Epistula de hymno trisagio

A letter of the blessed John, monk and priest, written to Jordan the archimandrite concerning the Trisagion hymn. To the God-honored lord Jordan, the archimandrite, adorned with divine zeal, John. The intensity of my longing for you, O best of fathers, has not acquired its occasions from any unstable pretext, but from divine love, which is by nature never able to fall. For we know the orthodoxy of your faith and the uprightness of the word of truth, the fervor of your zeal, the purity of your love toward God, from which and for which you are by nature bound to your neighbor; for the one is, as it were, the first spring, and the other is second and a symbol of the first. For love toward one's neighbor knows how to characterize the love toward God. We know your longing for and delight in the words of God, which is reckoned sweeter to you than honey; for you have envisioned the divine beauty and, winged, have ascended toward it, and have become a spotless mirror of God and of divine impressions, having virtue as your beauty and, by its most exact lines, becoming a truthful imprint of the divine beauty, as of every good archetype. Therefore, longing for you, we long for virtue and for God, from whom come to you the excellences of virtue. But, alas, O father, alas. How is the enemy of the church always eager to stir this up, and what is worse, through the nurslings of piety.

For our most God-fearing brother, the abba Sergius, a citizen and acquaintance and friend, has reported to us in writing, through his own brother, the most holy abba Job, that our most sacred father, the lord abba Anastasius, the renowned head of the monastery of the blessed Euthymius, has brought forward certain testimonies of the holy fathers that ostensibly refer the Trisagion hymn to the Son alone. If this is granted, nothing will prevent the mischief that has wickedly crept in from the fuller from utterly destroying everyone. And I have marveled, greatly marveled, if indeed these things are so. And again I have marveled, if indeed these things are not so; for we know the orthodoxy of the venerable man, and we are not ignorant of the propriety of his speech and of his virtue in action—I mean the lord abba Anastasius. Nevertheless, we also clearly know the truthfulness of the accuser. For longing for God and living for him, he would not, I think, lie, nor will he be a slanderer of an innocent man, even one distinguished by the excellences of virtue. This indeed tormented our reasoning not a little. And he judged that through the most pious abba Job, his own brother, we should be informed in very many matters, and he urged that without any delay or postponement we make known our opinion concerning this. And he also wrote that he himself should be assured that we too have submitted to this opinion, having become of one mind and one vote with him concerning this—which I have marveled at more and more; for he has brought forward the testimonies to us, I will not lie, and we have declared that these are also from the holy and chosen fathers.

We did not, however, agree that the uses of the Trisagion hymn are shown to refer to the Son alone—and that the thrice-blessed patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, John, the most divine and the man of God, was of the same mind as he; for this reason he wrote that he had declared it. We therefore thought it necessary to make these matters clear to your God-honored holiness and to make known how we stand, so that it may be ignorant of nothing of ours. For this is dear and customary to us. 2 We say, then, that definitions and appellations made by fitting reason are most firm. For the divine Scripture says, "God brought all the living creatures to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living soul, that was its name." We see, then, names separating species from species and names imposed separating hypostasis from hypostasis, and definitions and laws established and prevailing until now. Thus I say that it was revealed definitively by God to Isaiah through the seraphim and through the Trisagion hymn—the one tri-hypostatic Godhead and lordship, as through a kind of numerical manifestation.

For why did they not hymn “holy” twice or four times or ten thousand times, and why did the seraphim cry out not twice or three times or four times or ten thousand times “Lord of hosts, heaven and earth are full of his glory,” but “holy” three times—“Holy, holy, holy”—and “Lord” only once, either indicating three holy hypostases but one lordship of the three and one principle and glory, substance and divinity, and that the three hypostases are one holy God—holy the Father, holy the Son, holy the Holy Spirit—but one holy, not three holies, one Lord, not three lords? For the three hypostases are God and God and God, but one God and not three gods; holy, holy, holy, but one holy and not three holies; Lord and Lord and Lord, but one Lord and not three lords. Therefore he also added: “Heaven and earth are full of his glory,” and not of theirs. The divinity, that is the substance, is therefore extended triadically and indivisibly, being known in three hypostases, and the three hypostases are united and joined into one substance, that is divinity. And the divinity is sanctified and glorified triadically—“Holy, holy, holy”—and the three hypostases are glorified singly—“Lord of hosts, heaven and earth are full of his glory.” For there is one God in three hypostases, and the three are one, that is one nature, not one hypostasis, nor is each of the hypostases glorified and sanctified threefoldly. For the divinity, being a Trinity of hypostases, is fittingly and properly sanctified triadically.

