H B Swete: The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church pp. 211-229

Source: Internet Archive Click Here

Athanasius, Didymus & Epiphanius


Even among the great teachers of the fourth century the position of Athanasius is unique; both as a champion and as an expounder of the Nicene faith he stands easily first. but for some four and thirty years after the Nicene Council both defence and exposition were limited to the doctrine of the Son. The Nicene fathers had not applied the Homoousion to the Holy Spirit, and Athanasius had no occasion to go further that the Council had gone. Hence in his earlier works references to the third Person are few, and there is no adequate statement upon the subject. The Exposition of the Faith1, which is perhaps earlier than the Dedication Council, says only, “We believe in the Holy Spirit who searches all things, even the depths of God.” “He is ever in the hands of the Father who sends, and of the Son who brings Him.” Doxologies in which the Father and the Son are glorified ‘with,’ or ‘in,’ the Holy Spirit, are fairly frequent in this period.2 But it is not till we come to the Orations against the Arians and the Letters to Serapion, which belong the the end of the sixth decade of the century, that we meet with any detailed theology of the Spirit.

In the Orations the references to the Holy Spirit are incidental only, but they suggest that Athanasius was already feeling his way to a complete scheme of Trinitarian doctrine in which the Third Person would be fully represented. The following passages will illustrate his position.

“As the Word before the Incarnation dispensed the Spirit as His own, so now that He is made man He sanctifies all with the Spirit . . . When the Lord gave the Holy Spirit to His disciples, He shewed His own Godhead and majesty, signifying that He was not the Spirit’s inferior but His equal . . . Through whom and from whom3 could the Spirit be given but through the Son, whose Spirit He is4?

“It is because of the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is in us, that we come to be in Him, and He in us; and since the Spirit is the Spirit of God, possessing Him we are accounted to be in God, and so God in us. We are not in the Father as the Son is, for the Son does not partake of the Spirit in order that He may thus come to be in the Father, nor does he receive the Spirit, but rather supplies Him to all; nor does the Spirit unite the Word to the Father, but rather receives the Word. The Son is in the Father, as His own Word and Effulgence; we, apart from the Spirit, are strangers to God, and afar from Him, and it is by partaking of the Spirit that we are united to the Godhead; so that our being in the Father is not from ourselves alone, but from the Spirit who is in us and abides in us . . .  Since the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is given from the Word (ἐκ τοῦ λόγου), He wills that we receive the Spirit, in order that having received Him and thus possessing the Spirit of the Word who is in the Father, we also may, because of the Spirit, regard ourselves as made one with the Word, and through Him united to the Father.5

This is a high level of theological thought, higher than any which can be found in Eusebius or in Cyril of Jerusalem, but it bears on the Deity of the Holy Spirit only in an indirect way; indeed the question had probably not been raised directly when the first of these Orations were written, and the fourth is concerned chiefly with a contemporary form of Sebellianism, perhaps that into which Marcellus had been betrayed. It is in the letters of Serapion, which belonged to the year 358-9, that the note of controversy is first heard in connexion with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; and from that time it sounded occasionally, though it never again becomes dominant. The veteran champion of the faith began the battle with the Pneumatomachi, but was content to leave the carrying out of the campaign to younger men.

Reference has already been made to the Letters to Serapion6 in the general outline of the Arian movement.7 Here it remains to give a summary of the argument by which Athanasius meets the Tropici of the Delta in his first letter.

If, he reasons,8 the Son is not a creature, as the Tropici admit, how can the Spirit of the Son be such? To bring an alien element into the Trinity, by making the Spirit a being of another essence,8 is to break up the Trinity—to convert it into a Divine Duality plus a creature. What system of Divine life can combine Creator and created9?

For Scriptural proof that the Spirit is a creature the Tropici turn to Amos 4.13,1o where κτίζειν, they say, is used in reference to the Spirit. But this argument would shew the Son is also to be a creature, since the same verb is used of the Son in Proverbs 8.22.11 Again, from 1Timothy 5.2112 they argue that the Spirit must be one of the elect angels, since otherwise He would be specified in St. Paul’s adjuration. It would be as reasonable to contend that the Apostle means to include the angels as a body in the Trinity, since he mentions them in the same sentence with the Father and the Son. As for the Holy Spirit being one of the angels, there is not a word of this in Scripture. many titles are used to describe Him, but this one is significantly wanting.

