On the Holy Trinity

474 ADMONITION.

Joannes Vegelinus of Augsburg published in 1611 at Augsburg, with some Cyrillian and Damascene fragments, the little work which I subjoin, *On the Holy Trinity*, inscribed under the name of John of Damascus, with Greek and Latin annotations added. I have found the beginning of this work attributed in like manner to our Damascene in the manuscript codices Reg. 2909 and Colb. 6044, with the title *On the Holy Trinity*, which I have deemed should be placed before the whole work; because it is primarily about this mystery, although he has inserted a few things here and there concerning the incarnation. There is no doubt in my mind that the genuine author of this work is John of Damascus, or at least that it was excerpted from his genuine books. I have changed Vegelin's translation in a few places, and I have judged that his notes should be published along with it.

OF OUR FATHER AMONG THE SAINTS JOHN OF DAMASCUS ON THE HOLY TRINITY

^A 1. Concerning the Holy Trinity, the consubstantial and life-giving, [one] must confess one nature, one will, one operation, one power and authority and lordship, because there is also one Godhead, [and] three hypostases, that is, three persons, with the propriety of each person being preserved. But in the dispensation of the Incarnation of one of the Holy Trinity, that is, of our Lord Jesus Christ, [one must confess] two natures, [that] of the Godhead and of the humanity, two wills likewise and operations, [and] one hypostasis, that is, one person, because He is one and the same, He who before the ages was begotten without flux and incorporeally, and in the last times was conceived inexpressibly and undefiledly from the holy ever-virgin Mary the Theotokos; the same is ^B both wholly man and God, known in one hypostasis, impassible in His Godhead, and passible in His assumed nature; who preserved sound after [His] birth, namely, the seals of virginity, that is, the

^A marks of virginity. Question: For what reason did the Son become man, and not the Father, nor the Spirit? And what did He accomplish by becoming man? Answer: The Father is Father, and not Son. The Son is Son, and not Father. The Holy Spirit is Spirit, and not Father, nor Son. For a property cannot be changed; for how would it be a property if it were changed or transformed? For this reason the Son of God also becomes Son of man, having been incarnate from the holy Virgin, and did not depart from His filial property. Now the Son of God became man, so that on behalf of that for which He made man, He might again grant him immortality and eternal life for the enjoyment of eternal goods. Amen: be it, be it.

2. The Father and the Son are not two without origin, but are most closely conjoined ^B without any middle. Mixing produces corruption, and [things] are so mixed, like water and wine. Union is, when a certain conjunction occurs, such that one is not diminished, nor the other corrupted, but remains in that which it is; as the soul and the body. Thus also Christ, God the Word perfect, and man perfect, is united, but not confused. One God, the Father of the living Word, of subsistence-possessing wisdom and power and eternal character, perfect begetter of the perfect, Father of the only-begotten Son, and one Lord, alone from the alone, God from God, character and image of the divinity, active Word, wisdom which contains the whole structure of things, and power that created all creation: true Son of the true Father, invisible of the invisible, and incorruptible of the incorruptible, and immortal of the immortal, and eternal of the eternal. And one Holy Spirit, having its existence from God, and having appeared through the Son, namely to men. Perfection of the Son and life, cause of the living, holy spring, holiness, bestower of sanctification, in whom is manifested God the Father, who is over all and in all; and God the Son, who is through all; a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and kingship, not divided, nor alienated. Neither therefore is anything created, or a servant in the Trinity, nor anything brought in, as ^C if it were formerly not existing, and later entering in. For He was not unable both to pass through the door, and not to damage its seals. Even if I speak of three hypostases, I say there is one principle; for the Father is the principle of the Son and of the Spirit, not according to time, but according to cause. Therefore neither, ^D according to cause. This is: Although I say three hypostases, yet I proclaim there is one principle. For the Father is the principle of the Son and Spirit, not by reason of time, but of cause. Which he [says]. Nevertheless, the Son Himself is also a principle, not only of creatures, but also with respect to the Holy Spirit. Whence Cyril, book VIII on John, chap. XXIV, upon the words: "The principle, who even speak to you," writes: That the Son of God Himself is also called a principle, the present place of the Gospel most clearly testifies: yet do not on that account contend that there are two principles, the Father and the Son, but a unique principle, just as both the Father is God, and the Son is God; yet not two gods, but one is God.

^A For neither did the Son ever fail the Father, nor the Spirit the Son; but the same Trinity is always immutable and unalterable. For thus we believe the blessed, life-giving, and indivisible holy Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons, one image; three characters, one impression; three hypostases, one deity; three properties, one essence; three energies, one grace; three existences, one equality; three forms of knowledge, one glory; three names, one confession; three confessions, one faith. God is an eternal and invariable substance, which created existing things. God is the supreme and inaccessible light, which can neither be comprehended by the mind nor explained in speech.

3. Question. In how many ways is God [spoken of]? Answer. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit; ^B the blessed nature, the goodness free from envy; the beauty beloved by all who have partaken of reason and deeply desired; the beginning of beings, the fountain of life, the inaccessible wisdom, the immutable nature, the life free from molestation, the conversation unknown to sorrows, concerning which there is no alteration, which change does not touch, the gushing fountain, the abundant grace, the exhaustless treasure.

4. We confess our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, ^C to have been incarnate and to have become man from the Holy Spirit and from the holy, glorious Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary. We confess the same to be perfect God and perfect man, one and the same Son, both before the incarnation and after the incarnation: of the same essence as the Father according to his deity, and in all things like unto us, and of the same essence as us according to his humanity, becoming man without sin; begotten of the Father before the ages according to his deity, but in the last days the same [begotten] for us and for our salvation from the holy ^D Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, one and the same Son recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division. For two natures came together with one another throughout an indivisible, unconfused, and unchanged union. For the flesh is flesh and is not deity, even if it has become the flesh of God; in like manner also the Word is God and is not flesh, even if he made the flesh one through the economy. We say, therefore, that there are two natures, but one Christ and Son and Lord, the Word of God who became man and took on flesh. For he did not

diminish his own glory ^A, the Lord, by taking on flesh. For before he took on flesh and humbled himself, only the angels knew him; but after he humbled himself, the whole nature of men came to know him. You see how humiliation did not work a diminution, but rather caused his glory to shine forth more. If, however, any of the inquisitive asks whether the Godhead was on the cross or was not, he makes it such that it is not in everything, and circumscribed in one place; but we say that God is uncircumscribed and incomprehensible.

5. Question. Whence is the word *Theos* (God) etymologized? Answer. From *theō*, which is to compose and make, as he is the maker of all and the cause of the composition of all things; or from *theō*, which is to run, forGod is present everywhere. Or *Theos*, from *theasthai* (to behold); for God beheld all things before they came to be. *Kyrios* (Lord) is from *kyros*, which signifies authority. Question. What is union? Answer. That which consists according to hypostasis, and is a thing existing ^B out of diverse natures. Question. Is the divine nature communicative, or is it receptive? Answer. Communicative. Question. What is synaloepha? Answer. Confusion. Question. By what names is the Father honored, and for what reason is he called Father? Answer. One Father, the holy God, and Almighty, without beginning, eternal, immortal, unlooked-upon, inexplicable, unending, without successor, unmoved, unsearchable, who is not corrupted by gifts. He is called Father because he preserves all things. Question. By what names is the Son honored, and in what respect is he called Son? Answer. One Son, the holy Word, ineffable offspring, unutterable Word, invisible mind, light of life, sun of righteousness, shepherd, door, way, lamb. He is called Son because he is from the Father. Question. By what names is the Holy Spirit honored, and in what respect is he called Spirit? Answer. One Holy Spirit, lordly, life-giving, philanthropic, consubstantial, existent, hypostatic, firm, swift, untroubled, sanctifying power, consubstantial with the Father ^C and Son. For it is the breath of the upper powers of God; it is called *Pneuma* (Spirit) because it is inclined to lean and blow wherever it wills. Question. What is Jesus Christ? Answer. The Lord who became man without sin. Question. What is Christ? Answer. A symbol of the Godhead and of ensouled flesh, an immutable union. ^D

^C But Christ is so called because he used flesh like ours. Question. What is "holy"? Answer. The one who makes holy and is made holy. Question. What is "the Word"? Answer. The Word is substantial, always present with the Spirit. Question. In what hypostasis do you worship the Son of God? Answer. In the hypostasis of the Word of God, one incarnate nature and one being worshiped, one adoration; for from two having come together, the person being worshiped is one. There are two essences, two energies, two wills, two powers of self-determination; and in five ways the hypostasis exists: hypostasis, and person, and character, and property, and individual.

