AUGUSTINIAN HERITAGEINSTITUTE

Board ofAdvisors:
Gerald Bonner, Maria Boulding, O.S.B.
Gervasc Corcoran, O.S.A., Robert Dodaro, O.S.A.
Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A., Karl A. Gersbach, O.S.A.
Edmund Hill, O.P., John Page
Boniface Ramsey, O.P., Pierre-Patrick Verbraken, O.S.B.
Director: John E. Rotelle, O.S.A.

THE WORKS OF SAINT AUGUSTINE

A translation for the 21st Century

Part III — Sermons

Volume III: Sermons 51-94

The English translation of the works of Saint Augustine has been madę
possible with contributions from the following:
Order of Saint Augustine
Province of Saint Thomas of Villanova (East)
Province of Our Mother of Good Counsel (Midwest)
Province of Saint Augustine (Califomia)
Prjyince cf^nint Joseph (Cannda)
Vice Province of Our Mother of Good Counsel
Province of Our Mother of Good Counsel (Ircland)
Province of Saint John Stone (England and Scotland)
Province of Our Mother of Good Counsel (Australia)
The Augustinians of the Assumption (North America)
The Sisters of Saint Thomas of Villanova
Order ofAugustinian Recollects
Province of Saint Augustine
Mr. and Mrs. James C. Crouse
Mr. and Mrs. Paul Henkels
Mr. and Mrs. Francis E. McGill, Jr.
Mr. and Mrs. Mariano J. Rotelle
THE WORKS OFSAINTAUGUST1NE
A translation for the 21st Century

SERMONS

ni
(51-94)
on the New Testament

translation and notes

Edmund Hill, O.P.

editor
John E. Rotelle, O.S.A.

New City Press

Brooklyn, New York
 SERMON 52

THETRINITY

Datę: 410-412'

The Trinity in the baptism of Christ

1. The reading of the gospel has set me a subject to talk to your graces2 about,
as though at the Lord's command. And indeed it is the Lord’s command; I took
it, you see, as a kind of order from him to preach a sermon, that I should
undcrstand he wantcd me to speak about what he had wanted to be read. Pleasc
listen then with all your eagcmess and devotion, and these, 1 hope, will help me
in my difficult task by winning the goodwill of the Lord our God.
What we see, what we are looking at as kind of di vine tableau bcing prcsented
to us by the river Jordan, is our God bcing shown us in three persons.3 When
Jesus came and was baptized by John, the Lord by the slave, he was giving us
an example of humility, and he showed us that this humility was a fulfilling of
justice, when John said to him, lought to be baptized by you, and are you coming
to me? and he answered Let it be so now, let all justice be Julfilled (Mt 3:14-
15)—-so when he had been baptized, the skies opened and the Holy Spirit came
down upon him in the appearance of a dove; then there followed a voice from
above, This is my beloved Son, in whom I have taken delight (Mt 3:16-17). So
we have the three, somehow or other, clearly distinguished: in the voice the
Father; in the man the. Son, in tbr b’ve the Holy .Spirit. There is no ncęd to do
morę than just remind you of this; it's easy enough to see. lt’s elear, there’s not
the slightest shadow of doubt that this triad is being prcsented to us, when Christ
the Lord, coming to John in the form of a servant,4 is of course the Son; you
can’t, after all, say he‘s the Father, or say he‘s the Holy Spirit. Jesus came, it
says—obviously the Son of God. Can anyone have any doubts about the dove,
or say, “What is the dove?” sińce the gospel itsclf testifies in the clearest terms,
The Holy Spirit came down upon him in the appearance ofa dove? Likewise,
there can be no doubt that the voice is the Father's, when it says You are my Son
(Mk 1:11). So we have the three clearly distinguished.