After argument they have recourse to ridicule. ‘If the Spirit is of the Essence of God,’ they say, ‘He is brother to the Son, and the Son is not the Only-begotten; or, if he is not the Brother, He must be the Offspring of the Son, and the Father is Grandsire to the Spirit.’13

Into such blasphemous folly will men fall who attempt to search the deep things of God. Here our best answer is to hold our peace; any reply is made an occasion for further audacity. God, it should be remembered, is not as man, and we cannot argue from human relationships to Divine. Enough that in Scripture the Spirit is never called Son of God nor the Son’s Son; the Son is the Son of the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Father.

If the Holy Spirit were a creature, He could not be included in the Trinity. The Trinity is indivisible and the Three are of like nature.14 If the Arians cannot understand or believe in an undivided Trinity, they should at least refrain from classing the Son and the Spirit in defiance of Scripture, which classes both with the Father; whereas these Tropici connumerate the Spirit with created beings.15

Scripture shews everywhere the intimate relation that exists between the Persons of the Trinity. In the face of this, who shall dare to divide either the Son from the Father or the Spirit from the Son, or from the Father Himself; or to speak of the Trinity ‘dissimilar’ or ‘of different natures’; of the Son as ‘essentially alien’ from the Father, or of the Spirit as ‘foreign to the Son16? Questions may of course be asked which cannot be answered: How can the Son be said to be in us when the Spirit is? or, How can the Trinity be implicit when any one Person is spoken of, or be said to be in us when one Person is? Let him who raises these difficulties ask himself if he can separate brightness from light or wisdom from wise, or explain why this is so.

The Spirit is the sanctifying and illuminating living energy and gift of the Son, which is said to proceed from the Father, because it shines forth from (παρά) the Word who, as the Tropici admit, is from (ἐκ) the Father. The Father sends the Son, and the Son the Spirit; the Son glorifies the Father and the Spirit the Son; the Son receives from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son. But if the Spirit stands in regard to order and nature in the same relation to the Son as the Son is to the Father, must not he who speaks of the Spirit as a creature be forced to say the same of the Son? Once let it be granted that the Son, who is in the Father and the Father in Him, is not a creature, and it is not legitimate to class with the creatures the Spirit, in the whom the Son is, and who is in the Son. The position of the Tropic is as illogical as it is unsupported by Scripture.

Further, the Holy Spirit cannot be a created Spirit if He is, as St Paul says, ‘the spirit which is from God,’17 or if He possesses powers which Scripture assigns to Him. To regenerate, renew, and sanctify, are not creaturely properties; the creature is capable of receiving regeneration, renewal, and sanctification, but God only can impart them. The Spirit of adoption, of wisdom and truth, of power and glory, the Spirit who deifies men, making them ‘partakers of the Divine nature,’ must Himself be divine18 and co-essential with God19 whose Spirit He is.

The tradition of the Catholic Church is here in agreement with the teaching of Scripture, and this tradition rests on the teaching of Christ transmitted by the Apostles and preserved by the Fathers.20 On this tradition the church is founded, and he who abandons it cannot be, or any longer be called, a Christian. But the Catholic tradition, which confesses a Trinity of Persons in God, is set aside by those who make the Holy Spirit a creature; for by so doing they reduce the Trinity to a duality; there can be no true Trinity which is not coessential and coequal.

The other letters to Serapion repeat and develop the arguments urged in the first letter. They emphasise the interior relations of the Trinity, building the doctrine of the Spirit’s Godhead on the presuppositions involved in the conception of Divine τριάς. “The Lord found the faith of the Catholic Church on the Trinity, and He could not have classed the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, had the Spirit been a creature. The Trinity, if it be a fact in the Divine life, must be an eternal fact; the evolution of an original duality into a Trinity by the addition of a created nature is a thought not to be entertained by Christians. As the Trinity ever was, such it ever was.”21

