What do you think?
Rate this book
On the Trinity
St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) was one of the most prolific geniuses that humanity has ever known, and is admired not only for the number of his works, but also for the variety of subjects, which traverse the whole realm of thought. The form in which he casts his work exercises a very powerful attraction on the reader.
The fifteen books De Trinitate, on which he worked for fifteen years, from 400 to 416, are the most elaborate and profound work of St. Augustine. The last books on the analogies which the mystery of the Trinity have with our soul are much discussed. The saintly author himself declares that they are only analogous and are far-fetched and very obscure.
The fifteen books De Trinitate, on which he worked for fifteen years, from 400 to 416, are the most elaborate and profound work of St. Augustine. The last books on the analogies which the mystery of the Trinity have with our soul are much discussed. The saintly author himself declares that they are only analogous and are far-fetched and very obscure.
564 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 416
525 people are currently reading
3,547 people want to read
About the author
Augustine of Hippo
3,090Ìýbooks1,856ÌýfollowersEarly church father and philosopher Saint Augustine served from 396 as the bishop of Hippo in present-day Algeria and through such writings as the autobiographical
Confessions
in 397 and the voluminous
City of God
from 413 to 426 profoundly influenced Christianity, argued against Manichaeism and Donatism, and helped to establish the doctrine of original sin.
An Augustinian follows the principles and doctrines of Saint Augustine.
People also know Aurelius Augustinus in English of Regius (Annaba). From the Africa province of the Roman Empire, people generally consider this Latin theologian of the greatest thinkers of all times. He very developed the west. According to Jerome, a contemporary, Augustine renewed "the ancient Faith."
The Neo-Platonism of Plotinus afterward heavily weighed his years. After conversion and his baptism in 387, Augustine developed his own approach to theology and accommodated a variety of methods and different perspectives. He believed in the indispensable grace to human freedom and framed the concept of just war. When the Western Roman Empire started to disintegrate from the material earth, Augustine developed the concept of the distinct Catholic spirituality in a book of the same name. He thought the medieval worldview. Augustine closely identified with the community that worshiped the Trinity. The Catholics and the Anglican communion revere this preeminent doctor. Many Protestants, especially Calvinists, consider his due teaching on salvation and divine grace of the theology of the Reformation. The Eastern Orthodox also consider him. He carries the additional title of blessed. The Orthodox call him "Blessed Augustine" or "Saint Augustine the Blessed."
Santo Agostinho
An Augustinian follows the principles and doctrines of Saint Augustine.
People also know Aurelius Augustinus in English of Regius (Annaba). From the Africa province of the Roman Empire, people generally consider this Latin theologian of the greatest thinkers of all times. He very developed the west. According to Jerome, a contemporary, Augustine renewed "the ancient Faith."
The Neo-Platonism of Plotinus afterward heavily weighed his years. After conversion and his baptism in 387, Augustine developed his own approach to theology and accommodated a variety of methods and different perspectives. He believed in the indispensable grace to human freedom and framed the concept of just war. When the Western Roman Empire started to disintegrate from the material earth, Augustine developed the concept of the distinct Catholic spirituality in a book of the same name. He thought the medieval worldview. Augustine closely identified with the community that worshiped the Trinity. The Catholics and the Anglican communion revere this preeminent doctor. Many Protestants, especially Calvinists, consider his due teaching on salvation and divine grace of the theology of the Reformation. The Eastern Orthodox also consider him. He carries the additional title of blessed. The Orthodox call him "Blessed Augustine" or "Saint Augustine the Blessed."
Santo Agostinho
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 104 reviews
April 2, 2017
Upon reading the first 8 books of Augustin’s ‘On The Trinity� it’s hard to know what I have learned. In many ways I may ask ‘have I been left with more questions then answers? At times reading this work was frustrating and I found myself saying out loud “What on earth are you talking about you mad man?�. I suffered many times from major reading fatigue because it’s one thing to read these words, but another thing to comprehend Augustin’s intent and the context in which he writes.
On the upside, reading this work was like tirelessly raking leaves only to find gold hidden just below the surface. At times I found myself ‘raking� glazed eyed whilst letting my mind wander, only to look down and see the end of my rake caught on a hefty gold nugget.
I was struck and refreshed by Augustin’s confidence in the word of God. His humility and desperation to find truth from scripture was strewn throughout. Likewise his personal humility and weakness was evident as he sort to “put into words that which cannot be put into words� and “to comprehend that which cannot be comprehended�.
Many times I was struck by the depth and glory of God and how he can be understood. This then was closely followed by the end of my own comprehension where I was left in awe at the majesty and immensity of our creator and saviour! He is both (somehow) fully comprehendible yet profoundly incomprehensible.
It's incredible how much we still hold to 1700 years later that is hidden in this (and in many other works by Augustin). I thank God for the truths contained in these writings.
The main helpful take home points for me were:
1) The trinity is a society within an essence � three persons in one.
2) This is not only the doctrine of the trinity but by His very nature this is a doctrine of divine eternity.
3) Jesus is light of light. He is the ‘brightness� of the light of the Father.
On the upside, reading this work was like tirelessly raking leaves only to find gold hidden just below the surface. At times I found myself ‘raking� glazed eyed whilst letting my mind wander, only to look down and see the end of my rake caught on a hefty gold nugget.
I was struck and refreshed by Augustin’s confidence in the word of God. His humility and desperation to find truth from scripture was strewn throughout. Likewise his personal humility and weakness was evident as he sort to “put into words that which cannot be put into words� and “to comprehend that which cannot be comprehended�.
Many times I was struck by the depth and glory of God and how he can be understood. This then was closely followed by the end of my own comprehension where I was left in awe at the majesty and immensity of our creator and saviour! He is both (somehow) fully comprehendible yet profoundly incomprehensible.
It's incredible how much we still hold to 1700 years later that is hidden in this (and in many other works by Augustin). I thank God for the truths contained in these writings.
The main helpful take home points for me were:
1) The trinity is a society within an essence � three persons in one.
2) This is not only the doctrine of the trinity but by His very nature this is a doctrine of divine eternity.
3) Jesus is light of light. He is the ‘brightness� of the light of the Father.
January 22, 2021
Excellent. The first eight books are far surpassing the latter seven in terms of theological discourse and unique insights into trinitarian theology. The second half of the book is mostly a very Augustinian deviation from the subject in order to explore the trinitarian image of God ingrained in the human mind. The final books however make the latter half absolutely worthwhile.
Augustine models a thorough, rigorous theological reasoning that is likewise orthodox and pious. He has much to teach us all. I read it mostly for a Theology of Augustine course with Dr. Michael Haykin in college but left a few of the psychological books in the middle to read later.
I would most enthusiastically recommend it for any serious student of theology.
Augustine models a thorough, rigorous theological reasoning that is likewise orthodox and pious. He has much to teach us all. I read it mostly for a Theology of Augustine course with Dr. Michael Haykin in college but left a few of the psychological books in the middle to read later.
I would most enthusiastically recommend it for any serious student of theology.
March 16, 2025
4.5 stars. This is both an enriching and deeply challenging read. Anyone coming to this book with expectations that it contains a systematic approach to the Trinity will be disappointed. Moreover, Augustine's at times wandering line of thought can be very challenging to follow--certainly there were sections where my interest waned. This is due in no small part to a fact that Augustine himself laments--chapters of this work were published without his consent prior to the completion of the whole, and thus most of this work represents Augustine's first draft in somewhat disjointed form--at times this shows. But the gems contained throughout in typical Augustine brilliance are priceless and more than repay the reading. A few of my favorite parts:
1) Augustine's overall commitment to charity as a hermeneutical principle in reading the works of fellow Christians/theologians, and which he asks from his readers, is a model of authorial humility and theological method worthy of wider emulation. "Let us set out along Charity Street together" Augustine remarks, going so far as to describe this relation between reader and author as a "covenant" (as an aside, I think I detect here the scaffold for Van Hoozer'sÌý covenantal and trinitarian approach to hermeneutics). I need to grow in this commitment to charity in reading/interacting with theologians willing to engage upon difficult subjects, that others might extend such charity to me.ÌýÌý
2) The discussion of difficult OT texts of types and theophanies in relation to the Trinity was excellent.
3) Augustine shines in defending the equality of the Son, and in differentiating between eternal generation and eternal procession. These sections (maddeningly, they are interspersed throughout rather than in one unit) are gold.