ADMONITION

I do not think it worth the effort to prove to many people that the letter to Jordan, the Archimandrite, *On the Trisagion Hymn*, which has already appeared in multiple editions, was written by John of Damascus; since no one among the critics has attempted to snatch it from him thus far, but rather they themselves assert that the marks of facts, times, sentiments, and locutions, which are met with everywhere in it, are most certain. The author discusses that hymn, which is most celebrated among the Orientals, "Holy God, holy mighty, holy immortal, have mercy on us" (*Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς*); and having brought forward not a few authorities of the doctors of the Church, he contends that any chant in which God is addressed as thrice holy—whether it be the Seraphic one, taken from the sixth chapter of Isaiah, or the ecclesiastical one—must be understood as referring to the whole Trinity, and not to the Son or Christ alone. Wherefore you would find no other monument in which the reasons are more clearly explained for which the addition by which Peter the Fuller, tyrant of the Church of Antioch, had compromised this sacred ode—having inserted the phrase "who wast crucified for us" (*ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δἰ ἡμᾶς*)—was so hateful to Catholics.

They would argue that this Trisagion is not older than Proclus of Constantinople if the letters to the Fuller, which are marked with the names of Pope Felix III, Acacius, Quintianus, Justinus, and other bishops, were only known to be genuine. For it is reported in the same way that under Theodosius the Younger and Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople, when the Byzantine citizens were holding supplications to God in the city suburbs on account of an earthquake, a boy was snatched up into the air and learned that song from the angels, which the people then sang. But those letters seemed adulterated to the renowned Valesius and others, because although the most learned man Antonius Pagius, following William Cave, attempts to refute this at the year 483 of Baronius, yet at the year 478 he had admitted that both letters to the Fuller, as well as another to Zeno, which bear the name of Felix, ought rather to be ascribed to Simplicius: because Felix, long before he had learned that the Fuller had burst into the See of Antioch for the third time, had deprived Acacius of communion and of the episcopal rank; who, nevertheless, in these letters is commended as the legitimate and most God-beloved (*θεοφιλέστατος*) pastor and patriarch of the royal city. Indeed, in the year 484, the anathema was pronounced against Acacius, and in the following year, 485, Peter, after casting out Calendion the Catholic, recovered the See of Antioch. But in the letter which is said to be of Bishop Quintianus, it is reported that not Simplicius, but Felix wrote letters to Peter. "With many bishops warning you," he says...

^A of the most holy Archbishop Felix, "most holy Archbishop Felix." Moreover, I do not understand why the impure Fuller is addressed by the Roman Pontiff with the most loving title of "most religious"—Fuller, I say, who had snatched the see of Antioch from Martyrius, and had shortly thereafter been deposed by a legitimate synod; who a little later, without his case having been heard, had regained the see by the authority of the heretical tyrant Basiliscus. Indeed, this second invasion of the third throne was far from pleasing to Simplicius; so that when Basiliscus was reduced to order, he immediately wrote to Acacius, that he should obtain from the Emperor Zeno that Peter and his associates be exiled to a distance. "I had commanded," he says in a genuine letter to Zeno, "that, upon suggestion being made to your piety, the aforementioned (Peter), as also the others who, through the opportunity of the tyrannical dominion (of Basiliscus), had invaded the Churches of God, be driven beyond the boundaries of the empire." He adds other things, which sufficiently imply that Peter and his followers were the authors of the death of Stephen the Younger of Antioch. Furthermore, Liberatus relates in his Breviarium, ch. 18, following the author of the *Breviculus historiae Eutychianistarum*, that Acacius had suggested to Simplicius together with him, that he should likewise condemn Peter, and John of Apamea, and Paul of Ephesus: nay, the same Felix testifies in an Epistle to the clerics and monks of the East: "Whom the hypocrite Acacius then caused to be so condemned by the apostolic see, that the very name of Christians was taken away from them: which the acts concerning him demonstrate." And yet, in those epistles, no mention at all is made of these companions of Peter. Moreover, ^B Pope Hormisdas and his apocrisiaries, when the Scythian monks were pressing upon them a similar proposition of Cnapheus, namely, that one of the Trinity was crucified, are never read to have objected that Peter the Fuller had been proscribed by the apostolic see on account of the crucifixion added to the Trisagion. The monk Jobius, in Photius, cod. 222, writing about the middle of the sixth century, said that Proclus himself—not a boy—had revealed the hymn of which we are now speaking, or rather its composition derived from the Seraphic canticle and these words of Ps. XLI: *Deum, fortem, vivum*, and that he had learned it from a Jew who, having become a Christian from the heart, was performing the office of Catechist in the Church: "as to the blessed Proclus the composition of the aforementioned melody was revealed by an apparition, the angels singing this hymn of glorification, and he receiving the knowledge first from there." Nicephorus Callistus, lib. XVIII, cap. 51, believes that this Trisagion was given to the Church by the apostles themselves. At the end of the action of the first Council of Chalcedon, after Dioscorus was judged worthy of deposition, the Orientals, or the bishops of the diocese of Antioch, chanted it before all others. But since that was done some years after the death of Proclus, I shall add another, more ancient author, namely, the writer of the life of Saint Basil the Great, who by many has been thought to be Amphilochius of Iconium: but he is not more recent than Proclus, or the Council of Chalcedon; since, contrary to the custom of that age, he teaches that there are three persons of the divine Trinity, τρία ἐνυπόστατα, of one essence, of one power, of one hypostasis, discerning nothing between hypostasis and essence. This author furthermore relates that Basil, when he was in the temple of Saint Diomedes at Nicaea, pronounced that Trisagion hymn. ^C As far as concerns its interpolation, Calendio, the prelate of Antioch, in order to appease the riots which Cnapheus was stirring up, placed two other words before those phrases "who was crucified for us," namely, *Christe Rex*, which would be as the beginning of a second verse, so that with the Trinity first celebrated, the clemency of Christ would then be invoked. This addition, however, with its author, Fuller later on ruined, and the adversaries of the fourth synod thereafter retained the canticle as it had been changed by Peter. Wherefore Severus, the leader of these, and Julian of Halicarnassus, suggested to the Emperor Anastasius that he force Macedonius of Constantinople to admit the interpolation of Fuller; which, when it did not turn out according to their wishes, and Macedonius had been ejected, Timotheus was ordained in his place, who, when he had attempted to introduce it again, nay, had established it by official edict in the Churches, was compelled to desist somewhat from his attempts because the people were rioting on account of the novelty and the suspicion of the Theopaschite heresy. But from the Alexandrian Chronicle and from the Annals of John Malala it appears that, a few years later, the Byzantines were not overly horrified by that addition. Indeed, in the sixth year of Justinian, on the 12th of November, when the whole city had gathered in the forum of Constantine because of an earthquake, they report that all prayed in this manner: "Holy God, holy mighty, holy immortal, who wast crucified for us, have mercy on us." Then at dawn they exclaimed: "Victory, the fortune of the Christians! Crucified One, save us and our city! August Justinian, may you be victorious!" "Tolle, exure tomum editum ab episcopis synodi Chalcedonensis—Take away, burn the volume published by the bishops of the synod of Chalcedon." But that fury was not long-lasting, and by the care and edicts of the Emperor, the Trisagion canticle was purged, and the faith of Chalcedon was strengthened. In the meantime, however, Severus, having seized the Antiochene see under Anastasius, had persuaded the Orientals that they should continue to recite this Trisagion in honor of Christ with the addition of Fuller. I possess certain fragments ^D of his own composition on this topic and on the Annunciation, in which he confesses that the Seraphic Trisagion, which is read in Isaiah, ch. VI, reaches to the Lord Sabaoth and the three persons of the Trinity, "ending in one Lord Sabaoth, the one dominion in three hypostases and deity," and that the ecclesiastical Trisagion is properly referred to Christ the Son, who is declared in this way to be a consort in glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit; and therefore that it is of extreme impiety not to wish to add this voice, "who was crucified for us": "Even now some come to such a degree of impiety as, in the Trisagion hymn which we offer to the Savior Christ, saying 'Holy God, holy mighty, holy immortal,' not to append 'who was crucified.'" For he traduced those who opposed him as Nestorians. When, therefore, Severus had persuaded the Orientals that the whole Trisagion should be sung to Christ rather than to the Trinity, Ephraem, who governed the Antiochene Church shortly after him, although he was most zealous for the catholic faith, lest he give occasion for riots or seditions, judged it better to concede that the Trisagion be said by the Orientals according to that interpretation with the inter-

