If, then, they agree that the Holy Spirit is perfect absolutely, and it has been admitted in addition that true reverence requires perfection in every good thing for the Father and the Son as well, what reasons can justify them in taking away the Father18    i.e.from fellowship with the Spirit. The text is τίς ὁ λόγος καθ᾽ ὃν εὔλογον κρίνουσιν πατέρα ἀναιρεῖν, δεδώκασι; (for which δεδωκόσι is a conjecture). But perhaps πνεῦμα ἀναιρεῖν, διδάσκωσι, or διδάξωσι, would be a more intelligible reading; though the examples of the hortatory subjunctive other than in the first person are, according to Porson (ad Eurip. Hec. 430), to be reckoned among solecisms in classical Greek. when once they have granted Him? For to take away “equality of dignity” with the Father is a sure proof that they do not think that the Spirit has a share in the perfection of the Father. And as regards the idea itself of this honour in the case of the Divine Being, from which they would exclude the Spirit, what do they mean by it? Do they mean that honour which men confer on men, when by word and gesture they pay respect to them, signifying their own deference in the form of precedence and all such-like practices, which in the foolish fashion of the day are kept up in the name of “honour.” But all these things depend on the goodwill of those who perform them; and if we suppose a case in which they do not choose to perform them, then there is no one amongst mankind who has from mere nature any advantage, such that he should necessarily be more honoured than the rest; for all are marked alike with the same natural proportions. The truth of this is clear; it does not admit of any doubt. We see, for instance, the man who to-day, because of the office which he holds, is considered by the crowd an object of honour, becoming tomorrow himself one of those who pay honour, the office having been transferred to another. Do they, then, conceive of an honour such as that in the case of the Divine Being, so that, as long as we please to pay it, that Divine honour is retained, but when we cease to do so it ceases too at the dictate of our will? Absurd thought, and blasphemous as well! The Deity, being independent of us, does not grow in honour; He is evermore the same; He cannot pass into a better or a worse state; for He has no better, and admits no worse.

Εἰ οὖν διὰ πάντων τέλειον τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον εἶναι συντίθενται, ὡμολόγηται δὲ πρὸς τούτοις εὐσεβὲς εἶναι καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ ἐν παντὶ ἀγαθῷ τέλειον, τίς ὁ λόγος, καθ' ὃν εὔλογον κρίνουσι πάλιν ἀναιρεῖν ὃ δεδώκασιν: τὸ γὰρ ἀναιρεῖν τὸ ὁμότιμον ἀπόδειξίς ἐστι τοῦ μὴ νομίζειν μετέχειν τῆς τελειότητος. αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο τὴν τιμὴν ἐπὶ τῆς θείας φύσεως τί ποτε ἄρα νομίζουσιν, ἧς ἄμοιρον εἶναι τὸ πνεῦμα βούλονται; πότερον ταύτην φασὶν ἣν καὶ ἄνθρωποι ἀνθρώποις χαρίζονται λόγῳ τε θεραπεύοντες καὶ σχήματι, τὸ ὑπήκοον ἐνδεικνύμενοι κατὰ τὴν πρόοδον καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα τῇ ματαίᾳ τοῦ βίου συνηθείᾳ τῷ τῆς τιμῆς γίνεται λόγῳ; ἅπερ πάντα τῇ προαιρέσει τῶν ταῦτα ἐργαζομένων συνέστηκεν: ὧν καθ' ὑπόθεσιν μὴ προελομένων, οὐδεμίαν ἐκ φύσεως ἀφορμὴν ἔχει τῶν ἀνθρώπων οὐδεὶς εἰς τὸ εἶναι τῶν λοιπῶν τιμιώτερος πάντων ὁμοίως κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ μέτρα τῆς φύσεως γνωριζομένων. σαφὴς δὲ ὁ λόγος καὶ οὐδεμίαν ἀμφιβολίαν ἔχων: τὸν γὰρ σήμερον διὰ τὴν ἀρχήν, ἧς προέστηκε, τίμιον τοῖς πολλοῖς εἶναι δοκοῦντα εὑρήσομεν ἐφεξῆς ἕνα τῶν τιμώντων καὶ αὐτὸν γινόμενον τῆς ἀρχῆς εἰς ἕτερον μετενεχθείσης. ἆρ' οὖν τοιοῦτόν τι τῆς τιμῆς εἶδος καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς θείας φύσεως ἐπινοοῦσιν, ὥστε βουλομένων μὲν ἡμῶν τὸ τίμιον ἔχειν, παυσαμένων δὲ τοῦ τιμᾶν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ προαιρέσει συγκαταλήγειν τὴν θείαν τιμήν; ἢ καταγέλαστόν ἐστι καὶ ἀσεβὲς ἅμα τὰ τοιαῦτα νοεῖν; οὐ γὰρ δι' ἡμᾶς τὸ θεῖον ἑαυτοῦ τιμιώτερον γίνεται, ἀλλ' ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχει οὔτε πρὸς τὸ χεῖρον οὔτε πρὸς τὸ κρεῖττον μεταβῆναι δυνάμενον: τὸ μὲν γὰρ οὐ δέχεται, τὸ δὲ οὐκ ἔχει.