Holy is the Father, holy is the Son, holy is the Holy Spirit, Lord of hosts. For the three are one God and Lord. But each of the hypostases, being one hypostasis and not three, for what reason will it be sanctified three times and not once or twice or four times or ten thousand times? For each of the hypostases of the Godhead is not a triad; for in that way the Godhead would be a nine and not a triad. For why did they not hymn a twice-holy or a four-holy or a ten-thousand-holy hymn, but a thrice-holy one, according to the number of the hypostases? For just as we say the Father is a hypostasis and the Son is a hypostasis and the Holy Spirit is a hypostasis, and the Godhead, that is the essence, is three-hypostatic as containing the three hypostases, and it is not lawful to say that the Father is three-hypostatic, nor the Son three-hypostatic, nor the Holy Spirit three-hypostatic, so neither is one of the hypostases thrice-holy, but holy is the Father, holy is the Son, holy is the Holy Spirit, and the three-hypostatic Godhead is thrice-holy. If, then, the thrice-holy hymn is not significative of the three hypostases, let us hymn "holy" twice and add "Lord of hosts." But it is not lawful, nor did the seraphim so hymn. Let us not be wise with superfluous things, nor let us seem to be wiser than the seraphim.

But if the God-bearing fathers, whose law is reason, should say that they speak of the Son as hymning "Holy, holy, holy," if they had said that the Son alone hymns, there would have been a suspicion that the Trisagion hymn was spoken of the Son alone. But if the Son is inseparable from the Father and the Spirit, the hymn is also inseparable; for the Son is worshipped together with the Father and the Spirit, and is hymned together and glorified together. We say that a hymn is spoken of the Son alone when we speak the indicative marks of his hypostasis, such as "the Son of God," "the Word," the wisdom and power of God, he who was begotten of the Father, he who was made flesh, he who was crucified in the flesh, he who rose, he who ascended into the heavens, he who sits at the right hand of the Father, and the like. Just as these are indicative of the one hypostasis and have no place at all for another hypostasis or for the common nature of the Godhead, so also the Trisagion hymn, being indicative of the three hypostases, has no place for one of the hypostases. For just as we call each hypostasis of humanity a man, and we call a city that contains many men populous, but we cannot call each man populous, so also in the case of the Trisagion we call each of the hypostases holy, and the three-hypostatic Godhead Trisagion, but we cannot call one of the hypostases Trisagion; and just as when counting we say one and one and one, and cannot say three-numbered of each, so also in the case of the Trisagion.

And just as we say "light and light and light," and joining them together call it a thrice-radiant brightness, yet we do not say that each one is thrice-radiant, so too with the Trisagion. All things said of the whole Godhead are also said of each of the hypostases, singly and simply and absolutely, but the number three in the Holy Trinity is indicative of the three hypostases. For the God-bearing Epiphanius spoke well and very aptly: "Why do the seraphim say 'Holy' not twice or four times, but three times, unless it is that they declare the number of the hypostases united into one lordship and Godhead?" "Holy is God" and Father, from whom is God the Son and God the Holy Spirit; "Holy, mighty" is the Son, the enhypostatic power of God; "Holy, immortal" is the Holy Spirit, the life-giving, as the apostle says: "The law of the Spirit of life." Not that the Son or the Holy Spirit is not God, nor that the Father or the Holy Spirit is not mighty, nor that the Father or the Son is not immortal, but just as the apostle, wishing to show the hypostases, says: "For us there is one God and Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things," so also here. And David also proclaimed this beforehand, saying: "As the deer longs for the springs of waters, so my soul longs for you, O God." Behold, having spoken of the Godhead in common, he added, wishing to indicate the hypostases as well: "My soul thirsted for God, the mighty, the living," that is, the immortal, the ever-living; for the ever-living is immortal.

Having said, "My soul longs for you, O God," he indicated the one divinity. Then, having said, "My soul thirsts for the strong, living God," he showed the triadic character of the hypostases. And again he returned to the singularity of the nature: "When shall I come and appear before the face of God?" But if anyone should say that "thrice-blessed" and "thrice-desired" and "thrice-most-blessed" are often said even of a single hypostasis, let him know that "three," when it is written with the diphthong ει, signifies the triadic number, but when it is written with the bare iota, it is used in place of "many times," as we say "three men" and "there are three who bear witness, the water and the blood and the spirit," and "thrice" with the iota adverbially in place of "many times," as the apostle says: "Concerning this I besought the Lord thrice," in place of "many times." But one must know that in the case of the triadic number, when it is spoken adverbially, it is written with the bare iota, for example "once and twice and thrice and four times." And in composition too, whether it signifies the triadic or the multiple number, it is written with the iota: "trionymous," the three—

having names, thrice-desired is the much-desired one, thrice-blessed is the one often blessed, thrice-happy is the one often happy. And these things indeed have their place even in the case of a single person who is much-desired and much-happy and much-blessed. But the signification of the triadic number cannot be spoken properly except of the number itself; for example, it is impossible to call one who does not have two names "two-named," and one who does not have three colors "three-colored." When, then, we say "three-named," we indicate that the one addressed as three-named has only three names. If we say "thrice-holy," it has its place in the case of the holy Trinity; for since it has only three hypostases, each being holy and hymned, it would fittingly be called thrice-holy. But if it were spoken of a single hypostasis, one would suspect that it either has three holy essences or three holy hypostases; each of which is unlawful and impious to say of one of the hypostases of the divinity. And this too we would say, that the thrice-holy hymn, being declarative of the three hypostases of the divinity, it is absurd to assign it to one of those hypostases. For if it were significative of the common essence, it would be spoken of each of the hypostases; but since it is significative of the number of the three hypostases, it is not fitting to speak it of one, lest we declare the holy Trinity to be ninefold. For the number three, multiplied by itself, is naturally disposed to beget the number nine. We said that one who possesses two names is called two-named, and three-named is one who has three names and neither more nor fewer.