Finally, I admit to struggling a bit tracking with Augustine's use of various analogies in relation to the Trinity. Admirably, Augustine is careful to insist we understand such analogies as always deficient in describing the ontological Trinity in key respects (i.e., he is highlighting the fact that an analogy by its nature constitutes analogical rather than equivocal predication).Ìý But because we are made in the image of the triune God, Augustine suspects we will discover triads everywhere (such as the relation of the lover, love, and the object loved, or the knower, the known, and the act of knowing).Ìý Yet, given Augustine's own admission that such analogies always contain gross ontological deficiencies, one wonders the true value of these analogies in relation to the Trinity, even given that all humanÌýknowledge of God is analogical. Moreover, some of these triads seem a bit contrived, and frequently the process of explicating them is a bit tortured.
Notwithstanding, this is a truly deep, worship-inspiring and excellent read from one of the greatest theologians of the church.Ìý
1) Augustine's overall commitment to charity as a hermeneutical principle in reading the works of fellow Christians/theologians, and which he asks from his readers, is a model of authorial humility and theological method worthy of wider emulation. "Let us set out along Charity Street together" Augustine remarks, going so far as to describe this relation between reader and author as a "covenant" (as an aside, I think I detect here the scaffold for Van Hoozer'sÌý covenantal and trinitarian approach to hermeneutics). I need to grow in this commitment to charity in reading/interacting with theologians willing to engage upon difficult subjects, that others might extend such charity to me.ÌýÌý
2) The discussion of difficult OT texts of types and theophanies in relation to the Trinity was excellent.
3) Augustine shines in defending the equality of the Son, and in differentiating between eternal generation and eternal procession. These sections (maddeningly, they are interspersed throughout rather than in one unit) are gold.
Finally, I admit to struggling a bit tracking with Augustine's use of various analogies in relation to the Trinity. Admirably, Augustine is careful to insist we understand such analogies as always deficient in describing the ontological Trinity in key respects (i.e., he is highlighting the fact that an analogy by its nature constitutes analogical rather than equivocal predication).Ìý But because we are made in the image of the triune God, Augustine suspects we will discover triads everywhere (such as the relation of the lover, love, and the object loved, or the knower, the known, and the act of knowing).Ìý Yet, given Augustine's own admission that such analogies always contain gross ontological deficiencies, one wonders the true value of these analogies in relation to the Trinity, even given that all humanÌýknowledge of God is analogical. Moreover, some of these triads seem a bit contrived, and frequently the process of explicating them is a bit tortured.
Notwithstanding, this is a truly deep, worship-inspiring and excellent read from one of the greatest theologians of the church.Ìý
March 12, 2015
Clássico é clássico. Até pensei em tirar uma estrela pelas infinitas especulações em busca de uma imagem da trindade no homem, mas é mais provável que foi meu balde que não pôde conter o oceano agostiniano...
December 4, 2022
had us in the first half ngl
August 26, 2009
How do I review a book like this? It has taken me some time to work through this book, but I have found it essential to understanding later writers, particularly St. Thomas Aquinas. In its own right, it is a wonderful read and an intellectual journey for those seeking to live in the mystery of the triune God. Also essnetial for those seeking to understand the development of Trinitarian thought.
October 23, 2020
Augustine is an intellectual and theological monster in the Christian tradition. I’ve read The Confessions and City of God as well as his anti-Pelagian writings for a class in seminary. I think this work, On the Trinity, is probably his third most well-known work, after Confessions and City of God. It is most well-known for the Trinitarian analogy of memory-understanding-will.
Overall, this is clearly a vital work in the development of the Christian understanding of God as Trinity. I’ve had a sort of anti-Augustine tendency due to his theology of predestination, freedom and so on. I still think his turn that direction is a mess that still needs to be corrected, and the church in the west would benefit from elevating more eastern writers (Maximus, Isaac, the Cappadocians). That said, even for whatever errors he may have made and what those errors contributed to in Western theology, I recognize I’m a gnat barking at a pit bull. And this is a fantastic work by the pit bull that is worth reading.
All that said, its dense. I do not think I was well-served reading it in the old Niceness and Post-Niceness Fathers series, though all 38 volumes are only 2 bucks on the kindle! One day I’ll have to get a more up-to-date translation in a hard copy. For now, if you want to learn the Trinity and dive into some theology, this is for you.
Overall, this is clearly a vital work in the development of the Christian understanding of God as Trinity. I’ve had a sort of anti-Augustine tendency due to his theology of predestination, freedom and so on. I still think his turn that direction is a mess that still needs to be corrected, and the church in the west would benefit from elevating more eastern writers (Maximus, Isaac, the Cappadocians). That said, even for whatever errors he may have made and what those errors contributed to in Western theology, I recognize I’m a gnat barking at a pit bull. And this is a fantastic work by the pit bull that is worth reading.
All that said, its dense. I do not think I was well-served reading it in the old Niceness and Post-Niceness Fathers series, though all 38 volumes are only 2 bucks on the kindle! One day I’ll have to get a more up-to-date translation in a hard copy. For now, if you want to learn the Trinity and dive into some theology, this is for you.
January 17, 2016
I've been working on going through all of the relevant church writings regarding the Trinity. Hilary was an obvious resource. I am currently reading Augustine's work on the Trinity as well. I was never really in doubt that my understanding of the Trinity was orthodox, but I still wanted to know how the Fathers explained it. Their views are well worth reading. The doctrine of the Trinity goes back to the earliest traditions in the church. It did get modified as time went on though. Many of the Antenicene Fathers held to an unequal economic Trinity; meaning, the Son was less than the Father and the Holy Spirit was less than the Son. I thought this could be correct, until I read Gregory of Nyssa; after that, I was convinced of the rightness of the co-equal Trinity. The doctrine of the co-equal Trinity has been the orthodox view since the time of the Nicene Fathers. I do agree that it is the correct view.
April 2, 2021
On any relational issue between humans, I try to be the first one in the room to prove my Calvinist bona fides, usually among the Armenians, by pointing to the Trinity as the pattern for all our relationships. Augustine trumps me to the point of near exasperation. What some of his explorations of human perception and identity have to do with his Trinitarian subject I'm still not sure. He's Augustine. He's brilliant. We will give him the benefit of the doubt.
December 7, 2020
Finished! (Minus the intro, not by Augustine). I read this off and on over the course of about two and a half years. I enjoyed the earlier part much more than the latter which extended either beyond my comprehension or attention span or both. I'm an Augustine fan, but this seemed way longer than was necessary.
September 14, 2024
Dr. McCall you’re a crazy man for making me read this in 2 weeks
August 4, 2011
Augustine's work on the Trinity truly illustrates the definition of the work "classic": a book much discussed but never read, either by his adherents or critics. To be fair, even Augustine's adherents admit his style could be improved--shortening passages and limiting some of the more fanciful exegesis (City of God is notorious in this regard). And as some of his critics point out, if you want a good introduction into Trinitarian thinking, Gregory of Nazianzus (or Basil) is clearer and is writing more within the mainstream of Nicene thought (yes, I am aware of Lewis Ayres' thesis, and I still maintain that last sentence).
On the other hand, a handful of books clearly define the thinking and development of Western civilization, and Augustine is responsible for at least three of them: City of God, Confessions, and De Trinitate.
In book II Augustine is dealing with the theophanies and how God revealed himself to the Fathers in the Old Testament. His larger argument is that the Trinity works in sending. The act of sending is a Trinitarian act.
Augustine rightly says that God's nature is invisible to human eyes. God's nature is not corporeal and cannot be seen by man. That is another way of saying the essentially correct thesis that God's essence cannot be comprehended by man. Because of that, Augustine reasons that the appearances (theophanies) in the Old Testament were essentially the ancient equivalent of holograms. Speaking of the Holy Spirit Augustine writes,
For in due time a certain outward appearance of the creature was wrought, wherein the Holy Spirit might be visibly shown (II. 5).
Now, instead of "Holy Spirit" one can also insert (as he does elsewhere) "Son" or "Father." While I am going to disagree with his above conclusion, his reasoning is consistent and bears some reflection. Augustine rightly notes that the Holy Spirit is "invisible." Obviously, the Father is invisible, also. After the incarnation, though, Jesus is not invisible. Augustine does not want to say that Jesus assumed flesh before the incarnation, and I think rightly so, so he opts for the temporary "creature" mode (e.g., Jesus assumes a temporary creature to show himself, not that Jesus is one).