The letters to Serapion are neither brief nor superficial, and Athanasius shews himself prepared to go fully into the question of the Spirit’s Godhead as into that of the Godhead of the Son. Yet he warns Serapion that his answer is not to be regarded as complete, but rather as a starting-point from which the enquiry might begin.22 He does not promise to pursue the subject himself, and the Letters seem to have been his only important contribution to it. There is among his works a Latin translation of a tract On the Trinity and the Holy Spirit23 which, if a genuine work of Athanasius, shews that he intervened in the controversy some years after the date of the Letters; but it is largely a collection of Scriptural proofs rendered necessary by the growing disposition on the part of the Pnuematomachi to base their objection on the silence of Scripture, and the theology of the Spirit is not carried further than in the Orations and the Letters. The tract concludes with the practical reflection: “Let us think of the Holy Spirit as we think of the Father and the Son; for as we believe in God the Father and in His only-begotten Son, so we believe also in the Holy Spirit. Thus thinking of the Trinity, and worshipping as the seraphim worship, we may hope to be made heirs of the kingdom of heaven.”

Scattered references may be found to the controversy in other works of Athanasius written after the rise of the Tropici.24 But his days were too full of personal troubles and the affairs of the Church to allow much time to be spent on a question which, however, important, must have appeared to him to be subsidiary to the fundamental doctrine of the co-essential Godhead of the Son. But the influence of the great Bishop of Alexandria upon the shaping  of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit must not be estimated only by his writings. It was of no little importance for the cause of the Nicene faith that when the Deity of the Spirit was for the first time explicitly denied, and the denial came from men who professed to believe in the Deity of the Son, the veteran champion of the Homoousion was ready to expose the futility of the attempt to accept the Homoousion unless it extended to the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. The new heresy received in fact its death blow from the same capable hands that had despatched the earlier form of Arianism; for though it struggled on for twenty years and more, the end was scarcely doubtful after the appearance of the Letter to Serapion. Moreover, Athanasius did far more than refute heresy. He placed the whole subject of the interior relations in the life of the Holy Trinity on a scientific basis, so that the doctrine of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit can be seen to form a coherent whole, no part of which can be abandoned without general collapse of faith. Further, in all that Athanasius wrote on the Trinity the religious spirit and interest are so conspicuously dominant that this polemic is never uncharitable nor his logic irreverent. When the exigencies of controversy require him to sound the very depths of the Divine Nature, he does so with a sense of awe which communicates itself to his readers. The attitude was in itself a reproof of the profanities that disgraced the pages of writers on the other side, and served as an example to Catholic theologians of the wise reserve which should temper the patient thoroughness of all researches into the life of God.


On the death of Athanasius in 373 the role of protagonist on the Catholic side at Alexandria fell to Didymus, the blind head of the Alexandrian School. This remarkable man was totally blind from the age of six, and his fast learning was due simply to the close attention which from a child he had paid to the reader. He ” seemed to transcribe on the pages of his mind all that he heard,”25 and in this way he assimilated in early life all the knowledge of his time; geometry, music, logic, rhetoric and the rest. But from the first his chief interest lay in theology, and especially in the study of Holy Scriptures; his writings shew an intimate acquaintance with the contents of both the Old and the New Testament, which would be surprising even on one who had had the use of his eyes. Perhaps it is the wealth of Biblical knowledge which is the most impressive feature in the theological work of Didymus. His exegesis is that of his own age and school; a modern objector, armed with critical apparatus, would make short work of a great part of it. But the acuteness with which the quotations are collected and manipulated would be remarkable even in a writer who was not hampered by physical infirmity, and here and there he has succeeded in making new points which are of importance in the history of doctrine.

Two extant works of Didymus bear directly on our subject: a treatise on the Holy Spirit, written before 381, which has come down to us only in Jerome’s Latin version; and three books on the Trinity which seems to be later that the year of the Second Council, and which have survived in Greek.

The Holy Spirit (the De Trinitate teaches) is the Spirit of God and from God, although not posterior to Him.26 The procession of the Second and Third hypostases from the First is not the effect of creative energy, but belongs to the nature of God; the idea of time must be excluded, and it must be understood that the Persons co-exist and proceed simultaneously (συνυφεστώτως καὶ συμπρεληλυθότως). The Spirit then proceeds not by way of creation, but after the manner of a spiritual nature (πνευματικῶς οὐ δημιουργικῶς).