be sung with this interpolation. I shall recite its words, as they are found in Photius, codex 228, from the epistle to Zenobius the Monophysite. Those indeed who inhabit the regions of the East, because they refer this hymn to the Lord Jesus Christ, for that reason do not sin at all by adding, "who wast crucified for us" (that is, they are freed from the suspicion of the Theopaschite error); but the Byzantines and the Westerners (the Greeks, at any rate), attributing this hymn to the most sublime and sacrosanct source of goodness, the consubstantial Trinity, for that reason do not tolerate that the phrase, "who wast crucified for us," should be inserted, lest they attribute the passion to the Trinity. Moreover, in many regions of Europe, instead of these words, "who wast crucified for us," they add these others: "Holy Trinity, have mercy on us." Photius, however, fears to agree with Ephraim, because of the authority of the Fathers who rejected the addition of Peter the Fuller, for the reason that the Trinity is celebrated in this hymn: And certainly, since Damascene proscribed this interpolation—also in the books which he wrote at Damascus in the name of his metropolitan and bishop Peter—from this I have gathered that the Patriarchs of Antioch who succeeded Ephraim, being tenacious of the Catholic doctrine, also purged the Trisagion hymn, so that no remains of the Monophysite poison might survive. The Greek text of Damascene's epistle in the Basel edition teems with countless faults and printers' errors, which it would be tedious to annotate. But I have compared and reviewed it against three Royal codices, 1991, 2930, and 3441, as well as another very recent paper manuscript, and a fragment which I found in Reg. 3451.

EPISTLE TO JORDAN THE ARCHIMANDRITE ON THE TRISAGION HYMN

^A To the God-honored and decorated with divine zeal, Lord Jordan the Archimandrite, John of Damascus, greeting in the Lord.

1. The intensity of my longing for you, O best of Fathers, does not possess its origins from an unstable cause, but from divine love, which is such that it never falls away. For we know the orthodoxy of your faith, the right-cutting of the word of truth, the burning heat of your zeal, and the purity of your love toward God, from which and through which you are bound to your neighbor as if by a natural bond; for the former is the symbol of the primary source. For love toward one's neighbor knows how to characterize the yearning toward God. We know your yearning for and delight in the oracles of God, which you count sweeter than honey; for you have conceived of the divine beauty, and have flown up to it on wings, and have become an unblemished mirror of God and of his divine manifestations, possessing virtue as your beauty, and having become, through its most accurate lines, a true image of the divine beauty, as the archetype of all that is good. Therefore, you...

whom we love, we love virtue, and God, from whom you have received the gifts of excelling virtue. But, O wretched matter, Father, O wretched matter! How does it happen that the enemy of the Church is always laboring to disturb it; and what is more grievous, through the very members of piety themselves? For our most religious brother, the abbot Sergius, my kinsman, familiar, and friend, informed me by letter, which our noble brother the abbot Job brought, that the abbot Anastasius, that famous superior of the holy monastery of Euthymius, had brought forward certain passages from the books of the holy Fathers, by which indeed the Trisagion hymn is referred to the Son alone. If this were granted, there would be nothing to prevent that contagion, which the Fuller ^B has malignantly introduced, from utterly infecting everyone.

I marvel, I greatly marvel, if these things are so; and I marvel again if these things are not so. For we know the orthodoxy of that venerable man—I speak of Anastasius—and we are not ignorant of the excellence of the same man in speech and in virtue which is founded on action; but we also clearly know the truthfulness of the accuser. For as one who loves God, and lives for Him, I do not believe that he could have been brought to construct a calumny against an innocent man adorned with excelling virtues by means of his own lie; a thing which, in any case, has not a little vexed our own mind.

Moreover, this same Sergius, through the venerable abbot Job, his own brother, condemned him, and urged that I signify to him without delay what I felt concerning this matter. He further insisted that Anastasius ^C affirms this, namely, that we also have assented to this opinion and have approved it by our own calculation and vote. That which truly struck me with even greater amazement. He had brought forward for us passages (nor will I lie) that we pronounced to be those of holy and approved Fathers: but that it was evident from these that the Trisagion hymn should be referred to the Son alone, we by no means judged. Indeed, we did not even agree that the most blessed patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, the most divine John, a man of God, was of the same opinion as he; yet he asserts that it was on this account that he opened his own mind on this matter.

Wherefore, we have thought it worth the effort that these things should be ^D made clear to your holiness, revered for God’s sake, and that none of our own people should be ignorant of what we think. For this is customary and familiar to us.

^B 2. We say, therefore, that the definitions and designations which are assigned with appropriate reasoning are most certain. For holy Scripture says, "God brought all the living creatures to Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called them, that was the name thereof." We see, therefore, names which distinguish species from species, and names applied which distinguish hypostasis from hypostasis, and indeed laws which were established and which hold firm even until now.

In this way, therefore, I state definitively that God revealed to Isaiah through the Seraphim, and through the Trisagion hymn, the one three-hypostasized divinity and lordship, as if by a certain arithmetical manifestation. For why did they sing "Holy" not twice, or four times, or ten thousand times? And why did the Seraphim shout "Lord Sabaoth: heaven and earth are full of his glory" not twice, or three times, or four times, or ten thousand times? But they sang "Holy" three times—holy, holy, holy—while the word "Lord" they sang only once. Is it not to show that there are indeed three holy hypostases, but one lordship of the three, and one principality and glory, and one essence and divinity, and that these three are one holy God—holy is the Father, holy is the Son, holy is the Holy Spirit—but one holy, not three holies; and one Lord, not three lords? For the three hypostases are God and God and God, yet there is one holy God, and not three gods; holy, holy, holy, yet one holy and not three holies; Lord and Lord and Lord, yet one Lord and not three lords. For this reason he also added: "Heaven and earth are full of thy glory," and not "of theirs."

The divinity, therefore, or essence, is unfolded in a triad, being known indivisibly in three hypostases, and the three hypostases are united and conjoined into one essence, or divinity. And the divinity is sanctified and glorified in a triad—holy, holy, holy—and the three hypostases are glorified in a singular manner: "Lord Sabaoth: 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; and each of the hypostases is not glorified and sanctified in a threefold manner. For the divinity, being ^C a triad of hypostases, is sanctified in a triadic way, as is appropriate and fitting: holy the Father, holy the Son, holy the Holy Spirit, Lord Sabaoth. For these three are one God and Lord. But each of the hypostases, being one hypostasis and not three, for what reason would it be sanctified three times, and not once, or twice, or four times, or ten thousand times? For each of the hypostases of the divinity is not a Trinity; for in that way the divinity would be a nonad, and not a Trinity. For why did they not sing a twice-holy, or four-times-holy, or ten-thousand-times-holy hymn, but a thrice-holy, according to the number of the hypostases? For just as we call the Father a hypostasis, and the Son a hypostasis, and the Holy Spirit a hypostasis, and the divinity, or essence, three-hypostasized, as containing the three—

and as it is not right to call the Father tri-hypostatic, nor likewise the Son and the Holy Spirit tri-hypostatic—so also it is not permissible to call one of the hypostases "thrice-holy." But we call the Father holy, the Son holy, and the Holy Spirit holy, while the tri-hypostatic divinity itself is "thrice-holy." If, therefore, the Trisagion hymn is not indicative of the three hypostases, we ought to sing "holy" twice and add "Lord Sabaoth." But that is not permissible, nor did the Seraphim sing in such a way. Let us not be over-wise, nor imagine ourselves to be wiser than the Seraphim.