Therefore, the only way the invisible God can manifest himself without committing to multiple incarnations is to assume some form of a temporary creature in the theophany. Augustine repeatedly uses the word "creature" and this can throw the reader off. With all due respect, however, I think the term "hologram" best describes what he is getting at.
Augustine is insistent that God's "nature" cannot be shown. Man's eye cannot see God's nature. That's why, I think, he insists that God appears to man via hologramic images. Augustine seems to reduce the argument to two options: either we see God's nature (which is impossible) or we see God by "the corporeal creature made subject to him, and not by his own substance" (II. 14).
Augustine then engages in an extended discourse on whether the theophanies were revelations of the entire Trinity or of one person. Personally, I don't know and I don't think Augustine does, either. He seems to entertain several positions. It is imperative to say that the Old Testament is a revelation of God the Son, but it is not entirely certain from that whether all theophanies were of the Son or of the Trinity. I don't see any reason to come to a hard conclusion on this.
Augustine ends this section with a helpful summary of Book II: which persons of the Trinity appeared to man, and their appearance via created means (II. 35).
Analysis
Must we accept Augustine's conclusion that the theophanies were holograms? He is correct that God's nature qua nature cannot be seen by corporeal eye. On the other hand, though, the Eastern fathers do have the concept of the divine energies which solves this problem. Augustine gives a meditation of Moses on Mt. Sinai and seeing the "back parts of God." Augustine maintains his thesis that man cannot see God. However, Moses does see God's glory. Now, is God's glory truly divine? Is it truly the presence of God? I don't see how any can deny this. Consider: it is God's presence to us, yet it is not simply his essence. It is God, yet it is clearly seen by human eyes (Lev. 9:6; Num. 20:6; Ex. 34:29-35).
This is why the category of the divine energies is so helpful. They are not merely God's "essence," but they are truly God and manifest God to us. This is the category Augustine needed.
De Trinitate, books 3-4
Book 3 is an extension upon several themes highlighted in Book 2: God's invisibility and incorporeality and how man saw revelations from God in the Old Testament. Augustine specifically deals with Angels and Miracles, and much of it is quite helpful. He wants to know "whether the angels were then the agents both in showing those bodily appearances to the eyes of men, and in sounding those words in their ears, when the sensible creature itself, serving the Creator at His beck, turned for the time into whatever was needful" (III.1.6).
It is helpful to keep in mind when Augustine says "creature" in this context he means the vehicle in which the divine appeared to the human. I said in the last review it was a type of hologram, but I think it is a little stronger than that. Presumably on Augustine's gloss, it is corporeal. Forgive the horrible cultural reference, but remember what was going on the movie Avatar. (!!).
Augustine makes his conclusion when he says "that all those appearances to the Fathers (old testament saints)...were wrought through the creature" (III.2.22). He then discuses when the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses, whether it was an angel or God himself who actually appeared. Given his above conclusion Augustine maintains that it is an Angel who actually appears. Augustine actually does a good job in examining the difficulties in both positions, but one would have hoped he would have been consistent with his earlier theme and simply not come to a dogmatic conclusion on an issue that Scripture really doesn't say too much about. (He does note that St Stephen says in Acts 7 that the *angel* appeared to Moses).
The problem here is that Patristic exegesis reads the Old Testament as a Revelation of God the Son, not as a revelation of "an angel." While I understand what he is getting at, I have trouble affirming a conclusion--based on a dearth of evidence--which would lead me to contradict a key point of Patristic exegesis.
(In a rather humorous, if somewhat bitter, moment he goes back to Stephen's conclusion to the Sanhedrin and applies these words to whoever disagrees with him, "Ye stiff-necked..." cf. III.2.26).
Augustine then goes to say that man cannot see God's glory with his own eyes (III.2.24). Contrast this with Leviticus 9:5 and Numbers 20.6 where it says men will see God's glory. The problem here is that Augustine lacks the concept of the divine energies, so he is left with man either seeing God's essence (which is impossible) or only seeing a created intermediary. In either case, man never actually communes with God.
Book IV
Book IV is a wonderful meditation on Christ's reversal of the work of the devil. He discusses how the person of Christ takes our death into his death and resurrects us. One is struck by how Eastern and Patristic this sounds, and this should remind the reader that for all of Augustine's innovations and erroneous conclusions, he is still a faithful son of the Church. When he sticks to received Catholic doctrine that is common to the fathers, he is a wonderful guide to piety.
De Trinitate, books 5-6
Augustine is here responding to the Arian heretics who say that the nature of the Son is different from the nature of the Father. He modifies somewhat the traditional dictum that what is said of each person in respect to themselves is to be taken in the singular (V.8.9). (Or something like that. Augustine's argumentation here is very convoluted and is open to many interpretations. He also appears in this section to anticipate the "relations of opposition" canard popular in the later middle ages. I will interpret him for now as holding to the classical triadic dictum: what is said of all three persons is said of the essence, and what is unique to one person is unique to that person). It should be noted, however, that Augustine is not always using the term "God" as the New Testament and early fathers used it: the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am simply noting that for now, for it may become important later).
In chapter 10 of Book V Augustine advances and early form of the "Absolute Divine Simplicity" thesis, stating "that it is the same thing to God to be , and to be great (or wise, or love, etc)" (V.10.11). One way to interpret this line is that the term "Greatness" equally applies to all three persons, therefore it is common to the essence. On the other hand, it is not hard to see how this line of reasoning could equate God's attribute--greatness--with God's essence. And the obvious conclusion: if God's attribute a = God's essence, and God's essence is absolutely simple, and God's attribute b (or x, y, and z) = God's essence, then attribute a = attribute b.
At this point in the narrative Augustine doesn't say any more, so I will leave it at that. In the next chapter (11), Augustine says that since the Father is Holy, and the Son is Holy, and the Holy Spirit is holy by definition, then the entire Trinity can be said to be the Holy Spirit (V.11.12)! This leads Augustine to his famous line that the Holy Spirit is the communion of Father and Son.
What just happened here?
Keep in mind what was said earlier: what is common to all is common to the essence; what is unique of one is unique to that one person. It appears that the Holy Spirit is both common to the essence and unique to a person. It also looks like the Holy Spirit has become an attribute of God. I am sure there are more able interpretations in defense of Blessed Augustine, but it looks like this is a confusion of both person and nature.
In chapter 13 Augustine anticipates later Filioquist discussions. Given his commitment to the unity of the Trinity, he wants to say that all persons share in the principium (or the beginning), and from this he denies there are two Beginnings. He writes,
"But if whatever remains within itself and produces or works anything is a beginning to that thing which it produces or works; then we cannot deny that the Holy Spirit also is rightly called Beginning, since we do not separate him from the appellation of Creator" (V.13.14).
In other words, only the Creator (or non-creatures) can participate in the principium. It seems then that active participation in the Principium is common to the essence, since it is common to all (V.13.14). However, in the next section he says that the Father and Son are the principium of the Holy Spirit. He ends his discussion on principium noting, "But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one Beginning in respect to the creature, as also one Creator and one God."
In other words, the Holy Spirit does not participate in the Principium in the same way that the Father and Son participate. While Augustine formally avoids calling the Holy Spirit a creature by noting he, too, is principium, at the same time it appears that the Holy Spirit does not participate with the Father and Son. This strains the Triadic logic mentioned above and has the practical effect of subordinating the Holy Spirit.
Book VI
Augustine wrestles with some of his implications in the previous book. If Christ is the Wisdom and Power of God the Father, and obviously assuming "wisdom" and "power" common to the essence, one must wonder if the Father is not wise apart from Christ. Granted this is an abstraction, since one cannot speak of the Persons apart from one another, but it is an important question. If one answers in the affirmative, Augustine notes, one must conclude that the Father is not wise in himself (VI.1.2). I refer the reader to Peter Leithart's post on this topic, "Conundrums of Simplicity."