Why then is the Father alone thrice-holy, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or is the Father alone thrice-hypostatic, or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone, so that each might be called thrice-holy? May it not be. But also infinitely and without limit. But the holy Godhead, as having three holy hypostases, would reasonably be called thrice-holy. So it is not proper to say the thrice-holy hymn over one of the hypostases, since it is indicative of the three hypostases of the Godhead; for a definite number cannot be spoken of in the case of the indefinite Godhead, except a monad of essence and a triad of hypostases. If anyone should ask us why, when baptizing, we make the immersion a third time, what else should we say than that for each of the hypostases of the Godhead we make one immersion and three because of the threefoldness of the hypostases, and not three immersions for each of the hypostases, or else we would make nine immersions, which is unlawful? Therefore at each of the immersions we pronounce the name of one of the three hypostases. So too, if we are asked why "holy" is said a third time and not twice or four times, we would truthfully say it is because of the thrice-hypostatic Godhead. How then should we say the thrice-holy hymn over one of the hypostases? For we would establish ourselves as liars and transgressors of our own words: "each of the hypostases of the Godhead," as the divine Basil says, "is proclaimed in a singular manner." One Father is the Father and one holy, because one hypostasis; one thrice-holy nature is the Godhead, because three hypostases. The Father is not thrice-holy, because one hypostasis; the Son is not thrice-holy, because one hypostasis;

The Holy Spirit is not thrice-holy, because he is one hypostasis. The Holy and all-holy Spirit the whole chorus of the God-bearing and God-inspired fathers always with every breath proclaimed. But this "thrice-holy" we have not yet found even now in any word of the holy fathers. This is the babbling of the fuller, who from the greatest folly dared with bare head, as the saying goes, which betrays the shamelessness of licentious women, as if he were wiser than the seraphim and higher in initiation, to full the thrice-holy hymn like some inelegant woven garment. For if we say the thrice-holy hymn refers to the Son alone, the ambiguity is dissolved without doubt, and we too will side with the Marcionites, adding the crucifixion to the thrice-holy. But may it not be mine to bring this through my lips; with God propitious, death is preferable. Take away from me this death. "Death is in this cauldron." But if someone says: I have heard many saying, for what reason, when we say "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit," do we often add "to the one crucified by will and risen from the dead" or some other such thing, but when saying the thrice-holy we do not append "the one crucified for us"? We will say to him that the customs and traditions of the church must prevail. For "do not move," he says, "the eternal boundaries, which your fathers set." And "everything that excels in antiquity is venerable," the great Basil declared. The church, then, has a custom handed down from above to say "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit" in the order of a stated text.

Just as, then, when we say a spoken verse—a psalm, perhaps, or an ode—we often add a troparion melody that does not follow the thought of the spoken verse, so too, when in the order of a spoken verse we say "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit," we add a troparion suited to the Son alone that does not follow the thought or the construction of "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit." For "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit" is spoken in the dative, but the melody is often in the genitive or the accusative or the nominative or the vocative. And from this it is clear that the melody does not adhere to the meaning of "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit." But when we say only "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit," not as in the order of a spoken verse, we in no way add the cross or any of the separative phrases of the hypostasis of the Father alone or of the Son or of the Holy Spirit. "Holy is God" — the Father; "Holy, mighty" — the Son, who was incarnate and crucified in the flesh and rose again; "Holy, immortal" — the Holy Spirit. Having named the hypostases and wishing to show that the three hypostases are one God, I join and say: "Have mercy on us," as God says when legislating to Moses: "The Lord, God, the Lord is one," and the seraphim: "Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth." God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, but one God, said the God-proclaiming fathers; and holy the Father and holy the Son and holy the Holy Spirit, but the three are one holy, and Lord and Lord and Lord, but one Lord.

But "God and God and God, the Father," or "God and God and God, the Son," or "God and God and God, the Holy Spirit," or "Holy, Holy, Holy," or "Lord, Lord, Lord," applied to one of the persons—none of our esteemed fathers ever declared. For just as it is impossible to call the Trinity one person, so it is not lawful to call any one of the persons a Trinity. Thus also in the case of Proclus the thrice-blessed, they sang the Thrice-Holy hymn by divine revelation—"Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us"—when, as they say, the child was snatched from the midst of the crowd of those processing and was initiated into the hymn, being in the air, by some angelic power, and the cessation of the calamity became a testimony to the divinity of the hymn. Thus also the most divine company of the six hundred and thirty, inspired by the divine Spirit, sang. And what is this new and empty teaching that now confounds the people of God and disorderly throws them into confusion? But someone may perhaps say again: Why is it that when we say "person and person and person" we speak of three persons, but when we say "God and God and God" we do not speak of three gods? To this we will answer that particulars are not made common, but common things, even if they are participated in by each of the particulars, are nevertheless participated in in a unified and common way; and each person is contemplated distinctly, yet there is not one common person of them. But the Godhead and the sanctification and the lordship, even if they are participated in by each of the persons, are nevertheless one common possession of the three persons.