^B But if the Spirit-bearing Fathers, whose law is the Word, were to say that the Seraphim, celebrating the Son, cry out "holy, holy, holy," if indeed they had said that they sing to the Son alone, it would be possible to suspect that the Trisagion hymn was spoken of the Son alone. But since the Son cannot be separated from the Father and the Holy Spirit, the hymn too cannot be divided. For the Son is worshipped, sung, and glorified together with the Father and the Holy Spirit. We concede, however, that the hymn is spoken of the Son alone when we sing the things that designate his person: such as these: "Son of God," "the Word," "the Wisdom and Power of God," "born of the Father," "incarnate," "crucified in the flesh," "rising again," "ascending into heaven," "sitting at the right hand of the Father," and things of that sort. Just as, therefore, these things are indicative of his one hypostasis and have no place for any other hypostasis or for the common divinity, so also the Trisagion hymn, since it is indicative of the three hypostases, has no place for one of the hypostases. For just as we call each hypostasis of human nature a "man," but we call a city that contains many men "populous" [poly-anthropos], and yet we cannot call any single man "populous"—so also in the case of the Trisagion: we call each of the hypostases "holy," but we call the tri-hypostatic divinity "Thrice-holy"; yet we cannot call one of the hypostases "Thrice-holy." ^C And just as when counting we say "one and one and one," and cannot say "three-fold number" [trinumerum] for each one, so also in the case of the Trisagion. And just as we say "light and light and light," and when we join them together we say "triple-lustrous splendor," but we do not call each individual light "triple-lustrous," so also in the case of the Trisagion. Everything, therefore, that is said of the whole divinity uniformly, simply, and absolutely, is also said of each of the hypostases. But the number three in the Holy Trinity is indicative of the three hypostases. For the God-bearing Epiphanius said excellently and very appropriately: "What is the reason why the Seraphim do not proclaim 'holy' twice or four times, but three times, if not because they indicate the number of the three hypostases, united into one divinity and lordship?" ^D Holy is God...

^A and the Father, from whom is God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; Holy the Strong is the Son, the subsistent power of God; Holy the Immortal is the Holy Spirit, the life-giver, as the Apostle says: "The law of the spirit of life." Not that the Son is not God, or the Holy Spirit, nor that the Father is not strong, or the Holy Spirit, nor that the Father is not immortal, or the Son, but just as the Apostle, wishing to reveal the hypostases, says: "To us, there is one God, the 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 too is it here. And David foreannounced this, saying: "As the hart longs for the fountains of waters, so my soul longs for thee, O God." Behold, having spoken generally of the divinity, he added, wishing to signify the hypostases: ^B "My soul has thirsted for God the strong, the living." For He who always lives is immortal. Having said, therefore, "My soul longs for thee, O God," he signified the one divinity. Then, by saying, "My soul has thirsted for God the strong, the living," he demonstrated the trinity of the hypostases. And again he returned to the oneness of nature: "When shall I come and appear before the face of God?"

4. But if someone should say that "thrice-blessed," "thrice-desired," and "thrice-happy" is often said even of a single hypostasis, let him know that *treis* (three), when written with the diphthong *ei*, indicates the triad number, but when set down with the simple *i*, it stands for "many times," as when we say "three men," and "There are three who bear witness, the water, and the blood, and the spirit," and *tris* (thrice) with the iota as an adverb stands for "many times," ^C as the Apostle says: "For this I besought the Lord thrice," instead of "many times." It must be known that even in the case of the triad number, when it is spoken adverbially, it is written with the iota. For example: once, and twice, and thrice, and four times, and in composition also, whether it indicates the triad number or the "many" number, it is written with the iota; for *triōnymos* means having three names, and *tripothētos* means "many times desired," *trismakarios* means "many times blessed," *trisolbios* means "many times happy." And these things ^D concerning the mystery of the composition of the aforementioned canticle were, as it was revealed to the blessed one, imparted: with the angels singing this sacred hymn, while he was the first to receive the instruction regarding it from them.

^A one person who is most dear, blessed, and happy. But when it expresses the number three, it can properly be stated only of that number itself: for example, one who does not have two names cannot be called "dinominous," nor can one who is not endowed with three colors be called "trichroic." Therefore, when we say "trinominous," we indicate that he is marked by exactly three names. But when we say "thrice-holy," it has a place in the holy Trinity; for since it comprises only three persons, each of which is holy and is celebrated as such, it is justly and properly called "thrice-holy." But if it were sung of one person, one might suspect that that person consists of three essences or three hypostases—and to assert either of these concerning a single person of the Godhead is wicked and impious. ^B Indeed, we say rather that it is utterly absurd to refer the Trisagion hymn to one of the persons of the Godhead, as it clearly declares the three persons of the Godhead. For if it signified the common essence, it would be pronounced of every person. But since it designates the number of the three persons, it would be entirely inappropriate to state it of one, lest we make the holy Trinity "nine-holy." For the number three, multiplied by itself, naturally produces the number nine.

5. We have said that one who possesses two names is called "dinominous," and one who has three names is "trinominous"—neither more nor less. Why, then, is the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit called "holy" only three times, ^C or why is the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone called "thrice-hypostatic," so that each might be called "thrice-holy"? God forbid! Nay, they are infinitely holy, and holy an infinite number of times. But the holy Godhead, as existing in three holy persons alone, is justly proclaimed "thrice-holy." Therefore, the Trisagion hymn must not be said of one of the persons, as it is indicative of the three persons of the Godhead. For one cannot assign a definite number to the indefinite Godhead, except for the unity of essence and the Trinity of persons. For if anyone were to ask us why, in baptizing, we perform a triple immersion, what else could we answer than that we immerse once for each person, and three times because there are three persons, not three times for each person? For otherwise, nine immersions would have to be employed, ^D which would be entirely unlawful. And for that same reason, at each immersion, we pronounce the name of one of the three persons. In the same way, if we are asked why this word "holy" is sung three times, and not twice or four times, we may truly say that it is done because of the Trinity existing in three persons. By what reasoning, then, could we sing the Trisagion hymn of one person? For thus we would prove ourselves to be liars and breakers of our own words. Each one of the persons of the Godhead, as the divine Basil says,

^A is declared in a unique way. "One Father," the Father, and "one Holy," because there is one hypostasis, one thrice-holy nature, which is the Godhead, for there are three hypostases; the Father is not thrice-holy, because he is one hypostasis; the Son is not thrice-holy, because he is one hypostasis; the Holy Spirit is not thrice-holy, because he is one hypostasis; the Holy and All-holy Spirit, the whole choir of God-bearing and God-inspired Fathers always proclaims, with every breath, in unison. But this "thrice-holy" ^B—which we have not yet found in any discourse of the holy Fathers—is this delirium of the Fuller (Knapheus), who, puffed up with great arrogance, with head openly uncovered (which indeed expresses the impudence of shameless women), as though he were wiser than the Seraphim themselves and more knowledgeable of the mysteries, was not afraid to purge the Trisagion hymn like some inelegant rag in the manner of a fuller. For if we shall say the Trisagion hymn of the Son alone, the ambiguity is completely removed without hesitation, and we shall have "Maronized," by adding the crucifixion to the Trisagion. But may it never happen that we bring this upon our lips; ^C if God shows mercy, death is preferable. "Remove from me this death," for there is death in this pot. ^D

Various Readings. Notes.

Maronites, who reject the fourth, fifth, and sixth synods, and adding the crucifixion to the Trisagion, also preach one will and one operation of Christ. They are called Maronites from their monastery, which is called Maron in Syria. We shall err, and we also shall add. Without hesitation we also shall err, let us add. And that one should not hold communion with one of a different faith who does not confess it in this way, especially with the Maronites. Maronites, those who the 4th, and the 5th, and the...