50
 SF.RMON 52 51

The inseparable Trinity—difficult to esptain

2. And if we takc account of the placcs involved, I make bold to say (I say it
timidly enough, but I still make bold to say it), we have the three apparently
separable. Jesus comes to the river, from one place to another place; the dove
comes down from the sky to the earth, from one place to another place; (hc
Father*s voice is hcard neither from the earth nor the water, but from the sky.
These three are apparently separated by place, separated by function, separated
by action.
Now someone may say to me, “Demonstrate that the three are inseparable.
Remember you’re speaking as a Catholic, speaking to Catholics. Our faith, after
all, that is to say the true5 faith, the right faith, the Catholic faith, which is not a
bundle of opinions and prejudices but a summary of biblical testimonies, not
riddled with hereticai rashness, but founded on apostolic truth—our faith insists
on this. This is what we know, this is what we believe; this, evcn if we don’t sec
it with our eyes, nor evcn with our hearts as long as we are being purified by
faith,6 this all the same we hołd with lite firmest and most orthodox faith, that
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one inseparable trinity or triad; one God, not
three gods; but one God in such a way that the Son is not the Father, that the
Father is not the Son, that the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but
the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. It is this ineffable godhead, wholly
self-contained, renewirtg, creating, re-crcating all things, sending, reclaiming,
judging, liberating, this then that we know to be at once both ineffably a trinity,
triad or three, and inseparable."

The help of the Lord in speaking about the Trinity

3. So what are we to do? Herc you have the Son coming separately in the
person of a man, the Holy Spirit separately coming down from the sky in the
form of a dove, the voicc of the Father separately being heard from the sky, This
is my Son. Where now is the inseparable trinity? I see that through me God has
madę you vcry attentive. Pray for me, that while you are, so to say, opening your
Iaps,7 he may grant the means of filling what you have opened. Join in the work
with me. After.sil, you cansee what I have undertakm.(not only what, but also
who), what I want to talk about, where I am placed, how I am placed in a body
that perishes and weighs down the soul, and the earthly dwelling oppresses the
mind thinking many things (Wis 9:15). So when I disentangle this mind from
many things and concentrate it on the one God, the inseparable trio, in order to
see something which I can say, I may say, don’t you think, in order to cxpress
something worthwhile to you in this body that weighs down the soul, For to
you. Lord, I have lifted up my soul (Ps 86:4)? May he help me, may he lift it up
with me, because I am rather too weak for it, and it is rather too heavy for mc.
52 SAINTAUGUST1NE - SERMONS

The works of Father and Son are inseparable

4. The question that is commonly put by the morę eager brethren, commonly
discussed in the conversations of those who love God’s word, about which there
is commonly much knocking at God‘s door, is this: people say, “Does the Father
do anything that the Son docsn’t do, or the Son do anything that the Father
doesn‘1 do?" For the time bcing let us talk about the Father and the Son; when
he to whom we say, Be my helper, do notforsake me (Ps 27:9), has brought our
efforts to a successful conclusion, we will have to understand that the Holy Spirit
too is in no way excluded from the activity of the Father and the Son.
So then, brothers, here‘s something about the Father and the Son. Does the
Father do anything without the Son? We answer, “No." You’re not quite surę
about it? Weil, what can he do without him through whom a 11 things were madę?
AU things, it says, were madę through him', and to dnim it into the heads of the
slow, the obstinatc, the argumentativc, he added, and without him was madę
nothing (Jn 1:3).

The Father does nothing without the Son

5. So what then, brothers? AU things were madę through him. The whole of
creation madę through the Son—we naturally understand that the Father madę
it through his Word, God madę it through his power and his wisdom. Are we
going to say, “Ali things, to be surę, when they were created, were madę through
him, but the Father doesn’t now govem all things through him”? Certainly not.
Perish such a thought from the hearts of the faithful, away with it from the ideas
of the devout, from the understanding of the pious. It's simply impossible that
he should have created through him and not govem through him, unthinkable
that what exists should not be controlled through him, when through him it was
madę to exist
This too we can let oursclves be taught by the evidence of scripture. As well
as telling us that all things were madę and created through him, as we havc just
recalled from the gospel, All things were madę through him, and without him
was madę nothing, i; Iso says chał wIm. was madc is controlleL and managt d
through him. You recognize Christ, I suppose, as the power of God and the
wisdom of God;’ acknowledge what is also said about Wisdom: She reaches
from end to end mightily, and manages all things sweetly (Wis 8: l). So let us
have no doubts that all things are govcmed through him, through whom all
things were madę. Thus the Father does nothing without the Son, the Son
nothing without the Father.

