλιν ἐκ τῶν κάτω καὶ τῶν περὶ σέ; λίαν μὲν αἰσχρόν, καὶ οὐκ αἰσχρὸν μόνον, ἁλλὰ καὶ μάταιον ἐπιεικῶς, ἐκ τῶν κάτω τῶν ἄνω τὴν εἰκασίαν λαμβάνειν, καὶ τῶν ἀκινήτων ἐκ τῆς ῥευστῆς φύσεως, καί, ὅ φησιν Ἠσαίας, ἐκζητεῖσθαι τὰ ζῶντα ἐν τοῖς νεκροῖς· ὅμως δὲ πειράσομαι, σὴν χάριν, κἀντεῦθεν δοῦναί τινα τῷ λόγῳ βοήθειαν. τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα παρήσειν μοι δοκῶ, πολλὰ ἃν ἔχων ἐκ τῆς περὶ ζώων ἱστορίας εἰπεῖν, τὰ μὲν ἡμῖν γνώριμα, τὰ δὲ τοῖς ὀλίγοις, ὅσα περὶ τὰς τῶν ζώων γενέσεις ἡ φύσις ἐφιλοτεχνήσατο. γεννᾶσθαι γὰρ λέγεται, οὐκ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν τὰ αὐτὰ μόνον, οὐδὲ ἐξ ἑτέρων ἕτερα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἑτέρων τὰ αὐτά, καὶ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν ἕτερα. εἰ δέ τῳ πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, καὶ ἄλλος ἐστὶ τρόπος γεννήσεως, αὐτό τι ὑφʼ ἑαυτοῦ δαπανώμενον καὶ τικτόμενον. ἔστι δὲ ἃ καὶ ἐξίσταταί πὼς ἑαυτῶν, ἐξ ἄλλων ζώων εἰς ἄλλα μεθιστάμενά τε καὶ μεταποιούμενα, φιλοτιμίᾳ ἤδη δὲ καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, τὸ μὲν οὐ γέννημα, τὸ δὲ γέννημα, πλὴν ὁμοούσια· ὃ καὶ τῷ παρόντι πὼς μᾶλλον προσέοικεν. ἓν δέ τι τῶν ἡμετέρων εἰπών, ὃ καὶ πᾶσι γνώριμον, ἐφʼ ἕτερον μεταβήσομαι λόγον. ### English translation (Claude) What then? Is the Spirit God? Certainly. Then is he consubstantial? Yes, if he is God. “Give me, then,” he says, “from the same source one who is son and one who is not son, and yet consubstantial, and I will accept God and God.” You give me another God and another nature of God, and I will give you the same Trinity with the same names and realities. But if God is one and the supreme nature is one, where shall I find a likeness to show you? Or will you look again among the things below and around you? It is very shameful, and not only shameful but quite futile, to take a comparison for things above from things below, and for things unchangeable from the flowing nature, and, as Isaiah says, to seek the living among the dead. Still, for your sake I will try to give the argument some help even from there. I think I will pass over the rest, though I could say much from natural history about the ingenuity nature has shown in the generation of animals, some of it known to us and some to few. For it is said that like is begotten not only from like, and different from different, but also like from different and different from like. And, if the account is to be believed, there is another mode of generation, in which a creature is consumed by itself and born from itself. There are also creatures that in a way go out of themselves, changing and being transformed from one animal into another, by nature’s ingenuity. And from the same being, one thing is offspring and another not, yet they are consubstantial; which comes somewhat nearer to our present subject. But I will mention one thing of our own, which everyone knows, and then pass on to another argument. ### Scripture references - Isa 8:19: allusion, high confidence - Luke 24:5: echo, low confidence ### Translation notes - The objection is in quotation marks. Isa 8:19 (LXX); Luke 24:5. The self-consuming creature is presumably the phoenix; the transformations are those of insects; both are reports of ancient natural history. The repeated φιλοτιμίᾳ in the digital text is reduced to one. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 10 (Mason, 156–158; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-10). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 11 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-11 - Source: Mason, 158–159 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Adam, Eve, and Seth came to be in different ways yet share one human nature, a faint image of how the Son and Spirit share the Father’s substance. ### Greek text Ὁ Ἀδὰμ τί ποτε ἦν; πλάσμα θεοῦ. τί δὲ ἡ Εὖα; τμῆμα τοῦ πλάσματος. τί δὲ ὁ Σήθ; γέννημα. ἆρʼ οὖν ταὐτόν σοι φαίνεται πλάσμα, καὶ τμῆμα, καὶ γέννημα; πῶς οὔ; ὁμοούσια δὲ ταῦτα, ἢ τί; πῶς δʼ οὔ; ὡμολόγηται οὖν καὶ τὰ διαφόρως ὑποστάντα τῆς αὐτῆς εἶναι οὐσίας ἐνδέχεσθαι. λέγω δὲ ταῦτα, οὐκ ἐπὶ τὴν θεότητα φέρων τὴν πλάσιν, ἢ τὴν τομήν, ἤ τι τῶν ὅσα σώματος, μή μοί τις ἐπιφυέσθω πάλιν τῶν λογομάχων, ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων θεωρῶν, ὡς ἐπὶ σκηνῆς, τὰ νοούμενα. οὐδὲ γὰρ οἷόν τε τῶν εἰκαζομένων οὐδὲν πρὸς πᾶσαν ἐξικνεῖσθαι καθαρῶς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. καὶ τί ταῦτά, φασιν; οὐ γὰρ τοῦ ἑνὸς τὸ μὲν γέννημα, τὸ δὲ ἄλλο τι. τί οὖν; ἡ Εὖα καὶ Σήθ, οὐχὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Ἀδάμ; τίνος γὰρ ἄλλου; ἢ καὶ ἀμφότεροι γεννήματα; οὐδαμῶς. ἀλλὰ τί; τὸ μὲν τμῆμα, τὸ δὲ γέννημα. καὶ μὴν ἀμφότεροι ταὐτὸν ἀλλήλοις· ἄνθρωποι γάρ· οὐδεὶς ἀντερεῖ. παύσῃ οὖν ἀπομαχόμενος πρὸς τὸ πνεῦμα, ὡς ἢ γέννημα πάντως, ἢ μὴ ὁμοούσιον, μηδὲ θεόν, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων τὸ δυνατὸν λαβὼν τῆς ἡμετέρας ὑπολήψεως; ἐγὼ μὲν οἶμαί σοι καλῶς ἔχειν, εἰ μὴ λίαν ἔγνωκας φιλονεικεῖν, καὶ πρὸς τὰ δῆλα μάχεσθαι. ### English translation (Claude) What was Adam? Something moulded by God. What was Eve? A section of what was moulded. What was Seth? Offspring. Do moulding, section, and offspring seem the same to you? How could they? But are these consubstantial, or not? How could they not be? It is agreed, then, that things that came to exist in different ways can be of the same substance. I say this not to attribute moulding or cutting or anything bodily to the Godhead (let none of the word-fighters fasten on me again), but to view what is intelligible in these as on a stage. For no comparison can reach the whole truth purely. “And what of it?” they say. “For here it is not one and the same source from which one is offspring and the other something else.” What then? Are not Eve and Seth from the same Adam? From whom else? Are both of them offspring? By no means. What then? One is a section, the other an offspring. And yet both are the same as each other, for they are human beings; no one will deny it. Will you then stop fighting against the Spirit, as though he must be either offspring, or not consubstantial and not God, now that you have taken from human things what is possible for our conception? I think it would be well for you, unless you are very determined to be contentious and to fight against what is plain. ### Scripture references - Gen 2:7: allusion, high confidence - Gen 2:22: allusion, high confidence - Gen 4:25: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Gen 2:7, 21–22; Gen 4:25. The objection is set in quotation marks. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 11 (Mason, 158–159; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-11). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 12 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-12 - Source: Mason, 159–161 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Worship in the Spirit is worship of the Spirit, since to worship one of the three is to worship all three; and the Spirit was not made through the Son. ### Greek text Ἀλλὰ τίς προσεκύνησε τῷ πνεύματί, φησιν; τίς ἢ τῶν παλαιῶν, ἢ τῶν νέων; τίς δὲ προσηύξατο; ποῦ δὲ τὸ χρῆναι προσκυνεῖν ἢ προσεύχεσθαι γέγραπται; καὶ πόθεν τοῦτο ἔχεις λαβών; τὴν μὲν τελεωτέραν αἰτίαν ἀποδώσομεν ὕστερον, ἡνίκα ἂν περὶ τοῦ ἀγράφου διαλεγώμεθα. νῦν δὲ τοσοῦτον εἰπεῖν ἐξαρκέσει· τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν, ἐν ᾧ προσκυνοῦμεν, καὶ διʼ οὗ προσευχόμεθα. Πνεῦμα γάρ, φησιν, ὁ θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ προσκυνεῖν δεῖ. καὶ πάλιν· Τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα, καθʼ ὃ δεῖ, οὐκ οἴδαμεν, ἁλλʼ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις. καί, Προσεύξομαι τῷ πνεύματι, προσεύξομαι δὲ καὶ τῷ νοί, τοῦτʼ ἐστίν, ἐν νοὶ καὶ πνεύματι. τὸ οὖν προσκυνεῖν τῷ πνεύματι, ἢ προσεύχεσθαι, οὐδὲν ἄλλο εἶναί μοι φαίνεται, ἢ αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ τὴν εὐχὴν προσάγειν καὶ τὴν προσκύνησιν. ὃ τίς οὐκ ἂν ἐπαινέσειε τῶν ἐνθέων, καὶ τῶν εὖ εἰδότων ὅτι καὶ ἡ τοῦ ἑνὸς προσκύνησις τῶν τριῶν ἐστὶ προσκύνησις, διὰ τὸ ἐν τοῖς τρισὶν ὁμότιμον τῆς ἀξίας καὶ τῆς θεότητος; καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνο φοβηθήσομαι τὸ πάντα διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ γεγονέναι λέγεσθαι, ὡς ἑνὸς τῶν πάντων ὄντος καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. πάντα γὰρ ὅσα γέγονεν, εἴρηται, οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἅπαντα· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ πατήρ, οὐδʼ ὅσα μὴ γέγονεν. δείξας οὖν ὅτι γέγονε, τότε τῷ υἱῷ δός, καὶ τοῖς κτίσμασι συναρίθμησον. ἕως δʼ ἂν μὴ τοῦτο δεικνύῃς, οὐδὲν τῷ περιληπτικῷ βοηθῇ πρὸς ἀσέβειαν. εἰ μὲν γὰρ γέγονε, διὰ χριστοῦ πάντως· οὐδὲ αὐτὸς ἀρνήσομαι. εἰ δὲ οὐ γέγονε, πῶς ἢ τῶν πάντων ἕν, ἢ διὰ χριστοῦ; παῦσαι οὖν καὶ τὸν πατέρα κακῶς τιμῶν κατὰ τοῦ μονογενοῦς, — κακὴ δὲ τιμὴ κτίσμα διδόντα τὸ τιμιώτερον υἱὸν ἀποστερεῖν, — καὶ τὸν υἱὸν κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος. οὐ γὰρ ὁμοδούλου δημιουργός, ἀλλʼ ὁμοτίμῳ συνδοξαζόμενος. μηδὲν μετὰ σεαυτοῦ θῇς τῆς τριάδος, μὴ τῆς τριάδος ἐκπέσῃς. μηδενὶ περικόψῃς τὴν μίαν φύσιν καὶ ὁμοίως σεβάσμιον, ὡς ὅ τι ἂν τῶν τριῶν καθέλῃς, τὸ πᾶν ἔσῃ καθῃρηκώς, μᾶλλον δὲ τοῦ παντὸς ἐκπεπτωκώς. βέλτιον μικρὰν τῆς ἑνώσεως φαντασίαν λαβεῖν, ἢ παντελῆ τολμῆσαι δυσσέβειαν. ### English translation (Claude) “But who,” he says, “ever worshipped the Spirit? Who among the ancients or the moderns? Who prayed to him? Where is it written that one should worship him or pray to him? Where did you get this?” We will give the fuller reason later, when we discuss what is unwritten. For now it will be enough to say this: the Spirit is the one in whom we worship and through whom we pray. “For God is Spirit,” it says, “and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” And again: “For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings that cannot be uttered.” And “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the mind also,” that is, in mind and spirit. So to worship or pray to the Spirit seems to me to be nothing other than the Spirit offering prayer and worship to himself. Who among the inspired, who know well that the worship of one of the three is the worship of the three because of the equality of honour and Godhead in the three, would not praise this? Nor will I be afraid of the saying that all things came into being through the Son, as though the Holy Spirit were one of these “all things.” For it says “all things that came into being,” not simply all things; for the Father did not come into being, nor anything that did not come into being. Show that he came into being, then give him to the Son and count him among the creatures. Until you show this, the all-inclusive word does not help your impiety. If he came into being, it was certainly through Christ; I will not deny that myself. But if he did not come into being, how is he one of the “all things,” or through Christ? Stop, then, dishonouring the Father by honouring him against the Only-begotten (it is a bad honour to give a creature and rob him of what is more precious, a Son), and the Son against the Spirit. For he is not the maker of a fellow servant, but is glorified with one of equal honour. Do not rank any of the Trinity with yourself, lest you fall away from the Trinity. Do not cut away from anyone the one nature, equally worthy of reverence; for whichever of the three you pull down, you will have pulled down the whole, or rather fallen away from the whole. It is better to take a small idea of the union than to dare a complete impiety. ### Scripture references - John 4:24: quotation, high confidence - Rom 8:26: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 14:15: quotation, high confidence - John 1:3: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - The Eunomian question is in quotation marks. John 4:24; Rom 8:26; 1 Cor 14:15; John 1:3. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 12 (Mason, 159–161; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-12). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 13 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-13 - Source: Mason, 161–162 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: To the charge that three who are God make three Gods, Gregory replies first to those who worship the Son: their defence against “ditheism” answers the charge of “tritheism.” ### Greek text Ἥκει δὲ ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος ἐπʼ αὐτὸ τὸ κεφάλαιον· καὶ στένω μέν, ὅτι πάλαι τεθνηκὸς ζήτημα, καὶ τῆ πίστει παραχωρῆσαν, νῦν ἀνακαινίζεται· στῆναι δὲ ὅμως ἀναγκαῖον πρὸς τοὺς λογολέσχας, καὶ μὴ ἐρήμην ἁλῶναι, λόγον ἔχοντας, καὶ συνηγοροῦντας πνεύματι. εἰ θεός, φησι, καὶ θεός, καὶ θεός, πῶς οὐχὶ τρεῖς θεοί; ἢ πῶς οὐ πολυαρχία τὸ δοξαζόμενον; ταῦτα τίνες; οἱ τελεώτεροι τὴν ἀσέβειαν, ἢ καὶ οἱ τῆς δευτέρας μερίδος, λέγω δὲ τοὺς περὶ τὸν υἱόν πὼς εὐγνώμονας; ὁ μὲν γὰρ κοινός μοι πρὸς ἀμφοτέρους λόγος, ὁ δὲ πρὸς τούτους ἴδιος. ὁ μὲν οὖν πρὸς τούτους τοιοῦτος. τί φατε τοῖς τριθείταις ἡμῖν οἱ τὸν υἱὸν σέβοντες, εἰ καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος ἀφεστήκατε; ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐ διθεῖται; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἀρνεῖσθε καὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὴν προσκύνησιν, σαφῶς τέταχθε μετὰ τῶν ἐναντίων· καὶ τί φιλανθρωπευόμεθα πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὡς οὐ πάντῃ νενεκρωμένους; εἰ δὲ σέβεσθε, καὶ μέχρι τούτου διάκεισθε σωτηρίως, ὑμᾶς ἐρωτήσομεν· τίς ὁ λόγος τῆς διθείας ὑμῖν, ἂν τοῦτο ἐγκαλῆσθε; εἰ ἔστι λόγος συνέσεως, ἀποκρίθητε, δότε καὶ ἡμῖν ὁδὸν ἀποκρίσεως. οἷς γὰρ ἂν ὑμεῖς τὴν διθείαν ἀποκρούσησθε λόγοις, οὗτοι καὶ ἡμῖν κατὰ τῆς τριθείας ἀρκέσουσι. καὶ οὕτω νικῶμεν, ὑμῖν τοῖς κατηγόροις συνηγόροις χρώμενοι· οὗ τί γενναιοτερον; ### English translation (Claude) Our discourse has now come to the main point. I groan that a question long dead and yielded to faith is now being revived; yet it is necessary to stand against these chatterers and not lose our case by default, when we have an argument and are pleading for the Spirit. “If he is God,” he says, “and God, and God, how are there not three Gods? Or how is what you glorify not a rule of many?” Who says this? Those more complete in impiety, or also those of the second rank, I mean those who are more or less fair-minded about the Son? My argument against both is in common, but against these latter there is a particular one. To them I say this. What do you who worship the Son, though you have abandoned the Spirit, say to us “tritheists”? Are you not “ditheists”? If you deny the worship of the Only-begotten too, you have clearly taken your place among our opponents, and why should we treat you kindly as not wholly dead? But if you worship him and are so far in a saving state, we will ask you: what is your answer to the charge of ditheism, if it is brought against you? If there is a reasoned answer, reply, and give us too a way to answer. For the arguments by which you repel ditheism will suffice us against tritheism. And so we win, using you, our accusers, as our advocates; what could be nobler? ### Translation notes - The objection is in quotation marks. The “second rank” are those who accept the Son’s Godhead but not the Spirit’s (compare ch. 1). ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 13 (Mason, 161–162; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-13). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 14 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-14 - Source: Mason, 162–163 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: There is one God because there is one Godhead, undivided in three, like the one light of three joined suns. ### Greek text Ὁ δὲ κοινὸς ἡμῖν πρὸς ἀμφοτέρους τίς ἀγών τε καὶ λόγος; ἡμῖν εἷς θεός, ὅτι μία θεότης· καὶ πρὸς ἓν τὰ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀναφορὰν ἔχει, κἂν τρία πιστεύηται. οὐ γὰρ τὸ μὲν μᾶλλον, τὸ δὲ ἦττον θεός· οὐδὲ τὸ μὲν πρότερον, τὸ δὲ ὕστερον· οὐδὲ βουλήσει τέμνεται, οὐδὲ δυνάμει μερίζεται, οὐδέ τι τῶν ὅσα τοῖς μεριστοῖς ὑπάρχει, κἀνταῦθα λαβεῖν ἐστίν· ἀλλὰ ἀμέριστος ἐν μεμερισμένοις, εἰ δεῖ συντόμως εἰπεῖν, ἡ θεότης· καὶ οἷον ἐν ἡλίοις τρισὶν ἐχομένοις ἀλλήλων, μία τοῦ φωτὸς σύγκρασις. ὅταν μὲν οὖν πρὸς τὴν θεότητα βλέψωμεν, καὶ τὴν πρώτην αἰτίαν, καὶ τὴν μοναρχίαν, ἓν ἡμῖν τὸ φανταζόμενον· ὅταν δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἐν οἷς ἡ θεότης, καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῆς πρώτης αἰτίας ἀχρόνως ἐκεῖθεν ὄντα καὶ ὁμοδόξως, τρία τὰ προσκυνούμενα. ### English translation (Claude) What, then, is our common struggle and argument against both? For us there is one God, because there is one Godhead; and those who are from him are referred to the one, even though three are believed in. For one is not more God and another less, nor one before and another after; the Godhead is not cut off by will or divided by power, nor can anything that belongs to divided things be found here. Rather, to put it briefly, the Godhead is undivided in those who are distinct, as in three suns joined to one another there is one blending of light. When, then, we look at the Godhead, the first cause, and the monarchy, what we picture is one; but when we look at those in whom the Godhead is, and those who are from the first cause, timelessly and with equal glory, the objects of worship are three. ### Translation notes - “Monarchy”: the single rule and source of the Godhead (compare Or. 29.2). ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 14 (Mason, 162–163; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-14). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 15 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-15 - Source: Mason, 163–164 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The unity of the Godhead is not like the abstract unity of a species such as humanity, whose members are divided and changeable. ### Greek text Τί δέ, οὐχὶ καὶ παρʼ Ἕλλησι, φαῖεν ἄν, μία θεότης, ὡς οἱ τὰ τελεώτερα παρʼ ἐκείνοις φιλοσοφοῦντες, καὶ παρʼ ἡμῖν ἀνθρωπότης μία, τὸ γένος ἅπαν; ἀλλʼ ὅμως πολλοὶ θεοί, καὶ οὐχ εἷς, ὡς δὲ καὶ ἄνθρωποι; ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖ μὲν ἡ κοινότης τὸ ἓν ἔχει μόνον ἐπινοίᾳ θεωρητόν· τὰ δὲ καθʼ ἕκαστον πλεῖστον ἀλλήλων καὶ τῷ χρόνῳ καὶ τοῖς πάθεσι καὶ τῇ δυνάμει μεμερισμένα. ἡμεῖς τε γὰρ οὐ σύνθετοι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀντίθετοι καὶ ἀλλήλοις καὶ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ μιᾶς ἡμέρας οἱ αὐτοὶ καθαρῶς μένοντες, μὴ ὅτι τὸν ἅπαντα βίον, ἀλλὰ καὶ σώμασι καὶ ψυχαῖς ἀεὶ ῥέοντές τε καὶ μεταπίπτοντες. οὐκ οἶδα δέ, εἰ μὴ καὶ ἄγγελοι καὶ πᾶσα φύσις ἡ ἄνω μετὰ τὴν τριάδα, κἂν ἁπλοῖ τινὲς ὦσι, καὶ πρὸς τὸ καλὸν παγιώτεροι τῆ πρὸς τὸ ἄκρον καλὸν ἐγγύτητι. ### English translation (Claude) “But,” they might say, “do not the Greeks too have one Godhead, as their more advanced philosophers hold, and do we not have one humanity, the whole race? And yet there are many gods, not one, just as there are many men.” But there the common nature has unity only as an object of thought, while the individuals are very widely divided from one another in time, in passions, and in power. For we are not only composite but also opposed, both to one another and to ourselves; we do not remain purely the same even for one day, let alone a whole lifetime, but are always flowing and changing in body and soul. I do not know whether this is not true even of angels and all the higher nature after the Trinity, though they are simple in a way, and more firmly fixed in the good by their nearness to the supreme Good. ### Translation notes - The objection is in quotation marks. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 15 (Mason, 163–164; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-15). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 16 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-16 - Source: Mason, 164–165 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Unlike the quarrelling, divided gods of Greek myth, Father, Son, and Spirit are one in substance and power. ### Greek text Οἵ τε παρʼ Ἑλλήνων σεβόμενοι θεοί τε καὶ δαίμονες, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν, οὐδὲν ἡμῶν δέονται κατηγόρων, ἀλλὰ τοῖς σφῶν αὐτῶν ἁλίσκονται θεολόγοις, ὡς μὲν ἐμπαθεῖς, ὡς δὲ στασιώδεις, ὅσων δὲ κακῶν γέμοντες καὶ μεταβολῶν, καὶ οὐ πρὸς ἀλλήλους μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τὰς πρώτας αἰτίας ἀντιθέτως ἔχοντες, οὓς δὴ ᾿Ωκεανούς, καὶ Τηθύας, καὶ Φάνητας, καὶ οὐκ οἶδα οὕς τινας ὀνομάζουσι· καὶ τελευταῖόν τινα θεὸν μισότεκνον διὰ φιλαρχίαν, πάντας καταπίνοντα τοὺς ἄλλους ἐξ ἀπληστίας, ἵνα γένηται πάντων ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε πατήρ, δυστυχῶς ἐσθιομένων καὶ ἐμουμένων. εἰ δὲ ταῦτα μῦθοι καὶ ὑπόνοιαί τινες, ὡς αὐτοί φασι, τὸ αἰσχρὸν τοῦ λόγου διαδιδράσκοντες, τί φήσουσι πρὸς τό, Τριχθὰ δὲ πάντα δέδασται, καὶ τὸ ἄλλον ἄλλῳ τινὶ τῶν ὄντων ἐπιστατεῖν, διῃρημένους καὶ ταῖς ὕλαις καὶ τοῖς ἀξιώμασι; τὸ δὲ ἡμέτερον οὐ τοιοῦτον· οὐδὲ αὕτη μερὶς τῷ Ἰακώβ, φησιν ὁ ἐμὸς θεολόγος· ἀλλὰ τὸ ἓν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἔχει πρὸς τὸ συγκείμενον οὐχ ἧττον ἢ πρὸς ἑαυτό, τῷ ταὐτῷ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως. καὶ οὗτος ὁ τῆς ἑνώσεως λόγος, ὅσον ἐφʼ οἷς ἡμεῖς κατειλήφαμεν. εἰ μὲν οὖν οὗτος ἰσχυρὸς ὁ λόγος, τῷ θεῷ χάρις τῆς θεωρίας· εἰ δὲ μή, ζητῶμεν τὸν ἰσχυρότερον. ### English translation (Claude) As for the gods and demons worshipped by the Greeks, as they themselves call them, they need no accusers from us; they are convicted by their own theologians: as passionate, as factious, full of so many evils and changes, and opposed not only to one another but to their first causes, whom they call Oceanus, Tethys, Phanes, and I know not whom else; and finally a god who hated his children through love of power, and swallowed all the others out of greed, so that he might become “father of men and gods,” as they were wretchedly eaten and vomited up. And if these are myths and allegories, as they say, to escape the shamefulness of the story, what will they say to “All things were divided in three,” and each god ruling over some part of what exists, divided both by their domains and by their ranks? Ours is not like this. “Not such is the portion of Jacob,” says my theologian. Rather, each of the three is one with what is joined to him no less than with himself, by the sameness of substance and power. This is the account of the union, so far as we have grasped it. If this account is strong, thanks be to God for the insight; if not, let us look for a stronger one. ### Scripture references - Jer 10:16: quotation, high confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Homer, Il. 14.201 (Homer, Iliad): allusion, medium confidence - Orpheus (attributed), Orph. frag. Phanes (Orpheus (attributed), Orphic poems (fragments)): allusion, medium confidence - Hesiod, Theog. 459–467 (Hesiod, Theogony): allusion, high confidence - Homer, Il. 15.189 (Homer, Iliad): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Oceanus and Tethys: Homer, Iliad 14.201; Phanes: Orphic theogony; the child-swallowing god is Kronos (Hesiod, Theogony 459–467); “father of men and gods” is the Homeric formula for Zeus; “All things were divided in three” is Iliad 15.189. Jer 10:16 (LXX). ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 16 (Mason, 164–165; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-16). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 17 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-17 - Source: Mason, 165–166 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Eunomian argument that only things of one substance are counted together would save them from tritheism only by denying the Son and Spirit’s Godhead. ### Greek text Τοὺς δὲ σοὺς λόγους οὐκ οἶδα πότερον παίζοντος εἶναι φήσομεν, ἢ σπουδάζοντος, οἷς ἀναιρεῖς ἡμῶν τὴν ἕνωσιν. τίς γὰρ δὴ καὶ ὁ λόγος; τὰ ὁμοούσια συναριθμεῖται, φησι· συναρίθμησιν λέγων τὴν εἰς ἀριθμὸν ἕνα συναίρεσιν· οὐ συναριθμεῖται δὲ τὰ μὴ ὁμοούσια· ὥστε ὑμεῖς μὲν οὐ φεύξεσθε τὸ τρεῖς λέγειν θεοὺς κατὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦτον· ἡμῖν δὲ οὐδὲ εἷς κίνδυνος· οὐ γὰρ ὁμοούσια λέγομεν. σὺ μὲν οὖν ἀπήλλαξας σεαυτὸν πραγμάτων μιᾷ φωνῇ, καὶ τὴν κακὴν νίκην νενίκηκας· ὅμοιόν τι ποιήσας τοῖς διὰ θανάτου φόβον ἀπαγχομένοις. ἵνα γὰρ μὴ κάμῃς τῇ μοναρχίᾳ συνιστάμενος, ἠρνήσω θεότητα, καὶ προδέδωκας τοῖς ἐχθροῖς τὸ ζητούμενον. ἐγὼ δὲ κἄν τι δέῃ καμεῖν, οὐ προήσομαι τὸ προσκυνούμενον. ἐνταῦθα δὲ οὐδὲ ὁρῶ τίς ο πόνος. ### English translation (Claude) As for your arguments by which you do away with our union, I do not know whether to say they belong to someone joking or someone in earnest. What is the argument? “Things of one substance,” he says, “are counted together” (by counting together he means bringing into one number); “but things not of one substance are not counted together. So you cannot escape saying three Gods on this reasoning, while we are in no danger at all, for we do not say they are of one substance.” You have freed yourself from trouble with one word and won an evil victory, like those who hang themselves for fear of death. To spare yourself the labour of upholding the monarchy, you have denied the Godhead and betrayed what is in question to the enemy. As for me, even if some labour is needed, I will not give up the object of my worship. But here I do not even see what the labour is. ### Translation notes - The Eunomian argument is in quotation marks. “Of one substance” renders ὁμοούσια. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 17 (Mason, 165–166; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-17). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 18 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-18 - Source: Mason, 166–167 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Number indicates quantity, not nature: Scripture counts together things of different natures and counts singly things of the same nature. ### Greek text Συναριθμεῖται, φής, τὰ ὁμοούσια· τὰ δὲ μὴ οὕτως ἔχοντα μοναδικὴν ἔχει τὴν δήλωσιν. πόθεν σοι τοῦτο, καὶ παρὰ τίνων δογματιστῶν καὶ μυθολόγων; ἢ ἀγνοεῖς, ὅτι πᾶς ἀριθμὸς τῆς ποσότητος τῶν ὑποκειμένων ἐστὶ δηλωτικός, οὐ τῆς φύσεως τῶν πραγμάτων; ἐγὼ δὲ οὕτως ἀρχαίως ἔχω, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀμαθῶς, ὥστε τρία μὲν ὀνομάζω τὰ τοσαῦτα τῷ ἀριθμῷ, κἂν διέστηκε τὴν φύσιν· ἓν δέ, καὶ ἕν, καὶ ἕν, ἄλλως τὰς τοσαύτας μονάδας, κἂν τῇ οὐσία συνάπτωνται, οὐ πρὸς τὰ πράγματα μᾶλλον ἀφορῶν, ἢ τὸ πόσον τῶν πραγμάτων, καθʼ ὧν ἡ ἀρίθμησις. ἐπεὶ δὲ λίαν περιέχῃ τοῦ γράμματος, καίτοι γε πολεμῶν τῷ γράμματι, ἐκεῖθέν μοι λάβε τὰς ἀποδείξεις. τρία ἐν ταῖς παροιμίαις ἐστίν, ἃ εὐόδως πορεύεται, λέων, καὶ τράγος, καὶ ἁλεκτρυών· καὶ βασιλεὺς δημηγορῶν ἐν ἔθνει τὸ τέταρτον· ἵνα μὴ λέγω τὰς ἄλλας ἐκεῖ τετράδας ἀριθμουμένας, τῆ φύσει δὲ διῃρημένας. καὶ δύο τῷ Μωυσεῖ χερουβὶμ εὑρίσκω μοναδικῶς ἀριθμούμενα. πῶς οὖν ἢ ἐκεῖνα τρία, κατὰ τὴν σὴν τεχνολογίαν, τοσοῦτον ἀλλήλων ἀπερρηγμένα ταῖς φύσεσιν· ἢ ταῦτα μοναδικά, τοσοῦτον ἀλλήλοις ὁμοφυῆ καὶ συγκείμενα; εἰ γὰρ λέγοιμι θεὸν καὶ μαμωνᾶν δύο κυρίους εἰς ἓν ἀριθμουμένους, τοσούτῳ μακρὰν ὄντας ἀλλήλων, τάχα ἃν καὶ μᾶλλον γελασθείην τῆς συναριθμήσεως. ### English translation (Claude) “Things of one substance are counted together,” you say, “while things not so related are expressed one by one.” Where did you get this, and from what dogmatists and myth-tellers? Do you not know that every number indicates the quantity of the things under it, not their nature? I am so old-fashioned, or rather so ignorant, that I call three things that are three in number, even if they differ in nature; and one, and one, and one, units counted otherwise, even if they are joined in substance, looking not so much to the things themselves as to the quantity of the things counted. But since you hold on so tightly to the letter, though you fight against the letter, take your proofs from there. In Proverbs there are three things that go well: a lion, a goat, and a cock; and fourth, a king making a speech before a nation; not to mention the other fours listed there, though different in nature. And I find two cherubim counted one by one by Moses. How then, by your technical rules, are the first three, when they are so widely separated in nature, or the others counted singly, when they are so alike in nature and joined together? If I were to speak of God and mammon as two masters counted as one number, though so far apart from each other, I would perhaps be laughed at all the more for counting them together. ### Scripture references - Prov 30:29: allusion, high confidence - Exod 25:18: allusion, high confidence - Matt 6:24: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Prov 30:29–31 (LXX); Exod 25:18–19; Matt 6:24. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 18 (Mason, 166–167; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-18). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 19 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-19 - Source: Mason, 167–169 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Using 1 John 5:8 and common equivocal names, Gregory shows that the Eunomian rules about counting and names prove nothing about substance. ### Greek text Ἀλλʼ ἐμοί, φησιν, ἐκεῖνα συναριθμούμενα λέγεται, καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας, οἷς συνεκφωνεῖται καταλλήλως καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα· οἷον, ἄνθρωποι τρεῖς, καὶ θεοὶ τρεῖς, οὐχὶ τρία τάδε καὶ τάδε. τίς γὰρ ἢ ἀντίδοσις; τοῦτο νομοθετοῦντός ἐστι τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, οὐκ ἀληθεύοντος. ἐπεὶ κἀμοὶ Πέτρος, καὶ Παῦλος, καὶ Ἰωάννης, οὐ τρεῖς, οὐδὲ ὁμοούσιοι, ἕως ἂν μὴ τρεῖς Παῦλοι, καὶ τρεῖς Πέτροι, καὶ Ἰωάνναι τοσοῦτοι λέγωνται. ὃ γὰρ σὺ τετήρηκας ἐπὶ τῶν γενικωτέρων ὀνομάτων, τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀπαιτήσομεν ἐπὶ τῶν εἰδικωτέρων κατὰ τὴν σὴν ἀνάπλασιν. ἢ ἀδικήσεις, μὴ διδοὺς ὅπερ εἴληφας; τί δὲ ὁ Ἰωάννης, τρεῖς εἶναι τοὺς μαρτυροῦντας λέγων ἐν ταῖς καθολικαῖς, τὸ πνεῦμα, τὸ ὕδωρ, τὸ αἷμα; ἆρά σοι ληρεῖν φαίνεται, πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι τὰ μὴ ὁμοούσια συναριθμῆσαι τετόλμηκεν, ὃ τοῖς ὁμοουσίοις σὺ δίδως, — τίς γὰρ ἂν εἴποι ταῦτα μιᾶς οὐσίας; — δεύτερον δὲ ὅτι μὴ καταλλήλως ἔχων ἀπήντησεν, ἀλλὰ τὸ τρεῖς ἀρρενικῶς προθείς, τὰ τρία οὐδετέρως ἐπήνεγκε, παρὰ τοὺς σοὺς καὶ τῆς σῆς γραμματικῆς ὅρους καὶ νόμους; καίτοι τί διαφέρει, ἢ τρεῖς προθέντα ἓν καὶ ἓν καὶ ἓν ἐπενεγκεῖν, ἢ ἕνα καὶ ἕνα καὶ ἕνα λέγοντα μὴ τρεῖς ἀλλὰ τρία προσαγορεύειν; ὅπερ αὐτὸς ἀπαξιοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος. τί δέ σοι ὁ καρκίνος τό τε ζῶον, τό τε ὄργανον, ὅ τε ἀστήρ; τί δὲ ὁ κύων, ὅ τε χερσαῖος, καὶ ὁ ἔνυδρος, καὶ ὁ οὐράνιος; οὐ τρεῖς λέγεσθαί σοι δοκοῦσι καρκίνοι καὶ κύνες; πάντως γε. ἆρα οὖν παρὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁμοούσιοι; τίς φήσει τῶν νοῦν ἐχόντων; ὁρᾷς ὅπως σοι διαπέπτωκεν ὁ περὶ τῆς συναριθμήσεως λόγος, τοσούτοις ἐληλεγμένος; εἰ γὰρ μήτε τὰ ὁμοούσια πάντως συναριθμεῖται, καὶ συναριθμεῖται τὰ μὴ ὁμοούσια, ἥ τε τῶν ὀνομάτων συνεκφώνησις ἐπʼ ἀμφοῖν, τί σοι πλέον ὧν ἐδογμάτισας; ### English translation (Claude) “But for me,” he says, “those things are said to be counted together and of the same substance whose names are also expressed correspondingly, as ‘three men’ and ‘three gods,’ not ‘three this and that.’” What kind of concession is that? This is legislating about names, not telling the truth. For then for me Peter, Paul, and John