The titles which the Holy Spirit receives in Scripture confirm this belief. He is called the Spirit of holiness, the Spirit of sonship, of grace, truth, wisdom; the sovereign Spirit, the good Spirit. All this points to His being essentially Divine, since He has the notes of the Divine nature (θεοπρεπῆ). One who is all this cannot but be co-essential and co-equal with God (ὁμοούσιον καὶ ἱσότιμον). Yet this belief does not shut us up to the conclusion that, if He is co-essential, He must be another Son or the Son’s son. The manner of His derivation from the Father differs from the Son’s: He is not begotten but proceeding. With regard to His relation to the Son, as the Father finds His perfect image in the Son, so the Son is imaged in the Holy Spirit.27 The Spirit, then, possesses all the properties of God; He fills all things, He creates, He remits sin, He inspires, He commands. But there is evidence that touches us yet more closely. We have ourselves experienced the Spirit’s Divine power, in the Sacraments and in our own souls. The restoration of our nature, the spiritual life, the adoption of sons, the title of joint-heirs with Christ—all are of the Holy Spirit. Only those who a spiritually alive can realise the power or understand the majesty of the Spirit of God. It is no wonder if the psychic, who have not the Spirit, fail to apprehend His nature. No words can tell their loss.

The Spiritu Sancto in its Latin dress reasons as follows:

“All sacred subjects call for reverent treatment, and above all is this true of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, we would gladly keep silence on a subject which is guarded by sanctions so awful, if the temerity of the adversary did not compel us to speak.

“The Holy Spirit of the New Testament is identical with the Spirit of the Old. His very name implies a nature alien from the creature and akin to God; a nature essentially holy and good, infinite, indivisible, and therefore not that of a creature made by the Word. In operation the Spirit is one with the Father and the Son, and this oneness of operation involves oneness of essence. He is the Finger of God; the seal which stamps the Divine image on the human soul. But He is not merely an operating force; He is a Divine Person. He goes forth from the Father, He is sent by the Son, not as angels or prophets are sent, but as indivisibly one with the Person who sent Him. When He is sent He does not go from place to place, after the manner of a body; He is not separated from the Father or the Son. He is another ‘another Paraclete,’ and is therefore distinct from the Son in his manner of working; but He is not of a different nature. He comes in the name of the Son, as the Son came in the name of the Father; that is, He represents the Son but is not identical with Him. Our Lord teaches that the being of the Spirit is derived not from the Spirit Himself, but from the Father and the Son; He goes forth from the Son, proceeding from the Truth; He has no subsistence but that which is given Him by the Son.”28

In this last context Didymus appears to approach very near to the Western doctrine of the Filioque. How far this may be due to Jerome’s Latin, or to textual corruption, it is difficult to say. But there can be no doubt that the blind catechist sees with even greater clearness than Athanasius the ordered flow of Divine life, according to which the eternal relations of the hypostases present themselves to our thought as processes wherein one Person receives from the other, the Father’s essence reaching the Spirit through the Son, so that in some sense the Spirit may be said to derive His subsistence from the Father and the Son, it being understood that the Father is the ultimate Source. Some such conception seems to have occurred to Didymus, although he does not express it in theological terms, and probably it had not taken a definite form in his thoughts.


While Didymus was thinking out a doctrine of the Spirit at Alexandria, a very different mind was at work upon the same subject in Cyprus. Epiphanius, bishop of the Cyprian Constantia, the Salamis of the Acts, is a striking figure in the Church history of the fourth century, whether we regard him as bishop or writer. Our concern with him is in the latter capacity, and we may limit ourselves to two of his works, the Ancoratus and the Panarion.