For there is not one divinity of the Father and another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit, nor one sanctification or lordship, but one and the same, wholly and indivisibly existing in each of the hypostases, all of the Father, all of the Son, all of the Holy Spirit, one of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But the hypostases are not so, but one is of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. Each hypostasis, then, is called God and holy and Lord in itself, and whatever of that sort; but when they are counted together, there are not three Gods or holy ones or Lords, but one God, the three, one Lord, one Holy, because God and his powers, Word and Spirit, are one God, one Holy, one Lord, and not three. But God and God and God because of the perfection of each hypostasis, and Holy and Holy and Holy, and Lord and Lord and Lord, yet not three Gods or holy ones or Lords. For the Word and the Spirit are powers of the Father, and hypostatic powers inseparable from the Father, from whom and in whom they are and to whom as cause they are referred; for they are not separated by place or will or activity or strength or authority or by any of the things that are said of God, except only by the hypostases and the characteristic properties of each hypostasis. For we, being begotten, are cut through and separated from our fathers, and indicating this the Theologian Gregory said:

Forgiving and being forgiven.” For the Son is not established among us as a power of the Father, nor as word or wisdom, but in God the two concur—that the Son and the Spirit are powers of the Father, as word of mind and spirit, and perfect hypostases, which befits only the supersubstantial God. But we are divided by judgment and by power and by place. Therefore we are also called men, not “this man and that man” as a single man; but in God it is not so, as we have said before. But indeed, let us also examine the citations they bring forward and make an exact scrutiny of them. For these are patristic, and we will by no means contradict them. But it is necessary to show that the holy fathers and teachers are in agreement and not opposed to one another, and none the less self-consistent and not contradictory and conflicting, whose understanding concerning the faith the one power and illumination of the Spirit has shown to be single and invariable. The wondrous Athanasius, then, in his blessed end, in the discourse On the Incarnation and the Trinity, says these things: God, therefore, is the one who was begotten and became man, and we say that God is the one who for our sake became man. But not “god and god and god” is the one of the Trinity, the Son of God and holy God, but not “holy and holy and holy,” nor only thrice holy, but indefinitely and infinitely holy and beyond-holy. And again elsewhere he says: “We saw him, and he had no form or beauty.” For he had previously beheld him in the divine and glorious form sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, when the cherubim were glorifying him, saying:

Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth," and after this he sees him "taking the form of a servant" and "becoming in the likeness of men." These things they bring forward, which we also embrace. But let them say: Did he see the Son only sitting on a throne, or seated together with the Father? Only being glorified, or together with the Father and the Spirit? If then only, let them allot the thrice-holy hymn to the Son alone. But if together with the Father and the Spirit, let them recognize that the hymn which expresses the three persons and the one essence and lordship belongs inseparably to the Trinity. For "Holy, holy, holy," the seraphim were singing, and bringing the hymn to the Trinity they hymn the Son; for the Son is one of the Trinity. But those who assign the thrice-holy hymn to the Son alone place the Father and the Spirit as without a share in the hymn. For common terms include the particular, but particular terms no longer include the universal. For he who says "man" signified all men individually, but he who says "Peter" indicated him alone, leaving aside the remaining persons of humanity. Again they bring forward from Saint Epiphanius, from the [homily] on the holy Theotokos

...the Word. Blessed among women is she who bore the Word made flesh from you, the Word who is the Son of the Father, the Word who is God before all ages, the Word without beginning and eternal, the Word consubstantial with the inseparable Trinity, the Word worshiped together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Word enthroned with the Father, the Word seated upon the cherubim, the Word whom the four-formed living creatures glorify, saying: "Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth; heaven and earth are full of his glory." If his glory is other than the Father's, we shall say the hymn is his alone. But if the glorification is one and common to the Holy Trinity, then the hymn also is one and common. For saying "Holy, holy, holy," they glorify the Son—but not the Son alone, rather as one of the Holy Trinity, between the Father and the Spirit. Then from Chrysostom's homily on the blessed one, whose opening is "From wonders to wonders": Today the King of glory is glorified on earth prophetically, and he shows forth those born of earth as partakers of the heavenly banquet, to show that he is himself Lord of both, being hymned in harmony from both sides. Therefore those above, proclaiming salvation on earth, sang: "Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth, all the earth is full of his glory," while those below, celebrating together in heavenly gladness, cried out: "Hosanna in the highest," "Hosanna to the son of David." And who, being of sound mind, would say that the son of David is separated from the thrice-holy hymnody? For as one of the Holy Trinity he is glorified together with the Father and the Spirit, but the Trisagion is not referred to him alone.