are not three, nor of one substance, until they are called three Pauls, three Peters, and as many Johns. For what you have required for the more general names we will demand for the more specific ones, on your construction; or will you be unjust, refusing to give what you have taken? What of John, who in his catholic letters says that there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, the blood? Does he seem to you to talk nonsense, first because he dared to count together things not of one substance, which you allow only to things of one substance (for who would say these are of one substance?), and second because he did not make the words correspond, but, having put “three” in the masculine, added the three things in the neuter, against the rules and laws of your grammar? And yet what difference is there between putting “three” first and adding “one and one and one,” or saying “one and one and one” and calling them not three persons but three things? You yourself reject this in the case of the Godhead. What about the crab, the animal, the tool, and the constellation? What about the dog, the land dog, the water dog, and the heavenly one? Do they not seem to you to be called three crabs and three dogs? Certainly. Are they then of one substance for that reason? Who with sense will say so? Do you see how your argument about counting together has collapsed, refuted in so many ways? If things of one substance are not always counted together, and things not of one substance are counted together, and names are expressed together in both cases, what have you gained by your doctrines? ### Scripture references - 1 John 5:8: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - The Eunomian argument is in quotation marks. 1 John 5:8 (in the Greek, masculine τρεῖς with neuter nouns). The heavenly dog is the Dog Star (Sirius); the crab constellation is Cancer. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 19 (Mason, 167–169; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-19). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 20 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-20 - Source: Mason, 169–171 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The order in which the three are named, the titles “God” and “Lord,” and the prepositions “from,” “through,” and “in” do not show inequality of nature. ### Greek text Σκοπῶ δὲ κἀκεῖνο, καὶ ἴσως οὐκ ἔξω λόγου. τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ ἓν οὐκ εἰς δύο συντίθεται; τὰ δύο δὲ οὐκ εἰς ἓν καὶ ἓν ἀναλύεται; δῆλον ὅτι. εἰ οὖν ὁμοούσια μὲν τὰ συντιθέμενα κατὰ τὸν σὸν λόγον, ἑτεροούσια δὲ τὰ τεμνόμενα, τί συμβαίνει; τὰ αὐτὰ ὁμοούσιά τε εἶναι καὶ ἑτεροούσια. γελῶ σου καὶ τὰς προαριθμήσεις, καὶ τὰς ὑπαριθμήσεις, αἷς σὺ μέγα φρονεῖς, ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ τάξει τῶν ὀνομάτων κειμένων τῶν πραγμάτων. εἰ γὰρ τοῦτο, τί κωλύει κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον, ἐπειδὴ τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ προαριθμεῖται καὶ ὑπαριθμεῖται παρὰ τῇ γραφῇ διὰ τὴν ἰσοτιμίαν τῆς φύσεως, αὐτὰ ἑαυτῶν εἶναι τιμιώτερά τε καὶ ἀτιμότερα; ὁ δὲ αὐτός μοι καὶ περὶ τῆς Θεὸς φωνῆς καὶ Κύριος λόγος· ἔτι δὲ τῶν προθέσεων, τῆς ἐξ οὗ, καὶ διʼ οὗ, καὶ ἐν ᾧ, αἷς σὺ κατατεχνολογεῖς ἡμῖν τὸ θεῖον, τὴν μὲν τῷ πατρὶ διδούς, τὴν δὲ τῷ υἱῷ, τὴν δὲ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι. τί γὰρ ἂν ἐποίησας, παγίως ἑκάστου τούτων ἑκάστῳ νενεμημένου· ὁπότε πάντων πᾶσι συντεταγμένων, ὡς δῆλον τοῖς φιλοπόνοις, τοσαύτην σὺ διὰ τούτων εἰσάγεις καὶ τῆς ἀξίας καὶ τῆς φύσεως ἀνισότητα; ἀπόχρη καὶ ταῦτα τοῖς μὴ λίαν ἀγνώμοσιν. ἐπεὶ δέ σε τῶν χαλεπῶν ἐστίν, ἅπαξ ἐπιπηδήσαντα τῷ πνεύματι, τῆς φορᾶς σχεθῆναι, ἁλλὰ μή, καθάπερ τῶν συῶν τοὺς θρασυτέρους, εἰς τέλος φιλονεικεῖν, καὶ πρὸς τὸ ξίφος ὠθίζεσθαι, μέχρις ἂν πᾶσαν εἴσω τὴν πληγὴν ὑπολάβῃς, φέρε, σκεψώμεθα τίς ἔτι σοι λείπεται λόγος. ### English translation (Claude) I consider this too, perhaps not beside the point. Are not one and one put together into two? And is not two resolved into one and one? Clearly. If, then, on your reasoning, things put together are of one substance, and things divided are of different substances, what follows? That the same things are both of one substance and of different substances. I laugh too at your counting first and counting after, of which you are so proud, as though the realities depended on the order of the names. For if so, what prevents the same things, since in Scripture the same persons are named first and named after because of the equal honour of their nature, from being on the same reasoning both more honourable and less honourable than themselves? I say the same about the words “God” and “Lord,” and further about the prepositions “from whom,” “through whom,” and “in whom,” by which you technically divide up the Godhead for us, giving the first to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Spirit. What would you have done if each of these were fixed to each person, since, when all are used of all, as is plain to the diligent, you bring in by them so great an inequality of both dignity and nature? This is enough for those who are not very unreasonable. But since it is hard for you, once you have attacked the Spirit, to be checked in your charge, and not, like the more reckless boars, to fight to the end and push yourself onto the sword until you have taken the whole wound inside you, come, let us see what argument you still have left. ### Scripture references - Rom 11:36: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 8:6: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 11:36 and 1 Cor 8:6 (the prepositions). The boar charging onto the hunting spear is a common simile. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 20 (Mason, 169–171; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-20). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 21 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-21 - Source: Mason, 171–172 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Gregory replies to the charge that the Spirit’s Godhead is unscriptural by first discussing how Scripture uses things and names. ### Greek text Πάλιν καὶ πολλάκις ἀνακυκλεῖς ἡμῖν τὸ ἄγραφον. ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐ ξένον τοῦτο, οὐδὲ παρείσακτον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς πάλαι καὶ τοῖς νῦν γνωριζόμενον καὶ παραγυμνούμενον, δέδεικται μὲν ἤδη πολλοῖς τῶν περὶ τούτου διειληφότων, ὅσοι μὴ ῥᾳθύμως μηδὲ παρέργως ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς ἐντυχόντες, ἀλλὰ διασχόντες τὸ γράμμα καὶ εἴσω παρακύψαντες, τὸ ἀπόθετον κάλλος ἰδεῖν ἠξιώθησαν, καὶ τῷ φωτισμῷ τῆς γνώσεως κατηυγάσθησαν. δηλώσομεν δὲ καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐξ ἐπιδρομῆς, ὅσον ἐνδέχεται, τοῦ μὴ δοκεῖν εἶναι περιττοί τινες, μηδὲ φιλοτιμότεροι τοῦ δέοντος, ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἐπὶ θεμέλιον ἀλλότριον. εἰ δὲ τὸ μὴ λίαν σαφῶς γεγράφθαι θεὸν μηδὲ πολλάκις ὀνομαστί, ὥσπερ τὸν πατέρα πρότερον καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ὕστερον, αἴτιόν σοι γίνεται βλασφημίας, καὶ τῆς περιττῆς ταύτης γλωσσαλγίας καὶ ἀσεβείας, ἡμεῖς σοι λύσομεν ταύτην τὴν βλάβην, μικρὰ περὶ πραγμάτων καὶ ὀνομάτων καὶ μάλιστα παρὰ τῆ τῆς γραφῆς συνηθείᾳ φιλοσοφήσαντες. ### English translation (Claude) Again and again you bring round to us the charge that it is unscriptural. That this doctrine is not foreign or smuggled in, but was known and hinted at to those of old and is revealed to those now, has already been shown by many who have treated the subject, all who have read the divine Scriptures not carelessly or casually, but have gone through the letter and looked within, and so were counted worthy to see its hidden beauty and were illuminated by the light of knowledge. We too will show it, briefly and as far as possible, so as not to seem superfluous or more ambitious than we should be, building on another man’s foundation. But if the fact that he is not very clearly or often called God by name in Scripture, as the Father was earlier and the Son later, has become for you a cause of blasphemy and of this excessive itch of the tongue and impiety, we will remove this harm for you by philosophizing a little about things and names, and especially about the usage of Scripture. ### Scripture references - Rom 15:20: allusion, high confidence - 2 Cor 4:6: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Rom 15:20; 2 Cor 4:6. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 21 (Mason, 171–172; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/1/#p-21). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 22 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-22 - Source: Mason, 172–173 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Scripture speaks of God sleeping, being angry, walking, and sitting enthroned, figures drawn from human life for things that are not literally so. ### Greek text τῶν πραγμάτων τὰ μὲν οὐκ ἔστι, λέγεται δέ· τὰ δὲ ὄντα οὐ λέγεται· τὰ δὲ οὔτε ἔστιν, οὔτε λέγεται· τὰ δὲ ἄμφω, καὶ ἔστι, καὶ λέγεται. τούτων ἀπαιτεῖς με τὰς ἀποδείξεις; παρασχεῖν ἕτοιμος. ὑπνοῖ τῆ γραφῇ θεός, καὶ γρηγορεῖ, καὶ ὀργίζεται, καὶ βαδίζει, καὶ θρόνον ἔχει τὰ χερουβίμ· καίτοι πότε γέγονεν ἐμπαθής; πότε δὲ σῶμα θεὸν ἀκήκοας; τοῦτο οὐκ ὂν ἀνεπλάσθη. ὠνομάσαμεν γάρ, ὡς ἡμῖν ἐφικτόν, ἐκ τῶν ἡμετέρων τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. τὸ μὲν ἠρεμεῖν αὐτὸν ἀφʼ ἡμῶν, καὶ οἷον ἀμελεῖν, διʼ ἃς αὐτὸς οἶδεν αἰτίας, ὑπνοῦν. τὸ γὰρ ἡμέτερον ὑπνοῦν τοιοῦτον, ἀνενέργητόν τε καὶ ἄπρακτον. τὸ δὲ ἀθρόως εὖ ποιεῖν ἐκ μεταβολῆς, γρηγορεῖν. ὕπνου γὰρ λύσις ἐγρήγορσις, ὥσπερ ἀποστροφῆς ἐπίσκεψις. τὸ δὲ κολάζειν ὀργίζεσθαι πεποιήκαμεν· οὕτω γὰρ ἡμῖν ἐξ ὀργῆς ἡ κόλασις. τὸ δὲ νῦν μὲν τῇδε, νῦν δὲ τῇδε ἐνεργεῖν, βαδίζειν. ἡ γὰρ ἀπʼ ἄλλου πρὸς ἄλλο μετάβασις, βαδισμός. τὸ δὲ ἐναναπαύεσθαι ταῖς ἁγίαις δυνάμεσι, καὶ οἷον ἐμφιλοχωρεῖν, καθέζεσθαι καὶ θρονίζεσθαι. καὶ τοῦτο ἡμέτερον. οὐδενὶ γὰρ οὕτως ὡς τοῖς ἁγίοις τὸ θεῖον ἐναναπαύεται. τὸ δὲ ὀξυκίνητον, πτῆσιν· τὴν δὲ ἐπισκοπήν, πρόσωπον· τὸ διδόναι δὲ καὶ προσίεσθαι, χεῖρα· καὶ ἄλλη τις ὅλως τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμεων ἢ ἐνεργειῶν ἄλλο τι τῶν σωματικῶν ἡμῖν ἀνεζωγράφησεν. ### English translation (Claude) Of things, some do not exist but are spoken of; some exist but are not spoken of; some neither exist nor are spoken of; and some both exist and are spoken of. Do you ask me for proofs of these? I am ready to supply them. In Scripture God sleeps and wakes, is angry, walks, and has the cherubim as his throne. Yet when did he become subject to passion? When have you heard that God is a body? This is something that does not exist, pictured in words. For we have named the things of God, as far as we can reach, from what is ours. His keeping quiet toward us and, as it were, neglecting us, for reasons he himself knows, we call sleeping; for our sleep is like that, inactive and idle. His suddenly doing good after a change we call waking; for waking is the ending of sleep, as visitation is the ending of turning away. His punishing we have made into being angry, for with us punishment comes from anger. His acting now here and now there we call walking; for passing from one place to another is walking. His resting among the holy powers and, as it were, loving to dwell with them, we call sitting and being enthroned; and this too is ours, for the divine rests in none as in the saints. His swiftness of movement we call flying; his watching over us, a face; his giving and receiving, a hand; and in short each of God’s powers or activities has been painted for us as something bodily. ### Scripture references - Ps 44:23 (43:24 LXX): allusion, high confidence - Ps 78:65 (77:65 LXX): allusion, high confidence - Ps 80:1 (79:2 LXX): allusion, high confidence - Ps 18:10 (17:11 LXX): allusion, medium confidence - Ps 34:16 (33:17 LXX): allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Ps 44:23 (LXX 43:24); Ps 78:65 (LXX 77:65); Ps 80:1 (LXX 79:2); Ps 18:10 (LXX 17:11); Ps 34:16 (LXX 33:17). ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 22 (Mason, 172–173; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-22). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 23 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-23 - Source: Mason, 173–175 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Eunomians’ own key terms, “unbegotten” and “without beginning,” are not in Scripture by name but are inferred from it, as is the Spirit’s Godhead. ### Greek text Πάλιν σὺ πόθεν τὸ ἀγέννητον λαβὼν ἔχεις, ἢ τὸ ἄναρχον, τὰς σὰς ἀκροπόλεις, ἢ καὶ ἡμεῖς τὸ ἀθάνατον; δεῖξον ταῦτα ὀνομαστί, ἢ διαγράψομεν, καὶ τέθνηκας ἐκ τῶν σῶν ὑποθέσεων, καθαιρεθέντων σοι τῶν ὀνομάτων, καὶ τοῦ τείχους τῆς καταφυγῆς ἐφʼ ᾧ ἐπεποίθεις. ἢ δῆλον ὅτι ἐκ τῶν ταῦτα συναγόντων, κἂν μὴ ταῦτα λέγηται; τίνων τούτων; Ἐγώ εἰμι πρῶτος, καὶ ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα. καί, Πρὸ ἐμοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλος θεός, καὶ μετʼ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔσται. ὅλον γὰρ τὸ ἔστιν ἐμόν· οὔτε ἠργμένον, οὔτε παυσόμενον. ταῦτα λαβών, τὸ μὲν μὴ εἶναί τι πρὸ αὐτοῦ, μηδὲ πρεσβυτέραν αἰτίαν ἔχειν, ἄναρχον προσηγόρευσας, καὶ ἀγέννητον· τὸ δὲ μὴ στήσεσθαι τοῦ εἶναι, ἀθάνατον καὶ ἀνώλεθρον. αἱ μὲν δὴ πρῶται συζυγίαι τοιαῦται, καὶ οὕτως ἔχουσαι. τίνα δὲ οὔτε ἔστιν, οὔτε λέγεται; πονηρὸν τὸ θεῖον, ἡ σφαῖρα τετράγωνος, τὸ παρελθὸν ἐνέστηκεν, οὐ σύνθετον ὁ ἄνθρωπος. τίνα γὰρ εἰς τοσοῦτόν ποτε ἐμπληξίας ἀφικόμενον ἔγνως, ὥστε τι τοιοῦτον ἢ ἐννοῆσαι τολμῆσαι, ἢ ἀποφήνασθαι; λείπεται δεῖξαι τίνα καὶ ἔστι καὶ λέγεται· θεός, ἄνθρωπος, ἄγγελος, κρίσις· ματαιότης οἱ τοιοῦτοι συλλογισμοί, καὶ τῆς πίστεως ἀνατροπή, καὶ τοῦ μυστηρίου κένωσις. ### English translation (Claude) Again: where did you get “unbegotten” or “without beginning,” your citadels, or we “immortal”? Show me these words in Scripture by name, or we will strike them out, and you are dead by your own assumptions, now that your names have been pulled down, along with the wall of refuge in which you trusted. Or is it not plain that they come from passages that imply them, even if these words are not used? Which passages? “I am the first, and I am after these things,” and “Before me there was no other God, and after me there shall be none.” For all of “is” is mine, neither beginning nor ending. Taking these, you called him “without beginning” and “unbegotten” because there is nothing before him and he has no older cause; and “immortal” and “indestructible” because he will not cease to be. Such, then, are the first pairs, and so they stand. What things neither exist nor are spoken of? That the divine is evil, that a sphere is square, that the past is present, that man is not composite. Whom have you ever known to reach such a pitch of madness as to dare to think or assert anything like this? It remains to show what both exists and is spoken of: God, man, angel, judgment. Vanity are such syllogisms as yours, an overthrow of faith and an emptying of the mystery. ### Scripture references - Isa 44:6: quotation, high confidence - Isa 43:10: quotation, high confidence - 1 Cor 1:17: echo, medium confidence ### Translation notes - Isa 44:6 (LXX, with Isa 41:4); Isa 43:10; 1 Cor 1:17. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 23 (Mason, 173–175; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-23). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 24 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-24 - Source: Mason, 175–176 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Scripture implies truths it does not state in so many words; Gregory will now explain why the Spirit’s Godhead was revealed gradually. ### Greek text τοσαύτης οὖν οὔσης διαφορᾶς ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασι καὶ τοῖς πράγμασι, πῶς οὕτω σὺ λίαν δουλεύεις τῷ γράμματι, καὶ γίνῃ μετὰ τῆς Ἰουδαικῆς σοφίας, καὶ συλλαβαῖς ἀκολουθεῖς, ἀφεὶς τὰ πράγματα; εἰ δὲ σοῦ τὰ δὶς πέντε λέγοντος, ἢ τὰ δὶς ἑπτά, τὰ δέκα συνῆγον, ἢ τέσσαρες καὶ δέκα ἐκ τῶν λεγομένων· ἢ ἐκ τοῦ ζῶον λογικόν, θνητόν, τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἆρα ἄν σοι ληρεῖν ἐνομίσθην; καὶ πῶς, τὰ σὰ λέγων; οὐ γὰρ τοῦ λέγοντος μᾶλλον οἱ λόγοι, ἢ τοῦ λέγειν συναναγκάζοντος. ὥσπερ οὖν ἐνταῦθα οὐκ ἂν τὰ λεγόμενα μᾶλλον ἐσκόπουν, ἢ τὰ νοούμενα· οὕτως οὐδὲ εἴ τι ἄλλο τῶν μὴ λεγομένων, ἢ μὴ σαφῶς, ἐκ τῆς γραφῆς νοούμενον ηὕρισκον, ἔφυγον ἂν τὴν ἐκφώνησιν, φοβούμενος σὲ τὸν συκοφάντην τῶν ὀνομάτων. οὕτω μὲν οὖν στησόμεθα πρὸς τοὺς ἐξ ἡμισείας εὐγνώμονας. σοὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἔξεστι λέγειν. ὁ γὰρ τὰς τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορίας οὕτως ἐναργεῖς οὔσας καὶ τοσαύτας ἀρνούμενος, οὐδʼ ἂν ταύτας ᾐδέσθης δῆλον ὅτι, καὶ εἰ πολλῷ σαφεστέρας καὶ πλείους ἐγίνωσκες. ἤδη δὲ καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν δηλώσω τῆς πάσης ἐπικρύψεως, καίπερ σοφοῖς οὖσιν ὑμῖν, βραχύ τι τὸν λόγον ἀναγαγών. ### English translation (Claude) Since there is so great a difference between names and things, why are you so much a slave of the letter, siding with Jewish wisdom and following syllables while abandoning the realities? If, when you said “twice five” or “twice seven,” I concluded “ten” or “fourteen” from your words; or if from “a rational, mortal animal” I concluded “man,” would you think I was talking nonsense? And how, when I was saying what you said? For words belong not so much to the one who speaks them as to the one who compels them to be spoken. As, then, in this case I would look not so much at what is said as at what is meant, so too, if I found anything else in Scripture that is meant though not said, or not clearly, I would not avoid expressing it for fear of you, the slanderer of names. This is how we will take our stand against those who are half fair-minded. To you it is not even possible to say this. For you deny the titles of the Son, which are so clear and so many, so it is plain you would not have respected these either, even if you knew far clearer and more numerous ones. But now I will explain the reason for the whole concealment, wise as you are, by taking the argument back a little. ### Scripture references - 2 Cor 3:6: echo, low confidence ### Translation notes - “Jewish wisdom” here means literalism, clinging to the letter (compare 2 Cor 3:6). ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 24 (Mason, 175–176; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-24). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 25 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-25 - Source: Mason, 176–178 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: God led humanity gradually, from idols to the Law and from the Law to the gospel, persuading rather than forcing. ### Greek text Δύο γεγόνασι μεταθέσεις βίων ἐπιφανεῖς ἐκ τοῦ παντὸς αἰῶνος, αἳ καὶ δύο διαθῆκαι καλοῦνται, καὶ σεισμοὶ γῆς, διὰ τὸ τοῦ πράγματος περιβόητον· ἡ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων ἐπὶ τὸν νόμον, ἡ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου πρὸς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. καὶ τρίτον σεισμὸν εὐαγγελιζόμεθα, τὴν ἐντεῦθεν ἐπὶ τὰ ἐκεῖσε μετάστασιν, τὰ μηκέτι κινούμενα, μηδὲ σαλευόμενα. ταὐτὸν δὲ αἱ δύο διαθῆκαι πεπόνθασι. τί τοῦτο; οὐκ ἀθρόως μετεκινήθησαν, οὐδὲ ὁμοῦ τῇ πρώτῃ κινήσει τῆς ἐγχειρήσεως. τίνος ἕνεκεν; εἰδέναι γὰρ ἀναγκαῖον ἵνα μὴ βιασθῶμεν, ἀλλὰ πεισθῶμεν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀκούσιον οὐδὲ μόνιμον· ὥσπερ ἃ βίᾳ κατέχεται τῶν ῥευμάτων ἢ τῶν φυτῶν· τὸ δὲ ἑκούσιον μονιμώτερόν τε καὶ ἀσφαλέστερον. καὶ τὸ μὲν τοῦ βιασαμένου, τὸ δὲ ἡμέτερον· καὶ τὸ μὲν ἐπιεικείας θεοῦ, τὸ δὲ τυραννικῆς ἐξουσίας. οὔκουν ᾤετο δεῖν ἄκοντας εὖ ποιεῖν, ἀλλʼ ἑκόντας εὐεργετεῖν. διὰ τοῦτο παιδαγωγικῶς τε καὶ ἰατρικῶς τὸ μὲν ὑφαιρεῖ τῶν πατρίων, τὸ δὲ συγχωρεῖ, μικρόν τι τῶν πρὸς ἡδονὴν ἐνδιδούς· ὥσπερ οἱ ἰατροὶ τοῖς ἀρρωστοῦσιν, ἵνα ἡ φαρμακεία παραδεχθῇ διὰ τῆς τέχνης φαρματτομένη τοῖς χρηστοτέροις. οὐ γὰρ ῥᾴστη τῶν ἐν ἔθει καὶ μακρῷ χρόνῳ τετιμημένων ἡ μετάθεσις. λέγω δὲ τί; ἡ πρώτη τὰ εἴδωλα περικόψασα τὰς θυσίας συνεχώρησεν· ἡ δευτέρα τὰς θυσίας περιελοῦσα τὴν περιτομὴν οὐκ ἐκώλυσεν· εἶτα ὡς ἅπαξ ἐδέξαντο τὴν ὑφαίρεσιν, καὶ τὸ συγχωρηθὲν συνεχώρησαν· οἱ μὲν τὰς θυσίας, οἱ δὲ τὴν περιτομήν· καὶ γεγόνασιν, ἀντὶ μὲν ἐθνῶν, Ἰουδαῖοι· ἀντὶ δὲ τούτων, Χριστιανοί, ταῖς κατὰ μέρος μεταθέσεσι κλαπέντες ἐπὶ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. πειθέτω σὲ τοῦτο Παῦλος, ἐκ τοῦ περιτέμνειν καὶ ἁγνίζεσθαι προελθὼν ἐπὶ τὸ λέγειν· Ἐγὼ δέ, ἀδελφοί, εἰ περιτομὴν κηρύσσω, τί ἔτι διώκομαι; ἐκεῖνο τῆς οἰκονομίας, τοῦτο τῆς τελειότητος. ### English translation (Claude) There have been two notable changes of life in the whole history of the world, which are also called two covenants, and earthquakes, because of how momentous the event was: the one from idols to the Law, the other from the Law to the gospel. And we are told the good news of a third earthquake, the passage from here to what is there, which can no longer be moved or shaken. The two covenants had the same