18 [Augustin teaches the Nicene doctrine of a numerical unity of essence in distinction from a specific unity. The latter is that of mankind. In this case there is division of substance-part after part of the specific nature being separated and formed, by propagation, into individuals. No human individual contains the whole specific nature. But in the case of the numerical unity of the Trinity, there is no division of essence. The whole divine nature is in each divine person. The three divine persons do not constitute a species-that is, three divine individuals made by the division and distribution of one common divine nature-but are three modes or "forms" (Phil. ii. 6) of one undivided substance, numerically and identically the same in each.-W. G. T. S.].
24 [The term Trinity denotes the Divine essence in all three modes. The term Father (or Son, or Spirit) denotes the essence in only one mode. Consequently, there is something in the Trinity that cannot be attributed to any one of the Persons, as such; and something in a Person that cannot be attributed to the Trinity, as such. Trinality cannot be ascribed to the first Person; paternity cannot be ascribed to the Trinity.-W. G. T. S.]
28 [Augustin here postulates the theistic doctrines of two substances-infinite and finite; in contradiction to the postulate of pantheism, that there is only one substance-the infinite.-W. G. T. S.]
35 [Nothing is more important, in order to a correct interpretation of the New Testament, than a correct explanation of the term God. Sometimes it denotes the Trinity, and sometimes a person of the Trinity. The context always shows which it is. The examples given here by Augustin are only a few out of many.-W. G. T. S.].
42 [It is not generally safe to differ from Augustin in trinitarian exegesis. But in Phil. ii. 6 "God" must surely denote the Divine Essence, not the first Person of the Essence. St. Paul describes "Christ Jesus" as "subsisting" (u9pa/rxwn) originally, that is prior to incarnation, "in a form of God"(e0n morfh= u=eou=), and because he so subsisted, as being "equal with God." The word morfh= is anarthrous in the text: a form, not the form, as the A.V and R.V. render. St. Paul refers to one of three "forms" of God-namely, that particular form of Sonship, which is peculiar to the second person of the Godhead. Had the apostle employed the article with morfh/, the implication would be that there is only one "form of God"-that is, only one person in the Divine Essence.
If then u=eou=, in this place, denotes the Father, as Augustin says, St. Paul would teach that the Logos subsisted "in a form of the Father," which would imply that the Father had more than one "form," or else (if morfh/ be rendered with the article) that the Logos subsisted in the "form" of the Father, neither of which is true. But if "God," in this place, denotes the Divine Essence, then St. Paul teaches that the unincarnate Logos subsisted in a particular "form" of the Essence-the Father and Spirit subsisting in other "forms" of it.
The student will observe that Augustin is careful to teach that the Logos when he took on him "a form of a servant," did not lay aside "a form of God." He understands the kenosis (e0ke/nwse) to be, the humbling of the divinity by its union with the humanity, not the exinanition of it in the extremest sense of entirely divesting himself of the divinity, nor the less extreme sense of a total non-use of it during the humiliation.-W.G.T.S.].
48 Phil. iii. 3 (Vulgate, etc.).
69 In recubituCant. i. 11; see LXX.
78 10 [The common explanation is better, which regards the "kingdom'" that is to be delivered up, to be the mediatorial commission. When Christ shall have finished his work of redeeming men, he no longer discharges the office of a mediator. It seems incongruous to denominate the beatific vision of God by the redeemed a surrender of A kingdom. In I. x. 21, Augustin says that when the Redeemer brings the redeemed from faith to sight, "He is said to `deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father. 0' "-W.G.T.S.]