Teaching on Basil’s treatise On the Holy Spirit this year, I was impressed again with this wonderful treatise. Some quotations, from the St Vladimir’s edition:

On the cosmic role of the Spirit:

All things thirsting for holiness turn to Him; everything living in virtue never turns away from Him. He waters them with His life-giving breath and helps them reach their proper fulfillment. He perfects all other things, and Himself lacks nothing; He gives life to all things, and is never depleted. He does not increase by additions, but is always complete, self-established, and present everywhere. He is the source of sanctification, spiritual light, who gives illumination to everyone using His powers to search for the truth — and the illumination He gives is Himself. His nature is unapproachable; only through His goodness are we able to draw near it. He fills all things with His power, but only those who are worthy may share it. He distributes His energy in proportion to the faith of the recipient, not confining it to a single share. He is simple in being; His powers are manifold: they are wholly present everywhere and in everything. He is distributed but does not change. He is shared, yet remains whole.

He argues that the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity are not inferior to the First by drawing an analogy with the first and last Adams: “If the second is subordinate to the first, and since what is subordinate is always inferior to that to which it is subordinated, according to you, then, the spiritual is inferior to the physical, and the man from heaven is inferior to the man of dust!” In other words, Trinity implies eschatology. More on this in my upcoming lectures at the Christ Church Ministerial Conference on the Trinity.

On the anti-Modalist implications of saying that the Father is “with” the Son: “If we say that the Son is with the Father, we mean two things: first, that the persons are distinct, and second, that they are inseparably united in fellowship.”

On the codependence of Father and Son:

Even limited human thought demonstrates that it is impossible for the Son to be younger than the Father; first, we cannot conceive of either apart from their relationship with each other, and second, the very idea of “coming later” is applied to something separated from the present by a smaller interval of time than something else which “came earlier” . . . . Is it not really the height of folly to measure the life of Him who transcends all times and ages, whose existence is incalculably remote from the present? Things subject to birth and corruption are described as prior to one another; are we therefore to compare God the Father as superior to God the Son, who exists before the ages? The supreme eminence of the Father is inconceivable; thought and reflection are utterly unable to penetrate the begetting of the Lord.

Gotta go back to teaching.