For the seraphim, in saying "Holy, holy, holy," did not signify the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone, but the three-hypostatic Godhead as one thrice-holy lordship. The same one, therefore, was glorified above with the Father and the Spirit, while the seraphim hymned him not alone, but with the Father and the Spirit, crying out: "Holy, holy, holy." Let him also be hymned upon the earth: "Hosanna in the highest," "Hosanna to the son of David," the hymn all but demonstrating one of the highest hypostases of the Godhead, even if he was called the son of David. And if the God-bearing Father also says that "those above, announcing salvation upon the earth, sang," he speaks most excellently and most divinely-inspiredly. For we know that heaven and earth have always been filled with the divine glory. For all the works of the Lord bless the Lord and declare his glory. But since in the heavens the angels recognized the glory of the God who is, while human nature, which received the earth as its dwelling, had fallen away and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed beasts, the God-bearing man says that the earth has been filled with the knowledge of the divine glory by those who dwell upon the earth, which—and nothing else—has become salvation for those upon the earth. And the divine glory is clearly the Father's and the Son's and the Holy Spirit's. For thus also the truthful Lord said to the Father: "Father, I have completed the work which you gave me; I have manifested your name," and again:

This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent." Thus, just as the nature, so also the glory is common to the three hypostases of the Godhead. 12 Again, from Saint Cyril of Alexandria, from the sixth discourse on the Holy Trinity, whose beginning is "Of equality, then": Isaiah, then, the inspired, says that he beheld the Son in no lesser glory. For "I saw," he said, "the Lord Sabaoth seated upon a throne high and lifted up, and the house was full of his glory. And seraphim stood round about him; six wings to the one and six wings to the one, and with two they covered the face and with two they covered the feet and with two they flew, and they cried one to another," the holiness that is in a threefold beginning, ending in a unity and in one lordship. Behold, he said clearly that they were singing the hymn to "the Lord Sabaoth," who is one God glorified in three hypostases, "the one in a threefold beginning," that is, the threefold hymn of the three hypostases at the beginning, "ending in a unity and in one lordship, a holiness," that is, that the Trinity of the hypostases is a unity of essence and one lordship made manifest by the threefold sanctification. So that "Holy, holy, holy" is indicative of the three hypostases, not of one, while "Lord Sabaoth" is declarative of the one Godhead and lordship.

13 Again, from the ninth discourse of the same Cyril of Alexandria, On Worship in Spirit: The unceasing and insatiable intensity, so to speak, of the highest powers toward the vision of God seems to be indicated by the cherubim always looking toward the mercy seat in this manner. The prophet Isaiah also writes, saying: "I saw the Lord Sabaoth seated on a high and lifted up throne, and the seraphim stood round about him," and he says that each had six wings, covering their feet with two and their faces with two, and flying with the others. And shortly after: The mercy seat, then, is Christ, who, having appeared in the flesh, is none the less God and Lord by nature and in truth, with the powers standing round about him in servile fashion, and he himself having the highest powers. If indeed no one has been blinded in the senses of his mind, he would be able to know that "and he himself" indicates that it is not only he who has the powers singing round about him, nor is the thrice-holy hymn sent up to him alone. For to say "and he himself" through the conjunction "and" makes clear that the Father and the Spirit also do so; for "and" indicates addition, being a connective conjunction. Since it is agreed, then, that the Father has the powers singing round about him, he said that Christ himself also, together with the Father, has the same powers singing round about him. But if the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have the powers singing round about them, "Holy, holy, holy," then the thrice-holy hymn, which is most expressive of the three hypostases, must not be ascribed to the Son alone.

For if they had hymned “Holy” once or twice or four times, when the hypostases are three, and we said that the hymn was being referred to each one of the hypostases alone—for things that are common are applied to each of the particulars. But since the thrice-holy hymn is fitting and indicative of the three hypostases, it is improper that what is indicative of the three be spoken of one. For if it were spoken of one, it would not be indicative of three hypostases; but if it is altogether indicative of three, it will not be spoken of one. 14 Again, from the fourth discourse of Saint Cyril, To Hermeias, whose beginning is: “He who is God from God”: Even if, then, he is placed in equality with the angels, why is it that he on the one hand shines forth on the Father’s thrones and sits in council with the Father, while they stand as it were in a circle, not dishonoring the measure of the servitude under him? And he on the one hand is and is called Lord Sabaoth, while they with the praises that honor lordship say that heaven and earth are full of his glory. Is it not, then, the mark of a cold and stagnant mind to say that the one thus marveled at, even by those who have obtained a portion of the highest glory, was made? And who will deny that the seraphim stand by the Son, or that he is praised together with the Father and the Spirit, and that with the Father and the Spirit he receives the hymn and is holy and Lord Sabaoth and that heaven and earth are full of his glory? But he who says these things does not refer the thrice-holy hymn to the Son alone