De Trinitate, books 7-8
In book seven Augustine continues his discussion of the problem whether the Father is wise in himself or wise only when speaking the Word, who is Wisdom. He is taking his cue from St Paul, who says that Christ is the Wisdom and Power of God. While much of Augustine's discussion is laborious and belabors the point, it is a fair question. St Athanasius wrestled with the same question, though his answer was more straightfoward (if not entirely avoiding the problem. Instead of "Wisdom," Athanasios was discussing whether Christ was willed by the Father. He denied the Arian dilemma by saying that Christ was the willing of the Father).
Notwithstanding the similarities of the problem, Augustine has to fight it on a different front. Throughout the treatise he has affirmed that God is identical with his attributes (this is more clearly stated in City of God bk. 11, c. 10). If it is true, Augustine reasons, that in the Father it is not one thing to be, and another to be wise, but to be is to be wise. And if Christ is the wisdom of God, how is Christ not also the essence of God? Further, if the Father is "wise in himself," and yet the Son also is Wisdom, are they not of different essences? This is the heart of the problem.
Augustine answers it by saying what is said of the persons is said relatively. He writes, "but the Son is begotten: since by these names only their relative attributes are expressed. But both together are one essence and one wisdom; in which to be, is the same as to be wise...as we have already sufficiently shown that these terms [Word, Son] are spoken relatively" (VII.2.3).
Augustine goes on to discuss the differences between Greek and Latin triadologies, and his discussion is limited by his lack of knowledge of Greek. He is identifying the terms (not the concepts) "person" and "substance." This was a legitimate way to speak of it in parts of the Roman Empire; it seems, however, that Augustine is reading his own understanding of "substance" back into Greek, which was quite different. And from that reading he appears to draw a number of conclusions:
it is the same thing with God to be (esse) as to subsist (subsistere).
Therefore, he subsists relatively, as he begets relatively, as he bears rule relatively (VII.4.9).
One tentative conclusion he does not necessarily draw here, but will be made with great force by Thomas Aquinas, is that the persons are identical in essence by different only relatively, in terms of relation. While it is true the persons share and fully possess an identical essence, it seems dangerous to say that the persons are identical. On the other hand, this appears to be the logical conclusion of absolute divine simplicity. Latin scholastics would avoid the trap only by saying there are "notional distinctions in God." But are notional distinctions real distinctions? If they are, then how do you maintain ADS? If they aren't, then does it even matter to call them notional distinctions?
For further discussion the reader is urged to consider J. N. D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 271-279.
Book VIII
Augustine ends his exegetical discussion of the Trinity for now and begins his famous psychological analysis. He has been criticized for saying there are psychological analogies to the Trinity, and perhaps positing some sort of analogia entis. Maybe so. I don't think analogies are helpful, nor I suspect do most people think them helpful, either. However, it is an interesting discussion and as they say more about human loving and the mind, I think it can be read with profit.
Actually, there is a very good discussion of the nature of speech (VIII.6.9). I think his point in this book is that any of these (lover, object loved, and the love that unites them) cannot ideally be separated (again, see Kelly, 277).
If we want to use these analogies to properly understand the Trinity, I think it dead-ends, and badly so. However, if, like St Maximos the Confessor, we want to say that man is a triadic being, and reality itself is triadic (see Maximos: Genesis, Kinesis, Stasis), then Augustine's exposition is quite helpful.
Book XV
Book XV is the most important of the sections.ÌýÌý Books 9-14 can easily be skipped for the analogies.ÌýÌý As a wee child in Sunday School I was rightly taught that the Trinity is 3 Persons/1 essence.ÌýÌý I was also taught that analogies of the Trinity fail miserably.ÌýÌýÌý Augustine spent 100 pages defending and explaining trinitarian analogies.ÌýÌýÌý I am not going to "critique" the analogies, since I can't imagine any butÌý few would take them seriously.
In any case, Book XV neatly summarizes the entire work and ends with some of Augustine's stronger conclusions.ÌýÌý The main point is Augustine sets forth what will later harden as "double procession."ÌýÌý I still don't see it as a hard Filioquist reading, since the latin word procedere is ambiguous, but it certainly points that way.Ìý For those who reference the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers edition, on page 222 Augustine, in speaking of the divine nature, uses the phrase "equals."ÌýÌý Augustine's definition of simplicity, God is what he has, and that it is not one thing for God to be, and another to be wise, but to be is to be wise.ÌýÌý Combine that with the "equals" on page 222 (he is simply clarifying his point), then we are justified in positing that absolute divine simplicity is simply (no pun!) one big "=" sign.ÌýÌý Therefore, to be wise = just = love = wrath = God's essence.ÌýÌýÌý
Unfortunately, St Paul said Christ is the wisdom of God, and I think Augustine sees the trap into which he walked.ÌýÌý Books 6 and 7 try to deal with this problem, and I think as long as Augustine holds to this form of simplicity, he can't avoid the conclusion that the Person of the Son is the essence of the Father (which we know is clearly wrong).
He ends the book discussing double procession.Ìý His argument is fairly well-known and I won't belabor the point.ÌýÌý The Spirit proceeds from the Father principallyÌý as from one clause.ÌýÌý So far, orthodox.ÌýÌý However, he also proceeds from the Son.ÌýÌý Chant "de Regnon" all you want, I don't care how you slice it--that is a real form of subordinationism.Ìý The Spirit is now Jesus' lieutenant.Ìý
Despite the painful meanderings from the point, the treatise is actually organized quite well.Ìý With an exception of the last two books, each book can be read in about 10 minutes.
On the other hand, a handful of books clearly define the thinking and development of Western civilization, and Augustine is responsible for at least three of them: City of God, Confessions, and De Trinitate.
In book II Augustine is dealing with the theophanies and how God revealed himself to the Fathers in the Old Testament. His larger argument is that the Trinity works in sending. The act of sending is a Trinitarian act.
Augustine rightly says that God's nature is invisible to human eyes. God's nature is not corporeal and cannot be seen by man. That is another way of saying the essentially correct thesis that God's essence cannot be comprehended by man. Because of that, Augustine reasons that the appearances (theophanies) in the Old Testament were essentially the ancient equivalent of holograms. Speaking of the Holy Spirit Augustine writes,
For in due time a certain outward appearance of the creature was wrought, wherein the Holy Spirit might be visibly shown (II. 5).
Now, instead of "Holy Spirit" one can also insert (as he does elsewhere) "Son" or "Father." While I am going to disagree with his above conclusion, his reasoning is consistent and bears some reflection. Augustine rightly notes that the Holy Spirit is "invisible." Obviously, the Father is invisible, also. After the incarnation, though, Jesus is not invisible. Augustine does not want to say that Jesus assumed flesh before the incarnation, and I think rightly so, so he opts for the temporary "creature" mode (e.g., Jesus assumes a temporary creature to show himself, not that Jesus is one).
Therefore, the only way the invisible God can manifest himself without committing to multiple incarnations is to assume some form of a temporary creature in the theophany. Augustine repeatedly uses the word "creature" and this can throw the reader off. With all due respect, however, I think the term "hologram" best describes what he is getting at.
Augustine is insistent that God's "nature" cannot be shown. Man's eye cannot see God's nature. That's why, I think, he insists that God appears to man via hologramic images. Augustine seems to reduce the argument to two options: either we see God's nature (which is impossible) or we see God by "the corporeal creature made subject to him, and not by his own substance" (II. 14).
Augustine then engages in an extended discourse on whether the theophanies were revelations of the entire Trinity or of one person. Personally, I don't know and I don't think Augustine does, either. He seems to entertain several positions. It is imperative to say that the Old Testament is a revelation of God the Son, but it is not entirely certain from that whether all theophanies were of the Son or of the Trinity. I don't see any reason to come to a hard conclusion on this.
Augustine ends this section with a helpful summary of Book II: which persons of the Trinity appeared to man, and their appearance via created means (II. 35).
Analysis
Must we accept Augustine's conclusion that the theophanies were holograms? He is correct that God's nature qua nature cannot be seen by corporeal eye. On the other hand, though, the Eastern fathers do have the concept of the divine energies which solves this problem. Augustine gives a meditation of Moses on Mt. Sinai and seeing the "back parts of God." Augustine maintains his thesis that man cannot see God. However, Moses does see God's glory. Now, is God's glory truly divine? Is it truly the presence of God? I don't see how any can deny this. Consider: it is God's presence to us, yet it is not simply his essence. It is God, yet it is clearly seen by human eyes (Lev. 9:6; Num. 20:6; Ex. 34:29-35).