^A 6. Let no one say (what indeed I have heard from many) what prevents us, just as after "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit" we subjoin "who wast crucified voluntarily and rose again from the dead," or something else of the sort, so also when singing the Trisagion hymn, we should add, "who wast crucified for us"? We respond to him: that the rites and traditions of the Church must retain their force. "Do not move the ancient boundaries," says the Scripture 11, "which your fathers set." And, as the great Basil asserts 12, "everything that excels in antiquity is worthy of veneration." Therefore, this rite was handed down by the Church from ancient times, that the text be said in the manner: "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit." Just as, therefore, when saying a certain text, such as a psalm or canticle, we often subjoin a troparion or melody (5) that does not in any way belong to the meaning of the preceding text: so, after we have said—in the manner of a text (6)—"Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit," we subjoin a troparion suitable to the Son alone, not belonging to the meaning or the syntax... ^B Since, therefore, as it has been written for me, one must necessarily travel through many lands, places, and islands, and it happens that many heresies exist in different places: ^C NOTE. ...the monks of the monastery were most studious of the Catholic faith, so that they pursued the deposition of Peter of Apamea, an associate of Severus, both before the bishops of the Second Syria, and also before Pope Hormisdas, to whom there exists, even in Latin, a letter regarding this cause from Alexander, priest and archimandrite of the monastery of St. Maron, and other monks. Wherefore, in order to indulge in conjectures for a time, I should have thought that their successors eventually drank in the virus of the Jacobite heresy, at the time when Athanasius, the abominable patriarch of the Jacobites, by traversing various places and regions, demented many, and above all persuaded the Emperor Heraclius, whom he had met as far as Hierapolis, to attribute only one will and operation to Christ. Of this Athanasius, the holy Antiochus, homily 130, writes: "We have heard that the forerunner of the Antichrist has come into the East, who aspires to attain the Antiochene seat." This Athanasius is indeed called Athanasius, but would be better called *athanatos*, deathless death, who preaches the dogmas of Apollinarius, Eutyches, Severus, and Jacob. Since, therefore, as it has been written to me, he is compelled to go into many regions, places, and islands, it happens from this that various heresies arise in various places. However, many centuries have already passed since the famous nation of the Maronites, having abandoned its error, returned to the Church with such devotion that it seems to surpass others in religion. Here I will note in passing that in the parish or diocese of Cyrene there existed another monastery of St. Maron, whose life Theodoret wrote in his *Religious History*. From which it may seem certain that two archimandrites of the same name flourished in Syria at about the same age. Anastasius Sinaita in *Odegus* mentions the other Maron more than once; but he was a Nestorian, not a Monophysite or Monothelite.

(5) The word *troparium* is common in the offices of the Greeks. Goar translated it as "melody." I would rather call it a "versicle." Moreover, the context of Damascenus suggests that *melodema* is a synonym for *troparium*, which we have translated as "melody."

(6) Thus, after... the letter of Avitus of Vienne, who had undertaken to speak about the Trisagion hymn, after he showed from Damascenus that the Oriental Fathers never accepted this hymn concerning the Son alone, which for this reason they also called *triadikon*, he adds: "Although these things, I say, in the addition of Cnapheus, if you remove his wicked plan, would not have any disadvantage: namely, that after the praise of the Trinity, with the discourse turned to the Son, he should be supplicated with these words: 'Who wast crucified for us, have mercy on us.' And that Calandion also perceived this is manifest, when he prefixed to the addition of Cnapheus, 'O Christ the King,' and Damascenus acknowledges that it does not shrink from the use of the Church; since after the doxology of the Trinity, which is contained in these words, 'Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit,' it is often the custom to subjoin, 'who wast crucified for us and who rose again from the dead,' which pertain properly to the Son." ^D Indeed, Damascenus places the widest distinction, nor does he allow anything to be interposed between the words "have mercy on us"; and, so that by indicating three persons, it may be signified that these are one God, he says "have mercy on us" is to be said collectively in the singular number. Moreover, there is one sentiment among the Jacobites, as much of Syria as of Egypt, that in the Trisagion hymn of which we are now speaking, the Son is celebrated separately, so to speak, who having assumed flesh was crucified for us, and rose again. Thus an anonymous and sufficiently ancient Jacobite, in a treatise *On the Trisagion Hymn*, the fragment of which was granted to me by the most learned and illustrious man, the Abbot Renaudot, says that all the faithful agree in this, that in their sanctification of God and of the holy Trinity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit—namely, the powerful, the living, and the giver of good things—the sanctification (or hymn) of the angels pertains to that which consists of three sanctifications, saying: "Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth; heaven and earth are full of his holy glory," which is a confession about the holy Trinity. But the Greek Melchites sanctify the incorporeal Father separately: although they do not shrink from the sanctification of the incarnate Word, by saying three times before the gospel of the liturgy, "Holy God, holy mighty, holy immortal, have mercy on us." But the Coptic Jacobites (the same must be said of the Syrians), since the Gospel considers Christ the Son of God incarnate above all, who is the Word of God the Father, and since the Psalms of David are a prophecy about Him, and not about the Father, they say before it: "Holy God, holy mighty, holy immortal, who wast born of the Virgin, have mercy on us. Holy God,

^A holy mighty, holy immortal, who wast crucified for us, have mercy on us; holy God, holy mighty, holy immortal, who didst rise from the dead and ascend into heaven, have mercy on us." We have received the *Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui sancto*, and we add a troparion suitable to the Son alone, nor does it cohere in sense or construction with these words, *Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui sancto*. For these words, *Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui sancto*, are stated in the dative case, whereas the melody [or trope] is very often in the genitive, or the accusative, or the nominative, or the vocative case. From this it is clear that the melody does not hang on the sense of these words, *Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui sancto*, nor is the text fashioned that way. Thus, we in no wise add the cross, or anything that might distinguish the person of the Father alone, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit; for instance: "Holy God the Father, holy mighty the Son, who was incarnate in flesh and rose again, holy immortal the Holy Spirit." After I have spoken of the three persons, that I may demonstrate them to be one God, I add in conjunction: "Have mercy on us." Just as God, giving the law to Moses, says: "The Lord thy God, the Lord is one" (Deut. vi, 4). And the Seraphim [say]: "Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth." God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit; but "God is one," say the God-inspired Fathers. And "Holy is the Father, and holy is the Son, and holy is the Holy Spirit," but "there is one Holy in the three." And "Lord, and Lord, and Lord," but "there is one Lord." ^B But that anyone, or that God, and God, and God [is] the Father, or God, and God, and God [is] the Son, or God, and God, and God [is] the Holy Spirit, or holy, holy, holy, or Lord, Lord, Lord, was pronounced by any of our approved Fathers regarding a single person, no one has ever declared until this day. For as it is impossible to call the Trinity one person, so it is not pious to call any one of the persons a Trinity. Thus also, under the pontificate of the most blessed Proclus, they sang the Trisagion hymn from divine revelation: "Holy God, holy mighty, holy immortal, have mercy on us," when they say that the child was snatched from the midst of the crowd of those supplicating, and had been carried in the air by some angelic power, and had learned the hymn, and that the cessation of the storm served as a testimony to the divinity of the hymn. In the same mind, also, the most divine choir of the six hundred and thirty Fathers ^C, being full of the Spirit of God, sang it. What, therefore, is this new doctrine with which the people of God are now agitated and rashly troubled?