The Ancoratus, written as early as 374, represents the robust faith of a Nicene Churchman, whose dogmatic theology was somewhat in advance of his age. His own anchor is fixed immovably, and he desires to bring all Christians to the same certainty in matters of belief. With no word from an oecumenical Council to guide him beyond the brief Nicene Instruction, Epiphanius speaks already with an assurance which anticipates the decision of 381. “There is one true God,” he writes, “Trinity in Unity; One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,”29 and a little further we read: “We call the Father God, the Son God and the Holy Spirit God.”30 Again, “when you pronounce the Homoousion, you assert that the Son is God, of God, and the Holy Spirit God of the same Godhead.” So direct a confession of the Deity of the Holy Spirit is rare, at the time when it was made. But still more remarkable is the confidence of Epiphanius when he speaks of the source of the Spirit’s personal life. “The Holy Spirit,” the Ancoratus tells us, “ever with the Father and the Son, and is from God, proceeding from the Father and receiving of the Son.”31 He is “the bond (σύνδεσμος) of the Trinity”;32 “of the same essence as the Father and the Son”; “the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, intermediate between the Father and the Son, and from the Father and the Son.”33 The last statement is repeated a little further on in the form, “The Spirit is God, from the Father and the Son.”34 As none knows the Father but the Son nor the Son but the Father, so “neither does any know the Spirit but the Father and the Son, the Persons from (παρ’ οὗ) whom He proceeds and from whom (παρ’ οὗ) He receives.35

As he goes on, Epiphanius grows bolder or is less circumspect, and though he never describes the Holy Spirit as ‘proceeding’ from the Son, he permits himself to speak of His derivation “from Both.”36 “God,” he says, “is Life, the Son is Life from (ἐκ) Life, and the Holy Spirit flows from Both; the Father is Light, the Son is Light, the Holy Spirit the third Light from (παρά) Father and Son.”37

The Ancoratus ends38 with the two interesting creed-forms. The first of the purports to be the baptismal creed of Epiphanius’s own church, but is in fact a revision of the creed of Jerusalem, and was afterwards attributed to the Council of Constantinople.39 Here for the first time we find the phrase now so familiar to all communicant members of the Church, “the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified.”40 The second of the Epiphanian creeds is described as an instruction for catechumens approved by “all the orthodox bishops,” and following the lines of the Nicene faith. In it the article relating to the Holy Spirit takes the following form: “We believe also in the Holy Spirit, who spake in the Law and preached in the Prophets, came down on the Jordan, speaks in the Apostles, dwells in the saints, and we believe in Him on this wise, that He is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the perfect Spirit, the Paraclete Spirit, increate, proceeding from the Father, and received41 from the Son, and the object of faith (πιστευόμενον). And those who say that there once was when the Son was not, or the Holy Spirit, or that He was made of that which is not, or of a different hypostasis or ousia, affirming that the Son of God or the Holy Spirit is liable to change or variation, such the catholic and apostolic Church anathematises.”42 The document ends with the words; “in Jesus our Lord, through whom and with whom be glory to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever.” 

A little later than the Ancoratus, but still before 381, Epiphanius wrote his great work ‘against all heresies,’ which he call the Panarion. In the chapters which deal with Arianism, Semiarianism and Anomoeanism, he has frequent occasion to refer to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The Panarion repeats the language of the Ancoratus on this subject, and here and there improves on it. “The Father is unbegotten, increate, incomprehensible; the Son is begotten, but increate and incomprehensible; the Holy Spirit is neither begotten or created . . . but of the same substance with the Father and the Son.”43 The Holy Spirit has His personal subsistence from the Father through the Son.”44 He is “of the substance of the Father and the Son.” This is not very far from the Filioque, but Epiphanius seems to avoid the phrase “proceeding from the Father and the Son,”45 although he thinks of the Divine Essence itself as passing eternally from the Father through the Son or, less exactly, from Both, into the Person of the Holy Ghost.

1. Migne, PG. 25.200ff

2. De incarn. 57; De Decretis, 32; Ad Episc. Aeg 23; De Fuga 27; Hist. Arian. 80.

3. διὰ τίνος καὶ παρὰ τίνος

4. Or. c. Arian. 1.48, 50.

5. Or c. Arian 3.24-25

6. Migne, P. G. 26.529ff.

7. Ep. ad Serap. 1.2

8. ἑτεροούσιον

9. Ib. ποία . . . θελογία ἐκ δημιουργοῦ καὶ κτίσματος συγκειμένη; 

10. στερεῶν βροντὴν καὶ κτίζων πνεῦμα καὶ ἀπαγγὲλλων εἰς ἀνθρώπος τὀν χριστὸν αὐτοῦ (LXX)

11. Κύριος ἔκτισέν με [sc. τὴν σοφίαν] ἀρχήν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ (LXX)

12. διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλον 

13. 1.15 εἰ μὴ κτίσμα ἐστίν . . . οὐκοῦν υἱός ἐστι καὶ αὐτό, καὶ δύο ἀδελφοί εἰσιν αὐτό τε καὶ ὁ λόγος. καὶ εἰ ἀδλεφός ἐστιν, πῶς μονογενὴς ὁ λόγος . . . εἰ δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐστὶ τὸ πνεῦμα, οὐκοῦν πάππος ἐστὶν ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ πνεύματος

14. 1.17 ἀδαίρετος καὶ ὁμοία ἑαυτῇ

15. οἱ δὲ τροπικοὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ αὐτοὶ τοῖς κτίσμασι σθναριθμοῦσιν

16. 1.20 τίς οὕτω τολμηρὸς ὡς εἰπεῖν ἁνόμοιον καὶ ἑτεροφυῆ τὴν τριάδα πρὸς ἑαυτήν, ἤ ἀλλοτριοούσιον τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱὸν ἤ ξένον τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ´

17. 1Cor 2.12 τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. That which is ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ cannot, Athanasius proceeds to argue, be ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος, as the creatures are.

18. Ad Serap. 1.25 ἐν ᾧ θεοπιοεῖται ἡ κτίσις, οὐκ ἄν εἴν ἐκτος αὐτὸ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς θεότητος.

19. ib. 27 τοῦ θεοῦ . . . ἴδιον καὶ ὁμοούσιον

20. Ib. 28

21. Ad Serap. 3.7 ἐκ μεταβολῆς καὶ προκοπῆς λέγουσι συνίστασθαι τὴν τρίαδα, καὶ δυάδα μὲν εἶναι, ἐκδέχεσθαι δὲ κτίσματος γένεσιν ἵνα μετὰ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ συναχθῇ καὶ γένηται ἡ τριάς. μὴ γένοιτο κἄν εἰς νοῦν ποτε ἐλθεῖν Χριστιανῶν τὸ τοιοῦτον . . . ὡν γὰρ ἀεὶ ἤν, οὕτως ἐστὶ καὶ νῦν· και ὡς νῦν ἐστιν, οὕτως ἀεὶ ἤν.

22. Ad Serap. 4.23 μὴ ὡς τελεὶαν διδασκαλίαν ἀλλὰ μόνην ἀφορμὴν ταῦτα παρ’ ἐμοῦ λάνβανε

23. Printed in Migne, P. G. 26.1191f .

24. Cf. ad Antioch. 5, 6, 11; ad Afros 11; ad Jovian. 1, 4; ad Max. 5; de virgin. 1, 12, 14.

25. Rufin. H. E. 2.7

26. De Trin. 2.2 πνεῦμα ἐστιν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ θεοὺ, καὶ μὴ μετ’ αὐτόν

27. De Trin. 2.5 καθά ὁ πατὴρ . . . ἐξεικονίζεται ἐν τῷ μονογενεῖ . . . τὸν ἴσον τρόπον καὶ ὁ μονογενὴς ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι

28. De Sp. S. 34-37 non ex se est, sed ex patre et me est; hoc enim quod subsist et loquitur a patre et me illi est . . . profertur a filio, id est procedens a veritate . . . neque alia substantia est spiritus sancti praeter id quod datur ei a filio

29. Anc.τριὰς γὰρ ἐν μονάδι, καὶ εἶς θεός, πατήρ, υἱός, καὶ ἁγιον πνεῦμα

30. Ib. 6 θεὸν τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα

31. Ibἀπὸ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ λαμβάνον

32. Ib. 7 ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ

33.  Ib. 8 ἐν μέσῳ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ.

34. Ib. 9

35. Ib. 11

36. παρ’ ἀμφοτέρων

37. Ib. 70f

38. Ib. 129f

39. Hort, Constantinopolitan Creed, p. 73ff

40. κύριον καὶ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συνπροσκυνούμενον καὶ  συνδοξαζόμενον

41. Λαμβανόμενον. 

42. Nearly identical with the Nicene anathema, but with the added words “or the Holy Spirit.” The addition is probably due to Epiphanius himself.

43. Haer 74.12

44. Hear. 73.16 ἐκ πατρός δι’ υἱοῦ ὑφεστῶτα

45. Haer. 11 τοῦ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ ἀσυγκρίτου πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ μονγενοῦς υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ὄντος