assigns a hymn. Just as if someone were to hymn the twelve of the divine apostles, calling it a twelve-stringed lyre of the Spirit—he has left no apostle without honor, for each one is called a string of the Spirit—yet the hymn is not referred to each one alone; for Peter alone is not the twelve-stringed lyre of the Spirit, nor indeed Andrew, but the whole twelve, and even if someone hymning Peter should perhaps recite the hymn, the hymn would not hint at him alone, but would hymn together with him the whole chorus of the apostles. But if he should say, “The twelve-stringed lyre of the apostles is the son of Jonah from Bethsaida who was martyred in Rome under Nero,” he would prove himself a liar. So too, if someone should say, “Holy, holy, holy is the one who was crucified for us,” he will be shown to be a blasphemer, and likewise the one who says, “Thrice-holy is the one who was crucified for us.” Again, from the same Cyril, from the fifth discourse against Hermeias, whose beginning is: “Well then, from every [consideration] for us”; and indeed, around the transcendent and exalted throne stand the seraphim glorifying him, and naming him both holy and Lord of hosts, and saying that heaven and earth are full of his glory. But he who leads over all equally, equal in hand and equal in strength to the Father and no less in glory—for all things are full of his glory. And these things, we say, follow from the previous thought, speaking truly.

Again from the same, from the aforementioned discourse: But if he were without glory and far from being worshiped, what did the seraphim learn, that they stand around in a circle the Son seated on the throne of the Godhead, honoring him with hymns and doxologies, and naming him Lord Sabaoth, and saying that heaven and earth are full of his glory? We know these things and agree, but these things do not legislate that the Son is thrice-holy. From the blessed Proclus of Constantinople, from the discourse on the holy Theotokos: He was nailed to the cross and his throne in the heavens was not stripped bare; he was shut in a tomb and he stretched out heaven like a hide; he was reckoned among the dead and he despoiled Hades; below he was slandered as a deceiver and above he was glorified with "Holy, Holy, Holy." Now I have read the most sacred Proclus saying "Holy" once in one and in two and in more ancient books. But if we also grant that he said "Holy" three times, it holds the same meaning as the aforementioned, namely that as one of the Holy Trinity he is glorified together with the Father and the Spirit by the seraphim crying out: "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord Sabaoth.

From the same holy Proclus, from the encomium on the holy Theotokos, whose beginning is: "All the testimonies and festivals." Nothing, then, in life is like the Theotokos Mary. Go around, O man, all creation with your reason and see whether there is anything equal or greater than the holy Theotokos. Travel through the earth, look around the sea, investigate the air, search the heavens with your mind, consider all the invisible powers, and see whether there is such a wonder in all creation. For the heavens declare the glory of God, angels minister with fear, archangels worship with trembling, the cherubim tremble, not bearing it, the seraphim do not approach, flying around and crying out with trembling: "Holy, holy, holy; the earth is full of his praise." And this is clear, that it depends on the understanding of those before, but let those who utter these things hear and recognize it. And I am persuaded that they will recognize it and will be enlightened with full assurance concerning these things, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in them. From Saint Athanasius, from the discourse on the incarnation and the Trinity, whose beginning is:

Those who act wickedly: And when the Seraphim give glory, saying for the third time "Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth," they give glory to Father and Son and Holy Spirit. From Saint Basil, from the work to Amphilochius concerning the Holy Spirit: How could the Seraphim say "Holy, holy, holy, Lord," unless they had been taught by the Spirit how many times it is pious to offer this doxology? The father has freed us from idle chatter by saying plainly, "how many times it is pious to offer this doxology." For it is not pious to do so twice or four times, but three times and once: three times "holy" because of the triad of the hypostases, and once "Lord" because of the singularity of the essence and the monarchy. For if it referred to the Son alone, why not once "holy" and once "Lord," why not twice or four times? For the number three is not consecrated to the one hypostasis, nor is it more proper to it than the other numbers. From the same Saint Basil, from the fourth discourse against Eunomius, whose beginning is: "If the Son is God by nature": That neither vision nor oracle is separate from Father and Son and Holy Spirit. The prophet Isaiah: "I saw," he said, "the Lord Sabaoth seated on a throne high and lifted up. And the Seraphim stood round about him, six wings to the one and six wings to the one." And after a little he says: "And the Lord said to me: Go and say to this people: Hearing you shall hear and in no way understand, and seeing you shall see and in no way perceive. For the heart of this people has grown fat," and so on.

As far, then, as concerns this position and the sequence of the prophetic writing, the one who is over all is the Father who appeared and gave oracles to the prophet. However, the son of thunder, who uttered extraordinary things and spoke things more fearful than thunder, whose own phrase is not "he was not" but "the Word was," said that it was the Son who appeared and gave oracles to the prophet. For he says in his own writing: "For this reason the Jews could not believe in Jesus, because Isaiah said concerning them: Their eyes have been blinded and their heart has been hardened, lest they see with their eyes and understand with their heart and turn, and I heal them. These things Isaiah said when he saw his glory." But Paul declared that the vision and the oracle were of the Spirit, saying: "Well did the Holy Spirit say through the prophet Isaiah to your fathers: You will hear with hearing and surely not understand, and seeing you will see and surely not perceive; for the heart of this people has grown dull." The prophet sets forth the person of the Father, the evangelist that of the Son, Paul that of the Spirit, all naming together the one Lord Sabaoth who appeared. Their account concerning the hypostasis is divided, while the mind concerning the one God remains undivided among them. For the manner and account concerning the hypostasis is divided indivisibly. Therefore "Holy, holy, holy" is said triadically because of the threefoldness of the hypostases, but "Lord" once because of the singularity of the Godhead.