7. But perhaps someone will say again: how is it that, while confessing hypostasis, hypostasis, and hypostasis, we assert three hypostases; yet when we say God, and God, and God, we do not say three gods? To this we reply that things which are particular are not ^D communized, while things which are common, if

they are participated in by each of the particulars, are so participated in unitively and commonly; and while each hypostasis is contemplated distinctly, there is not one common hypostasis of them. The Godhead, ^B and the holiness, and the lordship, although they are participated in by each of the hypostases, are nevertheless common to the three hypostases, being one. For the Godhead of the Father is not one thing, and that of the Son another, and that of the Holy Spirit another; nor are the holiness and the lordship; but they are one and the same, existing wholly and indivisibly in each of the hypostases; wholly of the Father, wholly of the Son, wholly of the Holy Spirit—one of the Father, one of the Son, and one of the Holy Spirit. But the hypostases are not so, but one is of the Father, a different one of the Son, and a different one of the Holy Spirit. Each hypostasis, therefore, is called God and holy and Lord in itself, and so on; but when they are numbered together, they are not called three gods, or holy ones, or lords, but the three are one God, one Lord, one holy one, because God and His powers—the Word, namely, and the Spirit—are one God, one holy one, one Lord, and not three. But we say God, and God, and God, because of the perfection of each hypostasis; and holy, and holy, and holy; and Lord, and Lord, and Lord; but not three gods, or holy ones, or lords. For the Word and the Spirit are the powers of the Father; powers, I say, which are subsistent and inseparable from the Father, from whom, and in whom they are, and to whom, as to their cause, they are referred. For they are not separated ^C by place or will, or by operation or strength, or by authority, or by any of the things that are said concerning God; except only by the subsistence and the characteristic properties—the idioms—which distinguish each hypostasis. For we, as we are begotten, are severed and separated from our fathers, and the Theologian Gregory, declaring this, said: "Letting go and being let go." For in our case, the son is not the power of his father, nor his word, nor his wisdom. But in God these two concur at once: that the Son and the Spirit are the powers of the Father, even as the word and the spirit of the mind are the powers of the mind; and that they are perfect hypostases, which is becoming to God alone, who is above essence. But we are divided by will, and by power, and by place. Hence we are called humans, and not "the human so-and-so" and "the human so-and-so"; but in God this is not so, but rather as we have said before.

But come, let us also inspect the passages they bring forward, and let us make an accurate examination of them. For they are those of the Fathers (we do not deny this), but it behooves us to show the holy Fathers and teachers—whose opinion concerning the faith has been shown to be one, uniform, and unalterable by the one power and illumination of the Spirit—to be concordant and not contrary to one another, and much less opposed to themselves and fighting against one another.

^A 8. Divine Athanasius, therefore, of blessed memory, in his oration on the Incarnation and the Trinity, says this: "God, then, is the One who was born and became man; and we profess Him to be God, because He became man for our sake. But it is not 'God and God and God,' He who is one from the Trinity, the Son of God and holy God; nor is it 'holy and holy and holy,' nor yet thrice holy only, but indefinitely and infinitely holy and super-holy." And again in another place he says: "We saw Him, and He had no form nor beauty." For he had seen Him before this 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 having taken the form of a servant, and having become in the likeness of men.

These things they bring forward, which we also embrace. But let them answer: Did he see the Son alone sitting upon the throne, or sitting with the Father? Was He the only One being glorified, or was He with the Father and the Spirit? If alone, then let them assign the Trisagion hymn to the Son alone. But if He was with the Father and the Spirit, let them recognize that this praise—the indicator of the three hypostases and of the one essence and lordship—cannot be separated from the Trinity. For the Seraphim, chanting "Holy, holy, holy" and offering the hymn to the Trinity, are singing to Jesus. For Jesus is one of the Trinity. But those who attribute the Trisagion hymn to the Son alone hold the Father and the Spirit to be excluded from the hymn. For universal terms include the specific, but specific terms do not in turn include the universal. For he who says "man" has signified all individuals, but he who says "Peter" has indicated him alone, leaving aside the other persons of human nature.

^B 9. Now they again bring forward [authorities] from holy Epiphanius, from his discourse on the holy Theotokos: "Blessed among women, who didst give birth to the Word incarnate from thee; the Word, I say, the Son of the Father, the Word, the God before the ages, the Word, without beginning and eternal, the Word, consubstantial with the indivisible Trinity, the Word, who is worshipped with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Word, the sharer of the Father’s throne, the Word, sitting upon the Cherubim, the Word, whose glory the four-faced creatures celebrate, saying: 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth; heaven and earth are full of Thy glory.'" If His glory is other than that of the Father, we shall say that the hymn also pertains to Him alone. But if the praise of the holy Trinity is one and common, then the hymn must necessarily be one and common. For when they chant "Holy, holy, holy," they are praising the Son; yet not the Son alone, but as He is one of the holy Trinity, between the Father and the Spirit.

^A For the Seraphim, in saying "Holy, holy, holy," did not signify the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Spirit alone, but the tri-hypostatic divinity, as one thrice-holy sovereignty. Therefore, the same [Word] who was glorified above with the Father and the Spirit, while the Seraphim sang and shouted "Holy, holy, holy" not to Him alone but to Him along with the Father and the Spirit, is also extolled here on earth: "Hosanna in the highest, hosanna to the Son of David"—by this hymn manifesting, in effect, that although He is the Son of David, He is one of the highest subsistences of the Godhead.

^B 11. But if our God-bearing Father also says that those above were chanting to announce the salvation wrought on earth, he speaks most excellently and with the most divine inspiration. For we know that heaven and earth have always been full of the divine glory: "For all the works of the Lord bless the Lord, and recount His glory" (Dan. III, 57; Ps. XVII, 1). But since the angels in heaven recognized the glory of the true God, while human nature, which had obtained the earth as its dwelling, had fallen from this to the point of changing the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed animals—therefore, the God-bearing man says the earth was filled with the divine glory through the recognition of the divine glory by those who inhabit the earth; and this is nothing other than what has become salvation for those on earth. And it is manifest that the divine glory belongs to the Father, ^C and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. For thus the Lord, who cannot lie, also said to the Father: "Father, I have completed the work which You gave Me; I have manifested Your name" (John XVII, 4). And again: "This is eternal life, that they may know You the only true God, and Him whom You sent, Jesus Christ" (John XVII, 3). Thus, as is the nature, so also is the glory common to the three subsistences of the Godhead. ^D

12. Further, from the book of holy Cyril of Alexandria On

^A On the Holy Trinity, the beginning of which is: "Of equality," etc., they bring forward: "Does the divine prophet Isaiah not say that he saw the Son in no greater glory? For I saw, he says, the Lord Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and his house was full of glory. And the Seraphim stood round about him, six wings to one and six wings to the other. And with two they covered their feet and with two they flew. And one cried to the other," holiness, which indeed beginning from a ternary, ended in unity and one dominion. Behold, he clearly said that they were singing the hymn to the Lord Sabaoth, who is one God existing in three subsistences, ^B a hymn which, beginning from a ternary—that is, celebrating the three persons in a triple song at the beginning—ended in unity and one dominion, for the Trinity of persons, declared by the threefold holiness, is in substance unity and one dominion. And thus these voices, holy, holy, holy, demonstrate three persons, not one; but this, Lord Sabaoth, is indicative of the one divinity and dominion.

13. Further, from the same man, from the 9th book On Worship in Spirit: [C ] "But that which is, as it were, intense and insatiable of the highest powers, seems to manifest for the contemplation of God the fact that the Cherubim always look upon the mercy-seat in such a form. And the prophet Isaiah also writes, saying: I saw the Lord Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and the Seraphim stood round about him. And he says that each had six wings; and that they covered themselves, with two indeed their feet, and with two their faces, and with the others they flew." And after a few words: ^D "The mercy-seat, therefore, is Christ; who, although he appeared in the flesh, is nonetheless God and Lord by nature and in truth, having himself also the highest powers surrounding him on every side." If one is of sound mind, one can understand that by the words, "himself also," it is indicated that he does not alone have the singing powers around him, nor that the thrice-holy hymn is referred to him alone. For when he says, "himself also," through this conjunction, "also," he clearly demonstrates that the Father and the Spirit are likewise celebrated. For since the word "also" is a connective, it implies an addition. Since, therefore, it is agreed that the Father has the singing powers around him, he said that Christ himself also, with the Father, has the same powers singing in a circle. And if the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit have powers singing in a circle, "holy, holy, holy," the Thrice-Holy hymn is not to be ascribed to the Son alone, since it declares the three subsistences. For if they had sung "holy" once, or twice, or four times, since there are three persons, we would say it is referred to each of the persons individually.