This is why the category of the divine energies is so helpful. They are not merely God's "essence," but they are truly God and manifest God to us. This is the category Augustine needed.
De Trinitate, books 3-4
Book 3 is an extension upon several themes highlighted in Book 2: God's invisibility and incorporeality and how man saw revelations from God in the Old Testament. Augustine specifically deals with Angels and Miracles, and much of it is quite helpful. He wants to know "whether the angels were then the agents both in showing those bodily appearances to the eyes of men, and in sounding those words in their ears, when the sensible creature itself, serving the Creator at His beck, turned for the time into whatever was needful" (III.1.6).
It is helpful to keep in mind when Augustine says "creature" in this context he means the vehicle in which the divine appeared to the human. I said in the last review it was a type of hologram, but I think it is a little stronger than that. Presumably on Augustine's gloss, it is corporeal. Forgive the horrible cultural reference, but remember what was going on the movie Avatar. (!!).
Augustine makes his conclusion when he says "that all those appearances to the Fathers (old testament saints)...were wrought through the creature" (III.2.22). He then discuses when the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses, whether it was an angel or God himself who actually appeared. Given his above conclusion Augustine maintains that it is an Angel who actually appears. Augustine actually does a good job in examining the difficulties in both positions, but one would have hoped he would have been consistent with his earlier theme and simply not come to a dogmatic conclusion on an issue that Scripture really doesn't say too much about. (He does note that St Stephen says in Acts 7 that the *angel* appeared to Moses).
The problem here is that Patristic exegesis reads the Old Testament as a Revelation of God the Son, not as a revelation of "an angel." While I understand what he is getting at, I have trouble affirming a conclusion--based on a dearth of evidence--which would lead me to contradict a key point of Patristic exegesis.
(In a rather humorous, if somewhat bitter, moment he goes back to Stephen's conclusion to the Sanhedrin and applies these words to whoever disagrees with him, "Ye stiff-necked..." cf. III.2.26).
Augustine then goes to say that man cannot see God's glory with his own eyes (III.2.24). Contrast this with Leviticus 9:5 and Numbers 20.6 where it says men will see God's glory. The problem here is that Augustine lacks the concept of the divine energies, so he is left with man either seeing God's essence (which is impossible) or only seeing a created intermediary. In either case, man never actually communes with God.
Book IV
Book IV is a wonderful meditation on Christ's reversal of the work of the devil. He discusses how the person of Christ takes our death into his death and resurrects us. One is struck by how Eastern and Patristic this sounds, and this should remind the reader that for all of Augustine's innovations and erroneous conclusions, he is still a faithful son of the Church. When he sticks to received Catholic doctrine that is common to the fathers, he is a wonderful guide to piety.
De Trinitate, books 5-6
Augustine is here responding to the Arian heretics who say that the nature of the Son is different from the nature of the Father. He modifies somewhat the traditional dictum that what is said of each person in respect to themselves is to be taken in the singular (V.8.9). (Or something like that. Augustine's argumentation here is very convoluted and is open to many interpretations. He also appears in this section to anticipate the "relations of opposition" canard popular in the later middle ages. I will interpret him for now as holding to the classical triadic dictum: what is said of all three persons is said of the essence, and what is unique to one person is unique to that person). It should be noted, however, that Augustine is not always using the term "God" as the New Testament and early fathers used it: the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am simply noting that for now, for it may become important later).
In chapter 10 of Book V Augustine advances and early form of the "Absolute Divine Simplicity" thesis, stating "that it is the same thing to God to be , and to be great (or wise, or love, etc)" (V.10.11). One way to interpret this line is that the term "Greatness" equally applies to all three persons, therefore it is common to the essence. On the other hand, it is not hard to see how this line of reasoning could equate God's attribute--greatness--with God's essence. And the obvious conclusion: if God's attribute a = God's essence, and God's essence is absolutely simple, and God's attribute b (or x, y, and z) = God's essence, then attribute a = attribute b.
At this point in the narrative Augustine doesn't say any more, so I will leave it at that. In the next chapter (11), Augustine says that since the Father is Holy, and the Son is Holy, and the Holy Spirit is holy by definition, then the entire Trinity can be said to be the Holy Spirit (V.11.12)! This leads Augustine to his famous line that the Holy Spirit is the communion of Father and Son.
What just happened here?
Keep in mind what was said earlier: what is common to all is common to the essence; what is unique of one is unique to that one person. It appears that the Holy Spirit is both common to the essence and unique to a person. It also looks like the Holy Spirit has become an attribute of God. I am sure there are more able interpretations in defense of Blessed Augustine, but it looks like this is a confusion of both person and nature.
In chapter 13 Augustine anticipates later Filioquist discussions. Given his commitment to the unity of the Trinity, he wants to say that all persons share in the principium (or the beginning), and from this he denies there are two Beginnings. He writes,
"But if whatever remains within itself and produces or works anything is a beginning to that thing which it produces or works; then we cannot deny that the Holy Spirit also is rightly called Beginning, since we do not separate him from the appellation of Creator" (V.13.14).
In other words, only the Creator (or non-creatures) can participate in the principium. It seems then that active participation in the Principium is common to the essence, since it is common to all (V.13.14). However, in the next section he says that the Father and Son are the principium of the Holy Spirit. He ends his discussion on principium noting, "But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one Beginning in respect to the creature, as also one Creator and one God."
In other words, the Holy Spirit does not participate in the Principium in the same way that the Father and Son participate. While Augustine formally avoids calling the Holy Spirit a creature by noting he, too, is principium, at the same time it appears that the Holy Spirit does not participate with the Father and Son. This strains the Triadic logic mentioned above and has the practical effect of subordinating the Holy Spirit.
Book VI
Augustine wrestles with some of his implications in the previous book. If Christ is the Wisdom and Power of God the Father, and obviously assuming "wisdom" and "power" common to the essence, one must wonder if the Father is not wise apart from Christ. Granted this is an abstraction, since one cannot speak of the Persons apart from one another, but it is an important question. If one answers in the affirmative, Augustine notes, one must conclude that the Father is not wise in himself (VI.1.2). I refer the reader to Peter Leithart's post on this topic, "Conundrums of Simplicity."
De Trinitate, books 7-8
In book seven Augustine continues his discussion of the problem whether the Father is wise in himself or wise only when speaking the Word, who is Wisdom. He is taking his cue from St Paul, who says that Christ is the Wisdom and Power of God. While much of Augustine's discussion is laborious and belabors the point, it is a fair question. St Athanasius wrestled with the same question, though his answer was more straightfoward (if not entirely avoiding the problem. Instead of "Wisdom," Athanasios was discussing whether Christ was willed by the Father. He denied the Arian dilemma by saying that Christ was the willing of the Father).
Notwithstanding the similarities of the problem, Augustine has to fight it on a different front. Throughout the treatise he has affirmed that God is identical with his attributes (this is more clearly stated in City of God bk. 11, c. 10). If it is true, Augustine reasons, that in the Father it is not one thing to be, and another to be wise, but to be is to be wise. And if Christ is the wisdom of God, how is Christ not also the essence of God? Further, if the Father is "wise in himself," and yet the Son also is Wisdom, are they not of different essences? This is the heart of the problem.
Augustine answers it by saying what is said of the persons is said relatively. He writes, "but the Son is begotten: since by these names only their relative attributes are expressed. But both together are one essence and one wisdom; in which to be, is the same as to be wise...as we have already sufficiently shown that these terms [Word, Son] are spoken relatively" (VII.2.3).
Augustine goes on to discuss the differences between Greek and Latin triadologies, and his discussion is limited by his lack of knowledge of Greek. He is identifying the terms (not the concepts) "person" and "substance." This was a legitimate way to speak of it in parts of the Roman Empire; it seems, however, that Augustine is reading his own understanding of "substance" back into Greek, which was quite different. And from that reading he appears to draw a number of conclusions:
it is the same thing with God to be (esse) as to subsist (subsistere).
Therefore, he subsists relatively, as he begets relatively, as he bears rule relatively (VII.4.9).