Was the Father bom ? Did the Father suffer ?

6. Now the problem crops up, which we have undertaken to solve in the
Lord*s name and according to his will. If the Father does nothing without the
Son and the Son nothing without the Father, won’t it follow, presumably, that
 SF.RMON 32 53

we have to say the Father too was bom of the Virgin Mary, the Father suffered
under Pontius Pilate, the Father rosę again and ascended into hcaven? Not at all.
We don’t say this, because we don't believe this. 1 believed, you see, therefore
have Ispoken; arul we too believe, therefore we alsospeak(2 Cor 4:13).’ What's
in the creed? That the Son was bom of the virgin, not the Father. What’s in the
creed? That the Son suffered under Pontius Pilate and died, not the Father.
It‘s escaped our memory, has it, that there are some people who have got it
all wrong, called Patripassians,10 who say that it was the Father himself who was
bom of a woman, the Father himself who suffered, the Father himself, in fact,
who is the Son—they are two names, merely, not two things? And the Catholic
Church removed these people from the communion of saints," to stop them
leading anyone astray, and lei them go on quarreling, if they must, outside
separately by themselvcs.

The kemel of the difficulty

7. So let me cali your thoughts back to the difficulty of the question. Someone
may say to me, “ You have said that the Father does nothing without the Son, nor
the Son without the Father; and you have produced evidenee from thescriptures
that the Father does nothing without the Son, bccause all things were madę
through him; and that what has been madę is not govemed without the Son,
bccause he is the wisdom of the Father, reaching from end to end mightily, and
managing all things sweetly. Now you tell me, apparently speaking against
yourself, that the Son, not the Father, was bom of the virgin; the Son, not the
Father, suffered; the Son rosę again, not the Father. So either admit that the Son
does something without the Father, or else admit that the Father too was bom,
suffered, died, rosę again. Say one thing or the other; choose one of the two." I,
for my part, won’t choose either. I won‘l say either one thing or the other; I
won't say that the Son does anything without the Father, because if 1 do I shall
be lying; and I won't say either that the Father was bom, suffered, rosę again,
bccause if I do I shall bc lying just as much. “How then," he says, “will you get
yourself out of this comer?"

The birth of the Son of Mary was the wórk uf both Father and Son

8. So you like the way the problem is set, do you? May God ensure that you
also like the way it's solved. Herc then is what I say, so that the Lord may rescue
both mc and you from this comer. After all, we stand together in one and the
same faith in the name of Christ, and we live in one and the same house under
one and the same Lord, and under one and the same head we are members
together in one and the same body, and we are quickened or animated by one
and the same Spirit. So in order that the Lord may set us free from the dilemma
of this vcry troublesome question, both me the speaker and you the audicnce,
this is what I say: the Son indeed, and not the Father, was bom of the Virgin
Mary; but this birth of the Son, not the Father, from the Virgin Mary was the
54 SAINT A UGUST1NE - SEKMONS

work of both Father and Son. It was not indeed the Father, but the Son who
suffered; yet the suffering of the Son was the work of both Father and Son. It
wasn’t the Father who rosę again, but the Son; yet the rcsurrection of the Son
was the work of both Father and Son.
Now we seem to have rid ourselves of this problem, but perhaps only through
my formulation; let's sec if it’s also through the divine formulation of the matter.
It is up to me then to demonstrate by the evidence of the holy books that the
birth of the Son was the work of both Father and Son, likewise his passion and
resurrection; so that while it is indeed the birth and passion and resurrection of
the Son alone, nonetheless thesc three things, while belonging to the Son alone,
were not brought about by the Father alone or by the Son alone, but by the Father
to be surę, and by the Son. Let us prove each point. You are listening as judges;12
the case has been stated, let the witnesses step forward. Let’s suppose you, the
justices, say to me what is usually said to pleaders, “Bring the proofs of your
proposition." 1 certainly wiLl, and I will also read out to you the text of the
heavenly law. You havc listened carefully to my statement of the case; listen
cvcn morę carefully now to my proof of it.