Truly, however, common things are predicated of each of the individual parts, but since the Trisagion hymn is appropriate and indicative of the three subsistences, it is unseemly for that which indicates the three to be said of one. For if it were said of one, it would not be indicative of three subsistences; but if it is absolutely indicative of three, it will not be said of one. ^B

14. Again, from the fourth book of the same Cyril towards Hermias, the beginning of which is, "God, therefore, from God," they bring forward these words: "Even if one were to set him equal to the angels—yet how is it, that while he indeed shines in paternal seats, and sits together with the Father, they stand around him in a circle in service, not despising their rank; and he indeed both is and is called Lord Sabaoth, while they adorn him with acclamations of lordship, and say that heaven and earth are full of his glory? Therefore, for anyone to assert that he who is thus admired, and by those who have attained the summit of highest glory, has been 'made,' is the product of a cold and stagnant mind. For who would deny that the Seraphim attend the Son, or that he is praised together with the Father and the Spirit, and with the Father and the Spirit receives the hymn, and is both holy and called Lord Sabaoth, and that heaven and earth are full of his glory? But he who says these things does not ascribe the thrice-holy hymn to the Son alone. Just as if someone, praising the number of the twelve divine apostles—that is, the twelve-stringed lyre of the Holy Spirit—were to say that he is the lyre itself, he leaves no one of the apostles without honor (for each of them is said to be a string of the Spirit), yet the praise is not for that reason referred to each one of them individually. For neither is Peter alone the twelve-stringed lyre of the Spirit, nor again is Andrew, but the whole number of the apostles together. And if someone, perhaps praising Peter, were to utter this hymn, such a hymn would not signify him alone, but would praise the whole choir of apostles along with him. But if anyone were to say, 'The twelve-stringed lyre of the apostles is he who was born in Bethsaida, the son of Joanna, who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero,' he would prove himself a liar." ^C In this way, if anyone were to say, "Holy, holy, holy is he who was crucified for us," he will be shown to be a blasphemer; likewise, he who says, "Thrice-holy is he who was crucified for us."

15. Again, from the fifth dialogue of the same holy Cyril towards Hermias, the beginning of which is, "Well then, from all of us," they bring forward these words: "And yet the Seraphim stand in a circle around the throne, which is more sublime and exalted than all nature, glorifying it, and calling it both holy and also Lord of hosts, and saying that heaven and earth are full of his glory. But he who reigns over all, in equality, is equal in power and strength to the Father, and no less glorious. For all things are full of his glory." ^D

And we say that all these things depend upon the prior line of reasoning, speaking truly.

16. ^A Again, from the same, from the aforementioned discourse: "But if he were inglorious and far removed from being worshipped, what did the Seraphim learn, that in the throne of the Godhead they stand around the Son who is seated, glorifying him with hymns and songs of praise, and calling him Lord Sabaoth, and saying that heaven and earth are full of his glory?" We know these things and we agree, but these things do not prescribe that the Son is "thrice-holy."

17. ^B From the blessed Proclus of Constantinople, from his discourse on the holy Theotokos: "He was fixed to the Cross, and his throne in the heavens was not empty; he was enclosed in the tomb, and he stretched out the heaven like a curtain. He was reckoned among the dead, and he despoiled Hades; below, the deceiver was cast out, and above, 'Holy, holy, holy' was sung in his praise." I myself, indeed, have read in one, and in two, and in more ancient manuscripts that the most holy Proclus said "Holy" only once. But if we concede that he said "Holy" three times, it must be understood in the same sense as what precedes; namely, that since he is one of the holy Trinity, he is glorified together with the Father and the Spirit by the Seraphim, who shout, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth."

18. ^C From the same holy Proclus, from his encomium on the holy Theotokos, the beginning of which is, "All testimonies and festivals," they also bring forward this: "There is nothing, therefore, in life like the Theotokos Mary. Traverse, then, O man, the whole creation with thy reason, and see if there is anything equal to or greater than the holy Theotokos. Survey the earth, look round the sea, search the air, examine the heavens with thy mind; consider all the invisible powers, and see if there is such a miracle in all creation. For the heavens declare the glory of God, the angels serve with fear, the archangels worship with trembling, the Cherubim, not bearing the magnitude of his glory, shudder; the Seraphim, flying around, do not draw near, but with trembling cry out: 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord; the earth is full of his praise.'" ^D And it is clear that this also depends upon the meaning of the things said before. But let those who put forward these things listen and understand; and I am persuaded that they will understand, and will be enlightened regarding the certainty of these matters, if the Spirit of God dwells in them.

^A 19. Athanasius, in his oration on the Incarnation and the Trinity, the beginning of which is: *Qui maligne*, states: "And when the Seraphim sing the glory, saying three times: *Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth*, they proclaim the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

20. And Basil, in his book to Amphilochius on the Holy Spirit: "How could the Seraphim say, *holy, holy, holy, Lord*, if they had not learned from the Holy Spirit how many times it is pious to offer this doxology?" Truly, the Father has freed us from long and wordy trifles, having stated in clear terms how many times it is pious to offer this doxology. For it is not pious twice or four times, but three times and once: three times *Holy* because of the Trinity of persons, but once *Lord* because of the unity of essence and authority. For if it were referred to the Son alone, why did they not say *holy* only once, and *Lord* once? Why not twice or four times? For the number three is not consecrated to one person, nor is it more familiar to Him than other numbers are.

^B 21. Basil himself also argues this in book IV *Against Eunomius*, the beginning of which is: *If the Son is God by nature*; [this oracle is neither a vision nor a divine utterance exclusively of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit]. Isaiah the prophet says: *I saw the Lord Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up. And the Seraphim stood around it; six wings to one, and six wings to another.* And a little later he says: *And the Lord said to me: Go and say to this people: With hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people has been waxed gross,* etc. As far, therefore, as our purpose and the sequence of the prophetic writing are concerned, it is the Father who appeared to the prophet and delivered the oracle. But the son of thunder, who uttered stupendous things and things more terrible than thunder, and whose characteristic it was that he did not say what was not, but what *was* — the Word — he said that it was the Son who appeared to the prophet and gave the oracle to him. For he says in his book: *Therefore they could not believe in Jesus, because Isaiah said of them: Their eyes have been blinded, and their heart has been hardened, so that they may not see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Isaiah when he saw His glory.* But Paul declared this vision and oracle to be of the Holy Spirit, saying: *Well did the Holy Spirit speak through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers: With hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people has been waxed gross.* The prophet introduces the person of the Father, in whom the Jews believed; the evangelist, of the Son; Paul, of the Holy Spirit: all of them commonly calling the one Lord Sabaoth Him who offered Himself to be seen. But the discourse concerning the person was divided among them, while the common essence remained undivided in them regarding the one

^A of God’s opinion. For the discourse regarding the Person is divided without any division, while the conception of one God remaineth indivisible in them. For the mode and discourse regarding the Person is divided indivisibly, whence it is said, *Holy, holy, holy*, in a triadic manner because of the threeness of the persons; but *Lord* is said once, because of the unity of the Godhead. Consult also, from the Theologian’s oration on the Nativity of Christ, this passage: "But when I speak of God, I mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," down to the words, "Most excellently and most highly."