One tentative conclusion he does not necessarily draw here, but will be made with great force by Thomas Aquinas, is that the persons are identical in essence by different only relatively, in terms of relation. While it is true the persons share and fully possess an identical essence, it seems dangerous to say that the persons are identical. On the other hand, this appears to be the logical conclusion of absolute divine simplicity. Latin scholastics would avoid the trap only by saying there are "notional distinctions in God." But are notional distinctions real distinctions? If they are, then how do you maintain ADS? If they aren't, then does it even matter to call them notional distinctions?
For further discussion the reader is urged to consider J. N. D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 271-279.
Book VIII
Augustine ends his exegetical discussion of the Trinity for now and begins his famous psychological analysis. He has been criticized for saying there are psychological analogies to the Trinity, and perhaps positing some sort of analogia entis. Maybe so. I don't think analogies are helpful, nor I suspect do most people think them helpful, either. However, it is an interesting discussion and as they say more about human loving and the mind, I think it can be read with profit.
Actually, there is a very good discussion of the nature of speech (VIII.6.9). I think his point in this book is that any of these (lover, object loved, and the love that unites them) cannot ideally be separated (again, see Kelly, 277).
If we want to use these analogies to properly understand the Trinity, I think it dead-ends, and badly so. However, if, like St Maximos the Confessor, we want to say that man is a triadic being, and reality itself is triadic (see Maximos: Genesis, Kinesis, Stasis), then Augustine's exposition is quite helpful.
Book XV
Book XV is the most important of the sections.ÌýÌý Books 9-14 can easily be skipped for the analogies.ÌýÌý As a wee child in Sunday School I was rightly taught that the Trinity is 3 Persons/1 essence.ÌýÌý I was also taught that analogies of the Trinity fail miserably.ÌýÌýÌý Augustine spent 100 pages defending and explaining trinitarian analogies.ÌýÌýÌý I am not going to "critique" the analogies, since I can't imagine any butÌý few would take them seriously.
In any case, Book XV neatly summarizes the entire work and ends with some of Augustine's stronger conclusions.ÌýÌý The main point is Augustine sets forth what will later harden as "double procession."ÌýÌý I still don't see it as a hard Filioquist reading, since the latin word procedere is ambiguous, but it certainly points that way.Ìý For those who reference the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers edition, on page 222 Augustine, in speaking of the divine nature, uses the phrase "equals."ÌýÌý Augustine's definition of simplicity, God is what he has, and that it is not one thing for God to be, and another to be wise, but to be is to be wise.ÌýÌý Combine that with the "equals" on page 222 (he is simply clarifying his point), then we are justified in positing that absolute divine simplicity is simply (no pun!) one big "=" sign.ÌýÌý Therefore, to be wise = just = love = wrath = God's essence.ÌýÌýÌý
Unfortunately, St Paul said Christ is the wisdom of God, and I think Augustine sees the trap into which he walked.ÌýÌý Books 6 and 7 try to deal with this problem, and I think as long as Augustine holds to this form of simplicity, he can't avoid the conclusion that the Person of the Son is the essence of the Father (which we know is clearly wrong).
He ends the book discussing double procession.Ìý His argument is fairly well-known and I won't belabor the point.ÌýÌý The Spirit proceeds from the Father principallyÌý as from one clause.ÌýÌý So far, orthodox.ÌýÌý However, he also proceeds from the Son.ÌýÌý Chant "de Regnon" all you want, I don't care how you slice it--that is a real form of subordinationism.Ìý The Spirit is now Jesus' lieutenant.Ìý
Despite the painful meanderings from the point, the treatise is actually organized quite well.Ìý With an exception of the last two books, each book can be read in about 10 minutes.
Read
March 23, 2025My personal notes, should anyone wish to see:
1. Against the assertion that ‘God loves me as I am � therefore I will obstinately cling to my former self.�
“Wherefore He certainly does not exclude Himself from that which He says, The Father Himself loves you; but He means it to be understood after that manner which I have above spoken of, and sufficiently intimated � namely, that for the most part each Person of the Trinity is so named, that the other Persons also may be understood. Accordingly, For the Father Himself loves you, is so said that by consequence both the Son and the Holy Spirit also may be understood: not that He does not now love us, who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; but God loves us, such as we shall be, not such as we are, for such as they are whom He loves, such are they whom He keeps eternally; which shall then be, when He who now makes intercession for us shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, so as no longer to ask the Father, because the Father Himself loves us. But for what deserving, except of faith, by which we believe before we see that which is promised? For by this faith we shall arrive at sight; so that He may love us, being such, as He loves us in order that we may become; and not such, as He hates us because we are, and exhorts and enables us to wish not to be always.� (Book I, Ch. 10).
2. On true friends.
“How then shall we make it good that nothing is said of God according to accident, except because nothing happens to His nature by which He may be changed, so that those things are relative accidents which happen in connection with some change of the things of which they are spoken. As a friend is so called relatively: for he does not begin to be one, unless when he has begun to love; therefore some change of will takes place, in order that he may be called a friend.� (Book V, Ch. 16).
3. On the term subsist
“Chapter 5. � In God, Substance is Spoken Improperly, Essence Properly. 10. If, however, it is fitting that God should be said to subsist � (For this word is rightly applied to those things, in which as subjects those things are, which are said to be in a subject, as color or shape in body. For body subsists, and so is substance; but those things are in the body, which subsists and is their subject, and they are not substances, but are in a substance: and so, if either that color or that shape ceases to be, it does not deprive the body of being a body, because it is not of the being of body, that it should retain this or that shape or color; therefore neither changeable nor simple things are properly called substances.) � If, I say, God subsists so that He can be properly called a substance, then there is something in Him as it were in a subject, and He is not simple, i.e. such that to Him to be is the same as is anything else that is said concerning Him in respect to Himself; as, for instance, great, omnipotent, good, and whatever of this kind is not unfitly said of God. But it is an impiety to say that God subsists, and is a subject in relation to His own goodness, and that this goodness is not a substance or rather essence, and that God Himself is not His own goodness, but that it is in Him as in a subject. And hence it is clear that God is improperly called substance, in order that He may be understood to be, by the more usual name essence, which He is truly and properly called; so that perhaps it is right that God alone should be called essence. For He is truly alone, because He is unchangeable; and declared this to be His own name to His servant Moses, when He says, I am that I am; and, Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel: He who is has sent me unto you. However, whether He be called essence, which He is properly called, or substance, which He is called improperly, He is called both in respect to Himself, not relatively to anything; whence to God to be is the same thing as to subsist; and so the Trinity, if one essence, is also one substance. Perhaps therefore they are more conveniently called three persons than three substances.� (Book VII, Ch. 5).
1. Against the assertion that ‘God loves me as I am � therefore I will obstinately cling to my former self.�
“Wherefore He certainly does not exclude Himself from that which He says, The Father Himself loves you; but He means it to be understood after that manner which I have above spoken of, and sufficiently intimated � namely, that for the most part each Person of the Trinity is so named, that the other Persons also may be understood. Accordingly, For the Father Himself loves you, is so said that by consequence both the Son and the Holy Spirit also may be understood: not that He does not now love us, who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; but God loves us, such as we shall be, not such as we are, for such as they are whom He loves, such are they whom He keeps eternally; which shall then be, when He who now makes intercession for us shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, so as no longer to ask the Father, because the Father Himself loves us. But for what deserving, except of faith, by which we believe before we see that which is promised? For by this faith we shall arrive at sight; so that He may love us, being such, as He loves us in order that we may become; and not such, as He hates us because we are, and exhorts and enables us to wish not to be always.� (Book I, Ch. 10).
2. On true friends.
“How then shall we make it good that nothing is said of God according to accident, except because nothing happens to His nature by which He may be changed, so that those things are relative accidents which happen in connection with some change of the things of which they are spoken. As a friend is so called relatively: for he does not begin to be one, unless when he has begun to love; therefore some change of will takes place, in order that he may be called a friend.� (Book V, Ch. 16).