From Saint Gregory the Theologian, from the oration On the Nativity: But when I say God, I mean Father and Son and Holy Spirit; for the Godhead is neither poured out beyond these, lest we introduce a multitude of gods, nor confined within these, lest we be condemned for a poverty of Godhead, either judaizing because of the monarchy or hellenizing because of the abundance; for the evil in both is alike, even though it is found in opposites. Thus, then, the holy of holies, which is both veiled and glorified by the seraphim with three sanctifications, converges into one lordship and Godhead, which has also been philosophized by some other of those before us, most excellently and most sublimely. And Saint Cyril of Alexandria also, in the discourse On the Spirit, to Hermeias, whose beginning is "Of good labors": But what—does not the Scripture say that the very words of God are of the Spirit? For the inspired Isaiah, recounting that extraordinary and most awe-inspiring vision of God, says: "I saw the Lord Sabaoth seated on a high and lifted-up throne," and having added what comes in between, he says: "I heard the Lord Sabaoth saying: Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people? And I said: Behold, here am I, send me. And he said: Go and say to this people: Hearing you shall hear and not understand, and seeing you shall see and not perceive." But the inspired John says concerning the Only-begotten: "These things Isaiah said when he saw his glory and spoke concerning him." And Stephen, the wisest, said, addressing the Jews:

You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart, you always resist the Holy Spirit as your fathers did." Is it not already in some way clear that by the distinctness according to individual hypostasis, what the Father is, what the Son is, and what indeed the Spirit is, is very well discerned, while by their convergence toward natural unity, all things of all are present—both words and participation, activity and glory, and all that adorns the divine nature? And what—will not even one who has tasted but a little of doctrine know clearly that the thrice-holy hymn "by distinctness according to individual hypostasis," as the God-bearing Father also said, shows the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and "by convergence toward natural unity" and monarchy, the word "Lord"? For the number three signifies three, and the unit signifies one. Therefore "Holy, Holy, Holy" and thrice-holy, because there are three hypostases; "Lord," because the three hypostases are one God. And the three are one God, because there is one Godhead, and the things that come from it have their reference toward one, the hypostases neither being estranged nor yet compounded or conflated. From Saint Gregory of Nyssa, from the first book Against Eunomius: Likewise also the seraphim in Isaiah, by whom the mystery of the Trinity was clearly proclaimed, when, struck with wonder at the beauty of "Holy" in each one of the Trinity, they cried it out in amazement.

Behold, indeed, the God-inspired father has clearly said that through the thrice-holy hymn "the mystery of the Trinity has been manifestly proclaimed"—through the crying out of "Holy" three times, the Trinity of persons, and through the shouting of "Lord" once, the oneness of nature and lordship. And the holy and wondrous Epiphanius speaks somewhere thus in the discourse entitled Ancoratus: But through the threefold testimony let them receive the Holy Spirit and be filled with the manifest voices of the seraphim and cherubim crying out "Holy, holy, holy" a third time; for not through two voices is the glorification in heaven accomplished. Nor do the same holy and invisible and spiritual living creatures cry out a fourth time, nor do they render a fourth voice, nor a single one only, but three voices in the singular, "Holy, holy, holy," and they do not say "holy, holy, holy" in the plural, lest they make the singular many-named nor hide the threefold number of the three, but they give the sanctification three times, yet they utter the word in a single form and in the singular, lest they name a multiplicity of gods. This father, taught of God, has set us free, having declared the matters most clearly, that not through two voices is the glorification in heaven accomplished, nor through one or a fourth voice, but through three, and those singular. For what reason? Because the hymn is not indicative of one hypostasis, but of the three. Just as, therefore, the hymn is not accomplished through two voices or four, but through three, because of the threefold nature of the hypostases, so the thrice-holy hymn, being indicative of the three hypostases, has no place to be said of one of the hypostases.

It is impossible, then, as I said above, to speak of a definite number in God except the singular and the triad, because of the singularity of the nature and the triad of the hypostases. And the singular number is applied to the three hypostases—God and God and God, but one God and not three Gods, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—so that the monarchy not be thought polytheism and the one and indivisible God not be divided from his own enhypostatic powers. For God and his Word and the Spirit are one God, even if each is a perfect hypostasis because of the transcendence of the divinity. But the triad number is not applied to one hypostasis. For each hypostasis is not three-hypostatic, so that by the triple number the three-hypostatic character of each hypostasis be shown. Away, away. These things are not of a pious reasoning, but outside the fitting mind. These things, O most divine father, pillar and foundation of the truth, we entreat to be read to all the fathers and brothers and to the whole fullness of the church, and that by a word of gentleness our father the lord Abba Anastasius, the renowned leader of the venerable monastery of our God-bearing father Euthymius, be exhorted to cease from such insistence, and, following in the footsteps with us who are God-inspired fathers,