23. Saint Cyril of Alexandria, in his work on the Spirit to Hermias, which begins, "Of good labors," says: "But what, does not Scripture bear witness that the very words of God are also of the Holy Spirit? For the divinely-inspired Isaiah, recounting that astounding and most terrifying vision of God, says, *I saw the Lord Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up.* And after a few words, he adds, *I heard the Lord Sabaoth saying: Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people? And I said: Behold, I, send me. And He said: Go, and say to this people: With hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand, and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive.* Yet the divinely-inspired John says concerning the Only-Begotten: *These things Isaiah said, when he saw His glory, and spoke of Him.* The most wise Stephen, moreover, addressing the Jews, said: *Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart, you always resist the Holy Spirit, as your fathers did.* Is it not already in a sense clear, how it is discerned with great precision through the ^B diversity of Person, what is the Father, what the Son, and what the Holy Spirit; yet, by the natural unity, all things are of all, that is to say, presence, words, participation, operation, glory, and all things that adorn the divine nature? What then? Does he who has even slightly tasted the science of the dogmas of the faith not clearly know that the Trisagion hymn, in respect to the ^C particular diversity of Person, as the God-bearing Father also said, manifests the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; but by the natural unity and monarchia, it manifests [one] Lord? For the number three points to three, but the unit to one. Therefore, *Holy, holy, holy*, and thrice holy, because there are three persons; *Lord*, because the three persons are one God. For there is one God [and] three persons; because the Godhead is one, and those things which are of Him are referred to one, neither departing [from one another], nor being compounded, nor being confounded among the ^D persons.

24. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, from the first book *Against Eunomius*: "In the same way, the Seraphim also at Isaiah, by whom the mystery of the Trinity is clearly [declared]..."

[alt-version omitted]

when they gazed in astonishment at the beauty of each of those in the Trinity, they cried out with wonder the word, *Sanctus*." ^A Behold, clearly did the god-inspired Father state how the mystery of the Trinity was proclaimed by the Trisagion hymn; namely, by crying "Sanctus" three times, the Trinity of persons [is proclaimed], but by crying "Dominus" once, the unity of nature and dominion.

25. Moreover, the holy and admirable Epiphanius ^B speaks in his book entitled *Ancoratus* in this manner: "Let them receive through the threefold testimony the Holy Spirit, and let them be clearly filled with the voices of the Seraphim and Cherubim, crying the threefold 'Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus.' For the glorification in heaven is not performed by two voices, nor do those holy and invisible and spiritual animals sing the same thing four times; nor again do they produce a fourth voice or one only, but they give three singular voices, 'Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus.' And they do not say 'Sanctus, sancti, sancti,' lest they show the singular [to be] of multiple names, nor again do they hide the ternary number of the three. But they ascribe holiness three times, yet they utter the speech in one and a singular mode, so that they may not express a multitude of gods." ^C This interpreter of divine things, the Father, has here delivered us from the labor, since he clearly pronounces that the glorification in heaven is not performed by two voices, nor by one or a fourth voice, but by three, and those themselves singular. For what purpose? Because this hymn indicates not one person, but three. As, therefore, the hymn is not performed by two or four voices, but by three because of the triplicity of the persons, so the Trisagion hymn, being indicative of the three persons, has no place to be said of one person. It is impossible, therefore, as I said above, to assign a definite number to God, except the singular and the ternary, because of the unity of nature and the Trinity of persons. And indeed the singular number is said of [individual] persons: God and God and God; but one God, not three gods, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, lest otherwise the monarchy be thought a multitude of gods, and the one and undivided God be divided by his own subsistent powers. For the Word himself is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and these three are one God, even if each one of these, because it transcends the nature of divinity, is a perfect person. ^D But the ternary number does not in the least pertain to one person; for no person subsists three times of itself, such that by a ternary number it can be demonstrated that each person is constituted of itself. Far be it, far be it; these are not thoughts of pious meditation, but are foreign to a healthy mind.

26. These things, most divine Father, pillar and support of the truth, we beseech you to have read out to all the fathers and brothers and to the whole assembly of the Church, and may our venerable Father be asked with gentle words...

^A and Lord Abbot Anastasius, the renowned superior of the holy monastery of our holy Father Euthymius, to put an end to such contention and, following in the footsteps of the fathers inspired by God, to say with us: “Holy God and Father, holy Mighty One, Son of God, incarnate and crucified in the flesh for us, holy Immortal One, holy Spirit—the one Lord, Sabaoth, have mercy on us.” And let him neither accuse us nor the blessed Patriarch John, as if we were convinced that the Trisagion hymn should be said of only one of the divine persons. For whoever thinks or speaks thus makes himself a partner in the wickedness of the sordid Gnapheus, the Fuller. For who knows the mind of the most blessed Patriarch John better than I? No one; for—to speak the truth—he never breathed any spiritual doctrine ^B that he did not entrust to me as his disciple. Why do they say such things about a man who is already dead and can no longer speak? These things are nothing but pretexts and coloring, possessing nothing firm. Let them cease to disparage a man adorned with divine zeal, who breathed the fire and fragrance of right doctrine, I mean the renowned John, the exterminator and destroyer of all innovation in language, who always shared the theology held by the holy Fathers. Rather, let them embrace his zeal and praise him as a holy and renowned man. May the God of peace, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (for He Himself is our peace), fill our hearts with the Holy Spirit so that we may discern what is better, and may He drive away from us every wicked contention, pacifying His holy Church, which His beloved Son, Jesus, ^C the most high God, acquired with His own precious blood. Pray for us, Father honored by God, who are moved by the divine spirit.

27. It must be added to this discourse that in the holy oblation of the sacred mysteries, after the people have sung the Trisagion hymn, the priest, as if interpreting the hymn, adds: “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; holy also is Your all-holy Spirit, who searches all things, even the depths of You, O God.” Why does he not say, “Holy, holy, holy, is Your only-begotten Son,” but instead says “Holy, holy, holy” to the Trinity in common, and ^D “Holy” to each of the persons just once? And in 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 glory.”

28. Since, however, we say the Trisagion hymn three times in the customary prayers, it is worth explaining why we do not offer this hymn once to the Father, once to the Son, and once to the Holy Spirit, but rather offer the Trisagion hymn three times to the holy Trinity in common. For the Seraphim, who always stand before God, offer the “Thrice-holy” praise without ceasing; but we,

^A because we offer the prescribed hymn to God at certain hours, ^B appropriately and fittingly attribute the Trisagion hymn to the holy Trinity three times. And for this reason, in all things, we prefer the number three over the others, as it is indicative of the holy Trinity and possesses from it its perfection and fullness. For the monad is without quantity; the dyad is the beginning of number; the triad is a perfect number. But it is not because of the number that the Godhead is in a Trinity, but because the Godhead is in a Trinity that the number three is perfect. For the monad, moving from its beginning into a dyad, stops at the triad; for God is the beginning and cause of things that are. Therefore, from this beginning and cause of things that are, number received this power, because just as the Father is the generator of the Son and the producer of the Holy Spirit, so too the number, beginning into a dyad, arrives at and stops at the triad. Hence, the singular number signifies one, the dual signifies two, and the plural signifies three, and there is no other character. For we speak of “human” for one man, of “two humans” for two, and of “humans” for three. And there is one hypostasis of God, 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, the Son, and the Holy Spirit differ by hypostasis, so too there are three hypostatic properties. But in those things in which one hypostasis does not differ from another—that is, in natural attributes—it is not permitted when speaking of God to use the plural number. Rather, it is necessary to speak of those things that pertain to nature in the singular for each hypostasis, and by joining these singulars together, to speak again in common regarding the three hypostases of the natural attributes, as “God, and God, and God,” but one God, and not three gods. For God and his subsistent powers are one God. Although, by having his own hypostasis, each is called a perfect God by himself, because they are counted together, they are not three gods, but one God, since the Word and the Spirit are the powers of the Father. The Father is the Father, and not the Son (for he is not of anyone); the Son is the Son (for he is of the Father), and not the Father, so that there may be one Father. The Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit (for he is from the Father, proceeding through the Son and Word, yet not as a son). For if the Son is the son of the Father, and the Spirit is also a son, he will have other sons, and this to infinity. And if the Spirit is a son of the Son, he himself will also have another son, and that one another, and this to infinity, and there will be many gods and many lords and a multitude of gods, and not one God. But for us there is one God: the Father, and his Word, and his Spirit. The Word, however, is a begotten thing, subsisting by itself, and therefore the Son. And the Spirit is a subsistent procession and task—from the Father, yet from the Son, and not *not from the Son*, as the Spirit of the mouth of God, the announcer of the Word. Yet clearly, the "mouth" is not a bodily member, and the Spirit is not a breath that is dissolved and diffused; but these matters require another treatise. But as for what is now being resolved...