3. On the term subsist
“Chapter 5. � In God, Substance is Spoken Improperly, Essence Properly. 10. If, however, it is fitting that God should be said to subsist � (For this word is rightly applied to those things, in which as subjects those things are, which are said to be in a subject, as color or shape in body. For body subsists, and so is substance; but those things are in the body, which subsists and is their subject, and they are not substances, but are in a substance: and so, if either that color or that shape ceases to be, it does not deprive the body of being a body, because it is not of the being of body, that it should retain this or that shape or color; therefore neither changeable nor simple things are properly called substances.) � If, I say, God subsists so that He can be properly called a substance, then there is something in Him as it were in a subject, and He is not simple, i.e. such that to Him to be is the same as is anything else that is said concerning Him in respect to Himself; as, for instance, great, omnipotent, good, and whatever of this kind is not unfitly said of God. But it is an impiety to say that God subsists, and is a subject in relation to His own goodness, and that this goodness is not a substance or rather essence, and that God Himself is not His own goodness, but that it is in Him as in a subject. And hence it is clear that God is improperly called substance, in order that He may be understood to be, by the more usual name essence, which He is truly and properly called; so that perhaps it is right that God alone should be called essence. For He is truly alone, because He is unchangeable; and declared this to be His own name to His servant Moses, when He says, I am that I am; and, Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel: He who is has sent me unto you. However, whether He be called essence, which He is properly called, or substance, which He is called improperly, He is called both in respect to Himself, not relatively to anything; whence to God to be is the same thing as to subsist; and so the Trinity, if one essence, is also one substance. Perhaps therefore they are more conveniently called three persons than three substances.� (Book VII, Ch. 5).
June 29, 2020
Excellent work. The first seven chapters are definitely the strong point of the book. Augustine is a careful exegete, considering what Scripture teaches about the Trinity. I was particularly helped and provoked by his consideration of the possible theophanies in Scripture with the revelation of God as invisible in 1 Tim. 1:17.
The second half is more philosophical. Augustine looks for parallels to the Trinity within the nature and then mind of a man. Those sections were interesting, but merely in an abstract, philosophizing way. But even in those chapters that often felt more tedious, there were flashes of greatness-- an excursus on how the incarnation and crucifixion defeated the devil, explaining why the Spirit is not described as begotten by the Father and Son, on the unity and distinction within the Trinity.
Hard work, but pays off.
The second half is more philosophical. Augustine looks for parallels to the Trinity within the nature and then mind of a man. Those sections were interesting, but merely in an abstract, philosophizing way. But even in those chapters that often felt more tedious, there were flashes of greatness-- an excursus on how the incarnation and crucifixion defeated the devil, explaining why the Spirit is not described as begotten by the Father and Son, on the unity and distinction within the Trinity.
Hard work, but pays off.
February 23, 2024
Reading Augustine is much more valuable than reading about Augustine. The thing that struck me most strongly was that Augustine replied primarily on the scriptures, rather than any church tradition, for the formulation of his arguments. Some of his hermeneutical methodology would be suspect for most modern exegetes of scripture, but he was a man of the book. His trinitarian expositions were filled with minute linguistic slicing and dicing on the exact phraseology used in scripture. Augustine was a wonderful champion of orthodoxy, and as we all are, a man of his time. I very much enjoyed reading this work and thinking through his methodology and conclusions.
November 8, 2020
A classic on the Trinity. While too many chapters are dedicated to potential analogies of the Trinity in creation, Augustine's Trinitarian model of the Spirit as the love and gift of God is essential for understanding Western theology.
October 11, 2024
Rarely have I been so aware that this book is reading me, rather than I reading it.
January 17, 2016
I had read Augustine's City Of God a few years ago and I was impressed with it, although I didn't agree with all of Augustine's points. When I do agree, it is a rather strong agreement. The Trinity (aka De Trinitate) was similar in that when I do agree with Augustine, it is a strong agreement; where I disagreed, it was more a matter of not going with the extremes of his position. For instance, while Augustine is trying to give honor to all three members of the Trinity, his trinitarian theology does suffer from some inconsistencies; or at least some nagging remaining questions that are not properly addressed. He believes that the Son is indeed called God's Wisdom in scripture, but he also maintains that all members of the Trinity are wise because of the shared substance. He holds this position with all of the divine attributes. The most nagging question is whether this substance is to be identified with the Holy Spirit, and if it is, how He can be called the Substance while the Father and Son are not. If the substance is one of the other members, the same question remains. If the substance is different than all three, than Augustine is really introducing a fourth hypostasis and thus abrogating the Trinity. My feeling is that his weakness is an overly zealous method of dividing the Trinity in order to honor each member separately. I think he is looking at Them as if They were numerically separate, rather than numerically One and parabolically Three. At least that is the way I see it.
As it stands, I like his approach to the Old Testament. His assertion that the Old Testament did not reveal the Son in the same way the New Testament did I am in complete agreement with. Many of the earlier Fathers believed that the instances of the angel of the Lord in the OT were all of the Son in visible manifestation. I have had issues with that view. So did Augustine and he shows the problems with it and duly rejects that interpretation. The other thing I really liked in this book was Augustine's approach to salvation and the devil's role in humanity's bondage. There are some things in this approach that are too often missed nowadays in theology.
Overall a good read. I probably won't be reading any more of Augustine in the near future. The book was dragging by the end, but I was glad to have finally finished it. He's a noteworthy Church Father and well worth getting acquainted with. His influence on subsequent theology cannot be undervalued. Without Augustine, I am not sure if there would have been an Aquinas, Luther or Calvin.
As it stands, I like his approach to the Old Testament. His assertion that the Old Testament did not reveal the Son in the same way the New Testament did I am in complete agreement with. Many of the earlier Fathers believed that the instances of the angel of the Lord in the OT were all of the Son in visible manifestation. I have had issues with that view. So did Augustine and he shows the problems with it and duly rejects that interpretation. The other thing I really liked in this book was Augustine's approach to salvation and the devil's role in humanity's bondage. There are some things in this approach that are too often missed nowadays in theology.
Overall a good read. I probably won't be reading any more of Augustine in the near future. The book was dragging by the end, but I was glad to have finally finished it. He's a noteworthy Church Father and well worth getting acquainted with. His influence on subsequent theology cannot be undervalued. Without Augustine, I am not sure if there would have been an Aquinas, Luther or Calvin.
November 15, 2012
Fascinating how Augustine considers all the previous ways of theorizing the Trinity and then develops an interpretation that harmonizes and includes a little of all of them. The introduction is just as valuable, because it gives a historical development of the doctrine, beginning with the ways the Hebrews thought of God in the Hebrew Bible, and how this becomes Father, Son, Holy Ghost in the NT. A bit technical and repetitive, as Augustine often is, but his interpretation basically created Trinitarian theology and is still the basis of all subsequent interpretations to the present.
April 18, 2019
A standard of Western trinitarian theology. I am not convinced by the logic of the double procession (of the Spirit from the Father and Son), but to his credit, Augustine stops short of the ill-fated step of making it necessary to secure the Son’s equality with the Father.
The Hill translation provides copious introductory material and commentary. These are so helpful, they nearly make up for Hill’s pretension. By Hill’s reading every writer before Augustine, and every commentator on Augustine before himself, was a buffoon.
The Hill translation provides copious introductory material and commentary. These are so helpful, they nearly make up for Hill’s pretension. By Hill’s reading every writer before Augustine, and every commentator on Augustine before himself, was a buffoon.
January 6, 2019
It's too simple to simply grasp
I have this book 5stars primarily because of the power of Hilary's thought and the clarity of his faith. I must admit that sometime he lost me, but the firmness of the truth of our faith never wavered. If you're interested in a view of the intellectual battles over the faith of the Church, Then you'll probably like this book. In it Hillary parents what the heretics taught and thought and how the orthodox Faith opposed them. The book deal mainly with the Church's on Jesus Christ. Not very much about the Holy Spirit.
I have this book 5stars primarily because of the power of Hilary's thought and the clarity of his faith. I must admit that sometime he lost me, but the firmness of the truth of our faith never wavered. If you're interested in a view of the intellectual battles over the faith of the Church, Then you'll probably like this book. In it Hillary parents what the heretics taught and thought and how the orthodox Faith opposed them. The book deal mainly with the Church's on Jesus Christ. Not very much about the Holy Spirit.
January 13, 2019
Finished! A very difficult book, on a difficult topic, but I learned a lot from it. Very valuable.
I love Augustine's style, he really takes you along his thought process. Also loved the footnotes, which were very helpful.
It took me a while to get through this book, mostly because lots of sentences are very long and complicated, one really needs to pay attention and focus, to keep track of the argument.
I will write a proper review later. I need some time to reflect, recall what I learned and why that is important.
I love Augustine's style, he really takes you along his thought process. Also loved the footnotes, which were very helpful.