Holy," it says, "is God" and Father; "holy, mighty" is the Son of God, who was incarnate and crucified in the flesh for our sake; "holy, immortal" is the Holy Spirit, the one Lord of Sabaoth, "have mercy on us"; and neither to accuse us nor the thrice-blessed John the patriarch, as though they were persuaded to speak the Trisagion hymn of one of the divine-ruling hypostases. For everyone who thinks or speaks thus is a partaker of the perversity of the vulgar fuller. For who knows the mind of the most blessed John the patriarch more than I? No one. He, to speak the truth, never breathed a doctrinal breath that he did not entrust to me as his disciple. Why were these things not said about him while the sacred man was alive and speaking? These are nothing but certain pretexts that for the most part have no firmness. Let them not slander the zealous one who breathed fire of orthodoxy—I mean the ever-memorable calf, the expeller and destroyer of all empty speaking—as though he had shared in the sacred things of theology with the fathers; but let them accept this man's zeal and praise him as sacred and ever-memorable. The God of peace, the Father of Christ our God—for he himself is our peace—will fill our hearts with the Holy Spirit for the discerning of what differs and will drive away every evil assault from us, making peace for his holy church, which his beloved Son Jesus, who is above God, acquired for himself with his precious blood. Pray for us, O God-honored one, as one who is God-honored.

To this account we must also add the following. In the sacred offering of the celebration of the divine mysteries, after the people have said the Trisagion hymn, the priest, as it were interpreting the hymn, says: "Holy are you, King of the ages, and Lord and giver of all holiness; holy also is your only-begotten Son, through whom you made all things; and holy is your all-holy Spirit, which searches all things, even your depths, O God." Why does he not say, "Holy, holy, holy are you, King of the ages; holy, holy, holy is your only-begotten Son," but rather says "Holy, holy, holy" commonly of the Trinity, and for each of the hypostases once "Holy"? And at the elevation of the bread of the Eucharist we do not say "Thrice holy" or "Thrice Lord," but "One is holy, one is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father, with the Holy Spirit, to whom be the glory." Since we say the Trisagion hymn three times in the customary prayers, it is worth discussing this too: that it is not once to the Father and once to the Son and once to the Holy Spirit that we offer the Trisagion hymn, but commonly to the Holy Trinity three times

We offer the Trisagion hymn. For while the seraphim, who stand ever before God, unceasingly bring the thrice-holy doxology, we, since at appointed hours we send up the ordained hymn to God, fittingly and suitably assign the Trisagion, said three times in common, to the Trinity. And in all things, for this reason, we prefer the number three to the others, as being declarative of the Holy Trinity and as having received from it fullness and perfection. For the monad is without quantity, the dyad is the beginning of number, and the triad is a perfect number. But the Godhead is not in a triad because of the number; rather, because the Godhead is in a triad, the number three is perfect. For the monad, having moved from the beginning to the dyad, stood fast at the triad; for God is the beginning and cause of existing things. From the beginning, then, and from the cause of existing things, number received this power, because just as the Father is begetter of the Son and producer of the Spirit, so too number, coming to the dyad and reaching as far as the triad, stands still. Therefore also the singular number, which signifies one, and the dual, which signifies two, and the plural, which signifies three, and no other form besides. For we say "the man" of one man, and "the two men" of two, and "the men" of three, and of God "one hypostasis" of the Father, "two hypostases" of the Father and the Son, "three hypostases" of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, since the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit differ in hypostasis, and likewise there are three hypostatic properties.

In those things in which one hypostasis does not differ from another hypostasis, that is, in the natural attributes, it is not possible to count plurality in the case of God, but one must speak of the natural attributes of each hypostasis in the singular, and then, joining them together, again speak in the singular and in common of the natural attributes of the three hypostases: God and God and God, but one God and not three Gods, because God and his enhypostatic powers are one God. For by the fact that each has its own hypostasis, each is called a perfect God in itself; but by the fact that they are numbered together, they are not three Gods but one God, because the Word and the Spirit are powers of the Father. The Father is the Father and not the Son, for he is not from anything. The Son is the Son; for he is from the Father and not the Father, so that the Father may be one. The Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit; for he proceeds from the Father through the Son and Word, but not in a sonship manner. For if the Son is a son of the Father and the Spirit is a son, he will have other sons as well, and this to infinity. And if the Spirit is a son of the Son, this one too will have a son, and that one another, and this to infinity, and there will be many Gods and many Lords and a people of Gods and not one God. But for us there is one God: the Father and his Word and his Spirit. The Word is an enhypostatic offspring, and therefore also Son; and the Spirit is an enhypostatic procession and projection, from the Father indeed, but of the Son and not from the Son, as the Spirit of the mouth of God the Word, declarative. And certainly the mouth is not a bodily member, and the spirit is not a breath that is dissolved and diffused. But these things require another treatise. For the present, having clarified as far as we are able, let us bring our discourse to a close.

But I know that you too, filled with the divine Spirit, will supply what is lacking, in the manner of friendship, praying unceasingly on our behalf.