experience. What was it? They were not changed all at once, nor at the first movement of the undertaking. For what reason? It is necessary to know, so that we might not be forced but persuaded. For what is involuntary does not last, like streams or plants held back by force; but what is voluntary is more lasting and more secure. The one belongs to the one who uses force, the other is ours; the one belongs to God’s gentleness, the other to tyrannical power. So he did not think it right to do good to the unwilling, but to benefit the willing. For this reason, like a tutor and a physician, he takes away some ancestral customs and allows others, conceding a little to what gives pleasure, as physicians do with the sick, so that their medicine may be accepted when it is skilfully mixed with something pleasant. For change in what has been honoured by custom and long time is not very easy. What do I mean? The first covenant cut off idols but allowed sacrifices; the second removed sacrifices but did not forbid circumcision. Then, once people had accepted the removal, they also gave up what had been allowed, the one the sacrifices, the other circumcision; and they became Jews instead of Gentiles, and Christians instead of Jews, stolen away into the gospel by gradual changes. Let Paul persuade you of this, who went from circumcising and purifying himself to saying, “But I, brothers, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?” The one was a matter of economy, the other of perfection. ### Scripture references - Hag 2:6: allusion, high confidence - Heb 12:26: allusion, high confidence - Heb 12:27: allusion, high confidence - Acts 16:3: allusion, high confidence - Acts 21:26: allusion, medium confidence - Gal 5:11: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Hag 2:6 and Heb 12:26–27; Acts 16:3; Acts 21:26; Gal 5:11. “Economy” here means a concession for the sake of the plan of salvation. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 25 (Mason, 176–178; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-25). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 26 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-26 - Source: Mason, 178–179 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Revelation of the Trinity was gradual: the Old Testament showed the Father, the New the Son, and now the Spirit makes himself clearer, as Jesus himself revealed him step by step. ### Greek text τούτῳ τὸ τῆς θεολογίας εἰκάζειν ἔχω, πλὴν ὅσον ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων. ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ ἐκ τῶν ὑφαιρέσεων ἡ μετάθεσις· ἐνταῦθα δὲ διὰ τῶν προσθηκῶν ἢ τελείωσις. ἔχει γὰρ οὕτως. ἐκήρυσσε φανερῶς ἡ παλαιὰ τὸν πατέρα, τὸν υἱὸν ἀμυδρότερον. ἐφανέρωσεν ἡ καινὴ τὸν υἱόν, ὑπέδειξε τοῦ πνεύματος τὴν θεότητα. ἐμπολιτεύεται νῦν τὸ πνεῦμα, σαφεστέραν ἡμῖν παρέχον τὴν ἑαυτοῦ δήλωσιν. οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἀσφαλές, μήπω τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς θεότητος ὁμολογηθείσης, τὸν υἱὸν ἐκδήλως κηρύττεσθαι· μηδὲ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ παραδεχθείσης, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἵν εἴπω τι καὶ τολμηρότερον, ἐπιφορτίζεσθαι· μὴ καθάπερ τροφῆ τῇ ὑπὲρ δύναμιν βαρηθέντες, καὶ ἡλιακῷ φωτὶ σαθροτέραν ἔτι προσβαλόντες τὴν ὄψιν, καὶ εἰς τὸ κατὰ δύναμιν κινδυνεύσωσι· ταῖς δὲ κατὰ μέρος προσθήκαις, καί, ὡς εἶπε Δαβίδ, ἀναβάσεσι, καὶ ἐκ δόξης εἰς δόξαν προόδοις καὶ προκοπαῖς, τὸ τῆς τριάδος φῶς ἐκλάμψῃ τοῖς λαμπροτέροις. διὰ ταύτην, οἶμαι, τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς κατὰ μέρος ἐπιδημεῖ, τῆ τῶν δεχομένων δυνάμει παραμετρούμενον, ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, μετὰ τὸ πάθος, μετὰ τὴν ἄνοδον, τὰς δυνάμεις ἐπιτελοῦν, ἐμφυσώμενον, ἐν γλώσσαις πυρίναις φαινόμενον. καὶ ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ κατʼ ὀλίγον ἐκφαίνεται, ὡς ἐπιστήσεις καὶ αὐτὸς ἐντυγχάνων ἐπιμελέστερον· ᾿Ερωτήσω, φησί, τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον πέμψει ὑμῖν, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας· ἵνα μὴ ἀντίθεος εἶναι δόξῃ τις, καὶ ὡς ἀπʼ ἄλλης τινὸς ἐξουσίας ποιεῖσθαι τοὺς λόγους. εἶτα, Πέμψει μέν, ἐν δὲ τῷ ὀνόματί μου. τὸ ᾿Ερωτήσω παρείς, τὸ Πέμψει τετήρηκεν. εἶτα, Πέμψω, τὸ οἰκεῖον ἀξίωμα· εἶτα, Ἥξει, ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος ἐξουσία. ### English translation (Claude) I can compare the case of theology to this, except that it goes the opposite way. There the change came by taking away; here perfection comes by adding. For this is how it is. The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly and the Son more obscurely. The New made the Son manifest and hinted at the Godhead of the Spirit. Now the Spirit dwells among us, giving us a clearer manifestation of himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father had not yet been acknowledged, to proclaim the Son openly; nor, when the Son’s had not yet been accepted, to burden us further (if I may say something rather bold) with the Holy Spirit; lest, like people weighed down with food beyond their strength, or who turn eyes still too weak toward the light of the sun, they should endanger even what was within their strength. Rather, by gradual additions, and, as David said, by ascents, and by advances and progress from glory to glory, the light of the Trinity would shine on those more illumined. For this reason, I think, he also comes to the disciples gradually, measuring himself to the capacity of those who receive him: at the beginning of the gospel, after the passion, after the ascension, working miracles, breathed upon them, appearing in tongues of fire. And Jesus reveals him little by little, as you will notice yourself if you read more carefully. “I will ask the Father,” he says, “and he will send you another Advocate, the Spirit of truth,” so that he might not seem to be a rival God and to speak as from some other authority. Then, “He will send, but in my name”: he left out “I will ask,” but kept “he will send.” Then “I will send”: his own dignity. Then “He will come”: the authority of the Spirit. ### Scripture references - Ps 84:5 (83:6 LXX): allusion, medium confidence - 2 Cor 3:18: allusion, high confidence - John 20:22: allusion, high confidence - Acts 2:3: allusion, high confidence - John 14:16: quotation, high confidence - John 14:26: quotation, high confidence - John 16:7: quotation, high confidence - John 16:13: quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Ps 84:5 (LXX 83:6, “ascents”); 2 Cor 3:18; Matt 10:1, 20; John 20:22; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:3; John 14:16–17; John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7, 13. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 26 (Mason, 178–179; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-26). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 27 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-27 - Source: Mason, 179–181 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The Spirit’s Godhead was among the things the disciples could not yet bear, which Jesus promised the Spirit would teach them later. ### Greek text Ὁρᾷς φωτισμοὺς κατὰ μέρος ἡμῖν ἐλλάμποντας, καὶ τάξιν θεολογίας, ἢν καὶ ἡμᾶς τηρεῖν ἄμεινον, μήτε ἀθρόως ἐκφαίνοντας, μήτε εἰς τέλος κρύπτοντας. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἄτεχνον, τὸ δὲ ἄθεον· καὶ τὸ μὲν τοὺς ἀλλοτρίους πλῆξαι δυνάμενον, τὸ δὲ ἀλλοτριῶσαι τοὺς ἡμετέρους. ὃ δὲ ἴσως μὲν ἤδη τισὶν ἦλθεν ἐπὶ νοῦν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων, ἐγὼ δὲ τῆς ἐμαυτοῦ διανοίας ὑπολαμβάνω καρπόν, προσθήσω τοῖς εἰρημένοις. ἦν τινὰ τῷ σωτῆρι, καὶ εἰ πολλῶν ἐνεπίμπλαντο μαθημάτων, ἃ μὴ δύνασθαι τότε βασταχθῆναι τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐλέγετο, διʼ ἃς εἶπον ἴσως αἰτίας, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο παρεκαλύπτετο· καὶ πάλιν πάντα διδαχθήσεσθαι ἡμᾶς ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος ἐνδημήσαντος. τούτων ἓν εἶναι νομίζω καὶ αὐτὴν τοῦ πνεύματος τὴν θεότητα, τρανουμένην εἰς ὕστερον, ὡς τηνικαῦτα ὡρίμου καὶ χωρητῆς ἤδη τυγχανούσης τῆς γνώσεως, μετὰ τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἀποκατάστασιν, οὐκέτι ἀπιστουμένου τῷ θαύματι. τί γὰρ ἂν τούτου μεῖζον ἢ ἐκεῖνος ὑπέσχετο, ἢ τὸ πνεῦμα ἐδίδαξεν; εἴπερ τι μέγα οἴεσθαι χρή, καὶ θεοῦ μεγαλοπρεπείας ἄξιον, τὸ ὑπισχνούμενον, ἢ τὸ διδασκόμενον. ### English translation (Claude) You see lights shining on us little by little, and an order of theology which it is better for us too to keep, neither revealing everything at once nor hiding it to the end. The one would be unskilful, the other godless; the one could wound outsiders, the other alienate our own. I will add to what has been said something that has perhaps already occurred to others as well, but which I take to be the fruit of my own thought. The Saviour had some things which, it was said, the disciples could not bear then, though they were filled with much teaching, perhaps for the reasons I have given, and for this reason they were veiled; and again he said that we would be taught all things by the Spirit when he came to dwell with us. One of these, I think, is the Godhead of the Spirit itself, made clear later, when the knowledge was ripe and could be received, after the Saviour’s restoration, when he was no longer disbelieved because of the marvel. For what greater thing than this did he promise, or did the Spirit teach? If indeed anything should be thought great and worthy of God’s majesty among the things promised or taught. ### Scripture references - John 16:12: allusion, high confidence - John 16:13: allusion, high confidence - John 14:26: allusion, high confidence ### Translation notes - John 16:12–13; John 14:26. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 27 (Mason, 179–181; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-27). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 28 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-28 - Source: Mason, 181–182 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Gregory confesses one Godhead in Father, Son, and Spirit: since the Spirit deifies us in baptism, he must be worshipped as God. ### Greek text Ἔχω μὲν οὕτω περὶ τούτων, καὶ ἔχοιμι, καὶ ὅς τις ἐμοὶ φίλος — σέβειν θεὸν τὸν πατέρα, θεὸν τὸν υἱόν, θεὸν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τρεῖς ἰδιότητας, θεότητα μίαν, δόξῃ, καὶ τιμῇ, καὶ οὐσίᾳ, καὶ βασιλείᾳ μὴ μεριζομένην, ὥς τις τῶν μικρῷ πρόσθεν θεοφόρων ἐφιλοσόφησεν· ἢ μὴ ἴδοι ἑωσφόρον ἀνατέλλοντα, ὥς φησιν ἡ γραφή, μηδὲ δόξαν τῆς ἐκεῖθεν λαμπρότητος, ὅς τις οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει, ἢ συμφέρεται τοῖς καιροῖς, ἄλλοτε ἄλλος γινόμενος, καὶ περὶ τῶν μεγίστων σαθρῶς βουλευόμενος. εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲ προσκυνητόν, πῶς ἐμὲ θεοῖ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος; εἰ δὲ προσκυνητόν, πῶς οὐ σεπτόν; εἰ δὲ σεπτόν, πῶς οὐ θεός; ἓν ἤρτηται τοῦ ἑνός, ἡ χρυσῆ τις ὄντως σειρὰ καὶ σωτήριος. καὶ παρὰ μὲν τοῦ πνεύματος ἡμῖν ἡ ἀναγέννησις· παρὰ δὲ τῆς ἀναγεννήσεως ἢ ἀνάπλασις· παρὰ δὲ τῆς ἀναπλάσεως ἡ ἐπίγνωσις τῆς ἀξίας τοῦ ἀναπλάσαντος. ### English translation (Claude) This is what I hold about these things, and may I hold it, and whoever is my friend: to worship God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, three distinctive properties, one Godhead, undivided in glory, honour, substance, and kingship, as one of the God-bearers a little before us taught. May he not see the morning star rising, as Scripture says, nor the glory of the splendour there, who does not hold this, or who shifts with the times, becoming now one thing and now another, and taking unsound counsel about the greatest matters. For if he is not to be worshipped, how does he deify me through baptism? And if he is to be worshipped, how is he not to be revered? And if revered, how is he not God? One hangs on the other, a truly golden and saving chain. From the Spirit comes our rebirth; from rebirth our re-creation; from re-creation our knowledge of the dignity of the one who re-created us. ### Scripture references - Job 3:9: quotation, medium confidence - 2 Pet 1:19: echo, low confidence - John 3:5: allusion, medium confidence - Titus 3:5: allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Homer, Il. 8.19 (Homer, Iliad): echo, low confidence ### Translation notes - “One of the God-bearers a little before us” is not named; the formula has been attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, but the identification is uncertain. Job 3:9 (LXX, the morning star); 2 Pet 1:19; John 3:5; Titus 3:5. The “golden chain” echoes Homer, Iliad 8.19. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 28 (Mason, 181–182; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-28). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 29 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-29 - Source: Mason, 182–185 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Gregory gathers the many scriptural titles and works of the Holy Spirit, which show him to be God. ### Greek text ταῦτα μὲν οὖν εἴποι τις ἂν τὸ ἄγραφον ὑποθέμενος· ἤδη δὲ ἥξει σοι καὶ ὁ τῶν μαρτυριῶν ἐσμός, ἐξ ὧν, ὅτι καὶ λίαν ἔγγραφος, ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος θεότης τοῖς μὴ λίαν σκαιοῖς, μηδὲ ἀλλοτρίοις τοῦ πνεύματος. σκόπει δὲ οὕτως· γεννᾶται Χριστός, προτρέχει· βαπτίζεται, μαρτυρεῖ· πειράζεται, ἀνάγει· δυνάμεις ἐπιτελεῖ, συμπαρομαρτεῖ· ἀνέρχεται, διαδέχεται. τί γὰρ οὐ δύναται τῶν μεγάλων, καὶ ὧν θεός; τί δὲ οὐ προσαγορεύεται ὧν θεός, πλὴν ἀγεννησίας καὶ γεννήσεως; ἔδει γὰρ τὰς ἰδιότητας μεῖναι πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ, ἵνα μὴ σύγχυσις ἦ παρὰ θεότητι, τῆ καὶ τἄλλα εἰς τάξιν ἀγούσῃ καὶ εὐκοσμίαν. ἐγὼ μὲν φρίττω τὸν πλοῦτον ἐννοῶν τῶν κλήσεων, καὶ καθʼ ὅσων ὀνομάτων ἀναισχυντοῦσιν οἱ τῷ πνεύματι ἀντιπίπτοντες. πνεῦμα θεοῦ λέγεται, πνεῦμα χριστοῦ, νοῦς Χριστοῦ, πνεῦμα κυρίου, αὐτὸ κύριος· πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας, ἐλευθερίας· πνεῦμα σοφίας, συνέσεως, βουλῆς, ἰσχύος, γνώσεως, εὐσεβείας, φοβοῦ θεοῦ· καὶ γὰρ ποιητικὸν τούτων ἁπάντων· πάντα τῇ οὐσίᾳ πληροῦν, πάντα συνέχον· πληρωτικὸν κόσμου κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν, ἀχώρητον κόσμῳ κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν· ἀγαθόν, εὐθές, ἡγεμονικόν, φύσει οὐ θέσει· ἁγιάζον, οὐχ ἁγιαζόμενον, μετροῦν, οὐ μετρούμενον, μετεχόμενον, οὐ μετέχον, πληροῦν, οὐ πληρούμενον, συνέχον, οὐ συνεχόμενον· κληρονομούμενον, δοξαζόμενον, συναριθμούμενον, ἐπαπειλούμενον· δάκτυλος θεοῦ, πῦρ ὡς θεός, εἰς ἔμφασιν, οἴμαι, τοῦ ὁμοουσίου· πνεῦμα τὸ ποιῆσαν, τὸ ἀνακτίζον διὰ βαπτίσματος, διʼ ἀναστάσεως· πνεῦμα τὸ γινῶσκον ἅπαντα, τὸ διδάσκον, τὸ πνέον ὅπου θέλει καὶ ὅσον, ὁδηγοῦν, λαλοῦν, ἀποστέλλον, ἀφορίζον, παροξυνόμενον, πειραζόμενον· ἀποκαλυπτικόν, φωτιστικόν, ζωτικόν, μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτοφῶς καὶ ζωή· ναοποιοῦν, θεοποιοῦν, τελειοῦν, ὥστε καὶ προλαμβάνειν τὸ βάπτισμα, καὶ ἐπιζητεῖσθαι μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα· ἐνεργοῦν ὅσα θεός, μεριζόμενον ἐν γλώσσαις πυρίναις, διαιροῦν χαρίσματα, ποιοῦν ἀποστόλους, προφήτας, εὐαγγελιστάς, ποιμένας, καὶ διδασκάλους· νοερόν, πολυμερές, σαφές, τρανόν, ἀκώλυτον, ἀμόλυντον· ᾧπερ ἴσον δύναται τὸ σοφώτατον καὶ πολύτροπον ταῖς ἐνεργείαις, καὶ σαφηνιστικὸν πάντων, καὶ τρανωτικόν, καὶ αὐτεξούσιον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον· παντοδύναμον, παντεπίσκοπον, διὰ πάντων χωροῦν πνευμάτων νοερῶν, καθαρῶν, λεπτοτάτων, ἀγγελικῶν, οἶμαι, δυνάμεων, ὥσπερ καὶ προφητικῶν καὶ ἀποστολικῶν, κατὰ ταὐτό, καὶ οὐκ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς τόποις, ἄλλων δὲ ἀλλαχοῦ νενεμημένων, ᾧ δηλοῦται τὸ ἀπερίγραπτον. ### English translation (Claude) This is what one might say even granting that it is unscriptural. But now the swarm of testimonies will come upon you, from which the Godhead of the Spirit is shown to be very much in Scripture, to those who are not very dull or strangers to the Spirit. Consider it like this. Christ is born; the Spirit goes before him. He is baptized; the Spirit bears witness. He is tempted; the Spirit leads him up. He works miracles; the Spirit accompanies him. He ascends; the Spirit takes his place. For what great thing that is God’s can he not do? What name that belongs to God is not given him, except unbegottenness and begottenness? For the distinctive properties had to remain with the Father and the Son, so that there might be no confusion in the Godhead, which brings everything else into order and good arrangement. I shudder when I think of the wealth of his titles, and how many names those who oppose the Spirit shamelessly defy. He is called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the mind of Christ, the Spirit of the Lord, and the Lord himself; the Spirit of adoption, of freedom; the Spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, knowledge, godliness, and the fear of God, for he is the maker of all these; filling all things with his substance, holding all things together; filling the world in his substance, not contained by the world in his power; good, upright, sovereign, by nature and not by appointment; sanctifying, not sanctified; measuring, not measured; shared, not sharing; filling, not filled; holding together, not held together; inherited, glorified, counted with the Father and the Son, held out as a warning; the finger of God; fire, like God, to show, I think, that he is consubstantial; the Spirit who made, who creates anew through baptism and through resurrection; the Spirit who knows all things, who teaches, who blows where and as much as he wills; who guides, speaks, sends out, sets apart, is provoked, is tempted; who reveals, illuminates, gives life, or rather is light and life itself; who makes temples, who deifies, who perfects, so that he both anticipates baptism and is sought after baptism; who does all that God does; divided in tongues of fire, distributing gifts, making apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers; intelligent, manifold, clear, distinct, unhindered, undefiled; which means the same as most wise and manifold in his activities, making all things clear and distinct, free and unchangeable; all-powerful, all-surveying, penetrating through all intelligent, pure, and most subtle spirits, the angelic powers, I think, as well as the prophetic and apostolic, at the same time and not in the same places, since they are assigned to different places; by which his uncircumscribed nature is shown. ### Scripture references - Luke 1:35: allusion, high confidence - Matt 3:16: allusion, high confidence - Matt 4:1: allusion, high confidence - Matt 12:28: allusion, high confidence - Rom 8:9: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 2:16: allusion, high confidence - 2 Cor 3:17: allusion, high confidence - Rom 8:15: allusion, high confidence - Isa 11:2: allusion, high confidence - Ps 143:10 (142:10 LXX): allusion, medium confidence - Ps 51:12 (50:14 LXX): allusion, medium confidence - Luke 11:20: allusion, high confidence - Job 33:4: allusion, medium confidence - John 3:8: allusion, high confidence - John 16:13: allusion, high confidence - Acts 13:2: allusion, high confidence - Eph 4:30: allusion, high confidence - Acts 5:9: allusion, high confidence - 1 Cor 3:16: allusion, medium confidence - 1 Cor 12:11: allusion, high confidence - Eph 4:11: allusion, high confidence - Acts 2:3: allusion, high confidence - Acts 10:44: allusion, medium confidence ### Extrabiblical texts - Wis 1:7 (Wisdom of Solomon): allusion, high confidence - Wis 7:22–23 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence ### Translation notes - Luke 1:35; Matt 3:16; Matt 4:1; Matt 12:28; Acts 1:8; Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 2:16; 2 Cor 3:17; Rom 8:15; Isa 11:2–3; Wis 1:7; Ps 143:10 (LXX 142:10); Ps 51:10–12 (LXX 50:12–14, “sovereign” spirit); Luke 11:20; Acts 2:3; Job 33:4; Titus 3:5; John 14:26; John 3:8; John 16:13; Acts 13:2; Eph 4:30; Acts 5:9; 1 Cor 3:16; 1 Cor 12:11; Eph 4:11; Acts 10:44–47; Wis 7:22–23 (the list “intelligent, manifold …”). “Consubstantial” renders ὁμοούσιον. The digital text repeats συνέχον and συνεχόμενον; the repeats are removed. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 29 (Mason, 182–185; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-29). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 30 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-30 - Source: Mason, 185–186 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Scripture’s teaching on blasphemy against the Spirit and on Ananias and Sapphira shows that the Spirit is God; lowlier expressions refer him to the Father as source. ### Greek text Οἱ ταῦτα λέγοντες καὶ διδάσκοντες, καὶ πρός ἄλλον παράκλητον, οἷον ἄλλον θεόν, ὀνομάζοντες, οἱ τὴν εἰς αὐτὸ βλασφημίαν μόνην εἰδότες ἀσυγχώρητον, οἱ τὸν Ἀνανίαν καὶ τὴν Σάπφειραν οὕτω φοβερῶς στηλιτεύσαντες, ἐπειδὴ ἐψεύσαντο τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὡς θεὸν ψευσαμένους, οὐκ ἄνθρωπον· οὗτοι τί σοι δοκοῦσι, πότερον θεὸν τὸ πνεῦμα κηρύσσειν, ἢ ἄλλο τι; ὡς λίαν ὄντως παχύς τις εἰ, καὶ πόρρω τοῦ πνεύματος, εἰ τοῦτο ἀπορεῖς, καὶ δέῃ τοῦ διδάξοντος. αἱ μὲν οὖν κλήσεις τοσαῦται καὶ οὕτως ἔμψυχοι. τί γὰρ δεῖ σοι τὰς ἐπὶ τῶν ῥημάτων μαρτυρίας παρατίθεσθαι; ὅσα δὲ κἀνταῦθα λέγεται ταπεινότερον, τὸ δίδοσθαι, τὸ ἀποστέλλεσθαι, τὸ μερίζεσθαι, τὸ χάρισμα, τὸ δώρημα, τὸ ἐμφύσημα, ἡ ἐπαγγελία, ἡ ὑπερέντευξις, εἴτε τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτον, ἵνα μὴ καθʼ ἕκαστον λέγω, ἐπὶ τὴν πρώτην αἰτίαν ἀνενεκτέον, ἵνα τὸ ἐξ οὗ δειχθῇ, καὶ μὴ τρεῖς ἀρχαὶ μεμερισμέναι πολυθέως παραδεχθῶσιν. ἴσον γὰρ εἰς ἀσέβειαν, καὶ Σαβελλίως συνάψαι, καὶ Ἀρειανῶς διαστῆσαι, τὸ μὲν τῷ προσώπῳ, τὸ δὲ ταῖς φύσεσιν. ### English translation (Claude) Those who say and teach these things, who call him another Advocate, as though another God, who know that blasphemy against him alone is unforgivable, who so fearfully made an example of Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit, as having lied to God and not to man: do they seem to you to proclaim the Spirit God, or something else? You are truly very dull and far from the Spirit if you are in doubt about this and need someone to teach you. Such, then, and so many and so living are his titles. Why should I set out for you the testimonies word by word? And whatever is said of him here in a lowlier way, his being given, sent, divided, the gift, the grant, the breathing, the promise, the intercession, or anything else of the kind (not to mention each one), must be referred to the first cause, so that it may be shown from whom he is, and three divided principles may not be accepted, as in polytheism. For it is equally impious to join them together like Sabellius and to separate them like Arius, the one in person, the other in nature. ### Scripture references - John 14:16: allusion, high confidence - Matt 12:31: allusion, high confidence - Acts 5:4: allusion, high confidence - John 20:22: allusion, medium confidence - Rom 8:26: allusion, medium confidence - Acts 2:33: allusion, medium confidence ### Translation notes - John 14:16; Matt 12:31; Acts 5:3–4; John 20:22; Rom 8:26. Sabellius merged the three into one person (πρόσωπον); Arius separated them in nature. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 30 (Mason, 185–186; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-30). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 31 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-31 - Source: Mason, 186–187 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Gregory tests the analogy of source, spring, and river and finds it inadequate for the Trinity. ### Greek text ῾Ως ἔγωγε πολλὰ διασκεψάμενος πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν τῇ φιλοπραγμοσύνῃ τοῦ νοῦ, καὶ πανταχόθεν τὸν λόγον εὐθύνας, καὶ ζητῶν εἰκόνα τινὰ τοῦ τοσούτου πράγματος, οὐκ ἔσχον ᾧ τινὶ χρὴ τῶν κάτω τὴν θείαν φύσιν παραβαλεῖν. κἂν γὰρ μικρά τις ὁμοίωσις εὑρεθῇ, φεύγει τὸ πλεῖον, ἀφέν με κάτω μετὰ τοῦ ὑποδείγματος. ὀφθαλμόν τινα, καὶ πηγήν, καὶ ποταμὸν ἐνενόησα, καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἄλλοι, μὴ τῷ μὲν ὁ πατήρ, τῇ δὲ ὁ υἱός, τῷ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἀναλόγως ἔχη. ταῦτα γὰρ οὔτε χρόνῳ διέστηκεν, οὔτε ἀλλήλων ἀπέρρηκται τῇ συνεχείᾳ· κἂν δοκεῖ πὼς τρισὶν ἰδιότησι τέμνεσθαι. ἀλλʼ ἔδεισα, πρῶτον μὲν ῥύσιν τινὰ θεότητος παραδέξασθαι στάσιν οὐκ ἔχουσαν· δεύτερον δὲ μὴ τὸ ἓν τῷ ἀριθμῷ διὰ τῆς εἰκασίας ταύτης εἰσάγηται. ὀφθαλμὸς γάρ, καὶ πηγή, καὶ ποταμὸς ἕν ἐστιν ἀριθμῷ, διαφόρως σχηματιζόμενα. ### English translation (Claude) For my part, I have considered this much in my own mind with the curiosity of the intellect, examining the matter from every side and looking for some image of so great a thing, and I could not find anything below with which to compare the divine nature. For even if some small likeness is found, the greater part escapes me and leaves me below with my example. I thought of a source, a spring, and a river, as others have too, in case the Father might correspond to the one, the Son to the second, and the Holy Spirit to the third. For these are not divided by time, nor separated from one another in their continuity, even though they seem in a way to be distinguished by three properties. But I was afraid, first, of admitting a flow in the Godhead that has no rest; and second, that this comparison might introduce numerical oneness. For the source, the spring, and the river are one in number, though shaped differently. ### Translation notes - ὀφθαλμός here means the source or “eye” of a spring. The digital text’s “ἀφέν με” is translated by sense (“leaves me”). ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 31 (Mason, 186–187; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-31). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 32 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-32 - Source: Mason, 187–189 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: The analogy of the sun, its ray, and its light, and that of a reflected sunbeam, also fall short. ### Greek text Πάλιν ἥλιον ἐνεθυμήθην, καὶ ἀκτῖνα, καὶ φῶς. ἁλλὰ κἀνταῦθα δέος, πρῶτον μὲν μὴ σύνθεσίς τις ἐπινοῆται τῆς ἀσυνθέτου φύσεως, ὥσπερ ἡλίου καὶ τῶν ἐν ἡλίῳ· δεύτερον δὲ μὴ τὸν πατέρα μὲν οὐσιώσωμεν, τἄλλα δὲ μὴ ὑποστήσωμεν, ἀλλὰ δυνάμεις θεοῦ ποιήσωμεν ἐνυπαρχούσας, οὐχ ὑφεστώσας, — οὔτε γὰρ ἀκτίς, οὔτε φῶς, ἄλλος ἥλιος, ἀλλʼ ἡλιακαί τινες ἀπόρροιαι, καὶ ποιότητες οὐσιώδεις — καὶ ἅμα τὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸ μὴ εἶναι τῷ θεῷ δῶμεν ἐν τούτοις, ὅσον ἐκ τοῦ ὑποδείγματος, ὃ καὶ τῶν εἰρημένων ἀτοπώτερον. ἤκουσα δέ τινος καὶ τοιοῦτον ὑπογράφοντος λόγον, — μαρμαρυγήν τινα ἡλιακὴν τοίχῳ προσαστράπτουσαν, καὶ περιτρέμουσαν ἐξ ὑδάτων κινήσεως, ἢν ἡ ἀκτὶς ὑπολαβοῦσα διὰ τοῦ ἐν μέσῳ ἀέρος, εἶτα σχεθεῖσα τῷ ἀντιτύπῳ, παλμὸς ἐγένετο καὶ παράδοξος. ἄττει γὰρ πολλαῖς καὶ πυκναῖς ταῖς κινήσεσιν, οὐχ ἓν οὖσα μᾶλλον ἢ πολλά, οὐδὲ πολλὰ μᾶλλον ἢ ἕν, τῷ τάχει τῆς συνόδου καὶ τῆς διαστάσεως, πρὶν ὄψει κρατηθῆναι, διαδιδράσκουσα. ### English translation (Claude) Again, I thought of the sun, a ray, and light. But here too there is a fear: first, that some composition might be imagined in the uncompounded nature, as in the sun and what is in the sun; and second, that we might give substance to the Father but not make the others subsistent, turning them into powers of God that exist in him but do not subsist (for neither the ray nor the light is another sun, but certain outflowings from the sun and substantial qualities), and so, as far as the example goes, we would give God both being and not being in them, which is still more absurd than what has been said. I have also heard someone suggest this kind of illustration: a sunbeam flashing on a wall and quivering from the movement of water, which the ray has taken up through the air in between and then, checked by the resistant surface, has become a strange vibration. For it darts about with many rapid movements, no more one than many, nor more many than one, escaping before the eye can seize it, because of the speed of its gathering and scattering. ### Translation notes - The “someone” who proposed the sunbeam image is not identified. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 32 (Mason, 187–189; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-32). ## Theological Oration 5 (Or. 31), On the Holy Spirit 33 - URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-33 - Source: Mason, 189–190 - Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27 Summary: Rejecting all earthly analogies as inadequate, Gregory resolves to hold to the reverent faith taught by the Spirit and to worship the one Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. ### Greek text Ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ τοῦτο θέσθαι δυνατὸν ἐμοί, διʼ ἓν μέν, ὅτι τὴν μὲν τὸ κινῆσαν καὶ πάνυ δῆλον· θεοῦ δὲ οὐδὲν πρεσβύτερον, ἵν ᾖ τι τὸ τοῦτον κεκινηκός. αὐτὸς μὲν γὰρ πάντων αἰτία, αἰτίαν δὲ πρεσβυτέραν οὐκ ἔχει. δεύτερον δέ, ὅτι κἀνταῦθα τῶν αὐτῶν ὑπόνοια, συνθέσεως, χύσεως, ἀστάτου καὶ οὐ παγίας φύσεως, ὧν οὐδὲν ἐννοητέον περὶ θεότητος. καὶ ὅλως οὐδὲν ἔστιν ὅ μοι τὴν διάνοιαν ἵστησιν ἐπὶ τῶν ὑποδειγμάτων θεωροῦντι τὸ φανταζόμενον, πλὴν εἴ τις ἕν τι λαβὼν τῆς εἰκόνος, ὑπʼ εὐγνωμοσύνης τὰ λοιπὰ ῥίψειε. τέλος οὖν ἔδοξέ μοι κράτιστον εἶναι τὰς μὲν εἰκόνας χαίρειν ἐᾶσαι καὶ τὰς σκιάς, ὡς ἀπατηλὰς καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας πλεῖστον ἀποδεούσας, αὐτὸν δὲ τῆς εὐσεβεστέρας ἐννοίας ἐχόμενον, ἐπʼ ὀλίγων ῥημάτων ἱστάμενον, ὁδηγῷ τῷ πνεύματι χρώμενον, ἢν ἐντεῦθεν ἔλλαμψιν ἐδεξάμην, ταύτην εἰς τέλος διαφυλάσσοντα, ὡς γνησίαν κοινωνὸν καὶ συνόμιλον, τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦτον διαπορεύεσθαι διατέμνοντα, καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους πείθειν εἰς δύναμιν προσκυνεῖν πατέρα, καὶ υἱόν, καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τὴν μίαν θεότητά τε καὶ δύναμιν· ὅτι αὐτῷ πᾶσα δόξα, τιμή, κράτος, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων· Ἀμήν. ### English translation (Claude) But I cannot accept this either. For one thing, it is quite plain what moves the sunbeam, but nothing is older than God, that there should be something that moves him; for he is the cause of all things and has no older cause. For another, here too there is a suspicion of the same things, composition, diffusion, and an unstable, not fixed nature, none of which should be thought of the Godhead. In short, nothing satisfies my mind when I contemplate in these examples what is pictured, unless one takes a single feature of the image with good sense and throws away the rest. In the end, then, it seemed to me best to let go of images and shadows, as deceptive and falling very far short of the truth, and to hold myself to the more reverent conception, resting on a few words, using the Spirit as guide, keeping to the end the illumination I received from him as a genuine companion and partner, and so to pass through this age, cutting my way through it, and to persuade others as far as I can to worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the one Godhead and power. For to him belong all glory, honour, and might for ever and ever. Amen. ### Scripture references - Rev 5:13: echo, low confidence ### Translation notes - The closing doxology echoes Rev 5:13 and 1 Pet 4:11. ### Citation (SBL) Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Theol. 33 (Mason, 189–190; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/gregory-nazianzus-orat-31/22/#p-33).