It took me a while to get through this book, mostly because lots of sentences are very long and complicated, one really needs to pay attention and focus, to keep track of the argument.
I will write a proper review later. I need some time to reflect, recall what I learned and why that is important.
March 17, 2012
I had to Skim this book over about a week, so I didn't get the chance to savor it. Given how dense it was, maybe I actually did myself a favor. Still, very moving and profound insights.
September 19, 2015
Very challenging, but worth the read. Also read in July 2015.
August 9, 2021
This is a sprawling and sometimes tortuous tome on the Trinity by Augustine. I'll do my best to summarize it and provide my thoughts.
Augustine's work is organized into fifteen books, each book having several chapters. Books 1-7 can be taken to make up one part, books 9-15 can be taken to make up the other part, with book 8 providing a transition between the two.
In the first part, Augustine establishes the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from scripture. He then moves on to examine Old Testament theophonies, asking whether the appearances are of the Father, Son, Spirit, or all three together? He goes on in book 3 to argue that the theophanies were actually appearances of angels as agents of God in Trinity. He then examines man's need for a mediator, the mediatorial mission of the Son, and the devil as a false mediator. Next, he examines whether or not "accidental" things can be said of God (i.e. whether or not things can be said of God that do not pertain to his substance properly). He continues examining this question in books 6 and 7 answering questions along the way about simplicity, substance, and person. Along the way he establishes that words can be spoken of God either referring to substance or to person. He concludes basically by saying that these terms are not quite accurate but we use them out of convenience so that we can try to explain "three what?" when we are talking about the Trinity. He concludes by exhorting the sensual man to believe because, "Unless you believe, you will not understand."
Book 8 bridges from an examination of terms and grammar about the Trinity to seeking a useful analogy for the Trinity. Love is the theme of book 8 and an initial "trinity" is seen as lover, what is loved, and love. Can this be a good analogy?
Instead of detailing books 9-15, I will very briefly summarize them. As best as I understand, Augustine tries out multiple proposed analogies for the Trinity, examining them from every conceivable angle to determine their appropriateness for exemplifying the Trinity. He begins with psychological concepts such as mind, knowledge, and the mind's love of self. He then moves to more physical analogies and dismisses them. He then comes back to more psychological analogies, before leaving off and looking Biblically at the concept of the image of God in man. He determines that this is the best place to search for an analogy. He eventually concludes that though the human mind is the image of God, it is an inadequate image to express the divine Trinity. He demonstrates several reasons why and then concludes the book with a soliloquy to his soul and a prayer to God.
It's difficult for me to review Augustine. There were times when reading it that I wanted to bang my head against its pages because of the repetitive and tortuous nature of the book. There were also moments when I wanted to interrupt Augustine and ask him what in the world he was talking about and what he thought it had to do with the Trinity. Yet, there were other times when I wanted to exult with worshipful "Amens" at the beautiful language he employed in representing God and himself to God.
Overall, this book is a classic of theology and of spirituality, flaws and all. I think that Augustine adequately demonstrates both the Biblical truthfulness of the Trinity and yet the transcendent mystery of the Trinity. I would also add that the introductory and explanatory material from the editor was helpful. It is a must-read if you want to understand the classic doctrine of the Trinity. You will find yourself extremely frustrated at times but also extremely edified.
Augustine's work is organized into fifteen books, each book having several chapters. Books 1-7 can be taken to make up one part, books 9-15 can be taken to make up the other part, with book 8 providing a transition between the two.
In the first part, Augustine establishes the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from scripture. He then moves on to examine Old Testament theophonies, asking whether the appearances are of the Father, Son, Spirit, or all three together? He goes on in book 3 to argue that the theophanies were actually appearances of angels as agents of God in Trinity. He then examines man's need for a mediator, the mediatorial mission of the Son, and the devil as a false mediator. Next, he examines whether or not "accidental" things can be said of God (i.e. whether or not things can be said of God that do not pertain to his substance properly). He continues examining this question in books 6 and 7 answering questions along the way about simplicity, substance, and person. Along the way he establishes that words can be spoken of God either referring to substance or to person. He concludes basically by saying that these terms are not quite accurate but we use them out of convenience so that we can try to explain "three what?" when we are talking about the Trinity. He concludes by exhorting the sensual man to believe because, "Unless you believe, you will not understand."
Book 8 bridges from an examination of terms and grammar about the Trinity to seeking a useful analogy for the Trinity. Love is the theme of book 8 and an initial "trinity" is seen as lover, what is loved, and love. Can this be a good analogy?
Instead of detailing books 9-15, I will very briefly summarize them. As best as I understand, Augustine tries out multiple proposed analogies for the Trinity, examining them from every conceivable angle to determine their appropriateness for exemplifying the Trinity. He begins with psychological concepts such as mind, knowledge, and the mind's love of self. He then moves to more physical analogies and dismisses them. He then comes back to more psychological analogies, before leaving off and looking Biblically at the concept of the image of God in man. He determines that this is the best place to search for an analogy. He eventually concludes that though the human mind is the image of God, it is an inadequate image to express the divine Trinity. He demonstrates several reasons why and then concludes the book with a soliloquy to his soul and a prayer to God.
It's difficult for me to review Augustine. There were times when reading it that I wanted to bang my head against its pages because of the repetitive and tortuous nature of the book. There were also moments when I wanted to interrupt Augustine and ask him what in the world he was talking about and what he thought it had to do with the Trinity. Yet, there were other times when I wanted to exult with worshipful "Amens" at the beautiful language he employed in representing God and himself to God.
Overall, this book is a classic of theology and of spirituality, flaws and all. I think that Augustine adequately demonstrates both the Biblical truthfulness of the Trinity and yet the transcendent mystery of the Trinity. I would also add that the introductory and explanatory material from the editor was helpful. It is a must-read if you want to understand the classic doctrine of the Trinity. You will find yourself extremely frustrated at times but also extremely edified.
September 1, 2024
Augustine breaks the rule that no one can talk for more than 15 minutes about the Trinity without committing some heresy. He takes 288 fine print pages to cover every aspect of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with no major error. It is a stunning theological and philosophical accomplishment.
This book also proves CS Lewis� rule of thumb right: read an old book between every 1-2 contemporary ones you read. The way Augustine writes is nothing like people today. It isn’t that he uses big words too much. His grammar and syntax, and way of argumentation is very different. But once you’re used to it, you see that his arguments are incisive, Scriptural, and compelling. My edition had a summary of every short chapter which helped my feeble brain a ton. It would be easy to skim, by only reading those chapter headings, and dipping in further where you want.
Part of his argument is to use an expected Scripture text, and then infer logically a truth of the Trinity. It’s a master class in going from interpretation of Scripture to systematic theology.
This is a challenging read, essential for seminary students, and very helpful for pastors to connect with “mother church,� and keep their minds sharp in this important area.
A rare 5 out of 5 stars!
This book also proves CS Lewis� rule of thumb right: read an old book between every 1-2 contemporary ones you read. The way Augustine writes is nothing like people today. It isn’t that he uses big words too much. His grammar and syntax, and way of argumentation is very different. But once you’re used to it, you see that his arguments are incisive, Scriptural, and compelling. My edition had a summary of every short chapter which helped my feeble brain a ton. It would be easy to skim, by only reading those chapter headings, and dipping in further where you want.
Part of his argument is to use an expected Scripture text, and then infer logically a truth of the Trinity. It’s a master class in going from interpretation of Scripture to systematic theology.
This is a challenging read, essential for seminary students, and very helpful for pastors to connect with “mother church,� and keep their minds sharp in this important area.
A rare 5 out of 5 stars!
June 9, 2020
This is one of those books that is so imposing that the subdivisions of the book are themselves books, like with Paradise Lost. This has fifteen books, and so I figure that if I understand one fifteenth of each section, I'll have the equivalent of one impressive book read.
February 27, 2021
Just magnificent. Takes discipline from the reader at times but moments of sublime beauty are within. Edmund Hill's notes which, while unfailingly courteous to the reader, often adopt the tone towards Augustine of a parent of a teenager who is prodigiously talented but who still needs to be kept in line, are a good book in themselves.
August 19, 2022
Hard but very rewarding read. Highly recommend to read it in community for conversation on these dense, rich topics and also for accountability.
October 25, 2024
Read excerpts for class.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 104 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.