Acconiing to Paul the birth of the Son hus the work of the Father

9. The first thing I havc to bring proof of concems the birth of Christ, how
the Father effectcd it and the Son effected it, although what Father and Son
effected together belongs only to the Son. 1 refer you first to Paul as a suitable
counsel leamed in divine law. Plaintiffs today, you see, also have a Paul who
declares the laws for litigants, not for Christians.” I refer you, I repeat, to the
Paul who declares the laws of peace, not of Iitigation. Let the holy apostle show
us how the Father brought about the birth of the Son. Bur when the fullness of
time, he says, had come, God sent his Son, madę ofa woman, madę under the
law, to redeem those who were under the law (Gal 4:4-5).14 You have heard it,
and because it is elear and straightforward, you have understood it. There you
have the Father causing the Son to be boni of the virgin. For when the fullness
oftime had come, Godsent his Son, that is, the Father sent Christ. How did he
s*nd hi.m? Madę of a woman, ntarte under the law. So the Father madę him of
a woman under the law.

Christ was barn of a woman, a rirgin

10. Or perhaps you are bothered because I said “of the virgin” and Paul says
“of a woman.” Don’t let it bothcryou; don’t let’s linger on it; I’m not, after all,
speaking to illiterate people.15 You get each thing said in scripture, both “of a
virgin" and ”of a woman.” Of a virgin, how and wherc? Behold, a virgin will
conceive and bear a son (Is 7:14). Of a woman, as you have just heard. They
don’t contrndict each other. Ifs an idiom of the Hebrew language to mean by
“women" not those who have lost their virginity, but just females. You have the
evidencc of a tcxt in Genesis, when Eve was first fashioned: He fashioned her
 SERMON52

into a woman (Gn 2:22). It also says somewhere else in scripture that God
ordcred the women to be set apart who had not known the bed of a man.“ So
that’s something we all ought to know. We mustn't let it hołd us up, so that we
can hnve timc to explain, with the Lord”s help, other things that are morę likely
to do so.

The birth of the Son also madę by the Son

11. So we have proved that the birth of the Son was brought about by the
Father; now let us also prove it was brought about by the Son. What is the birth
of the Son from the Virgin Mary? It is certainly the taking of the form of a slave.”
Now hear that the Son too brought this about: Who, when he was in the form of
God, did not think it robbery to be egual to God. but emptied himself, taking the
form of a slave (Phil 2:6-7). When the fidlness oftime had come. Godsent his
Son madę of a woman (Gal 4:4), who was madę for him of the seed of David
according to the flesh (Rom 1:3). So we sec the birth of the Son madę by the
Father. But because the Son emptied himself, taking the form ofa slave, we see
the birth of the Son also madę by the Son. This has been proved. Lefs pass on
to the next point. Please concentrate on grasping it as it follows in due order.

The Son passion was brought about by the Father and by the Son

12. Let*s prove that the Son’s passion was also brought about by the Father,
and brought about by the Son. Let the Father bring about the Son's passion: Who
did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all (Rom 8:32). Let the Son
too bring about his own passion: Who lovedme andgave himselfup for me (Gal
2:20). The Father gave up the Son, the Son gave up himself. This passion
happened to one of them, but was brought about by both. Just like his birth, so
too the passion of Christ was not the work of the Father without the Son, nor of
the Son without the Father. The Father handed over the Son, the Son handed
over himself. What had Judas got to do with it, apart from the sin?1’ Let's pass
on again to the next point; let’s come to the resurrection.

The resurrection of the Son brought about by both Father and Son

13. Let's see the Son indeed, and not the Father, rising again, but the resur­
rection of the Son brought about by both Father and Son. Let the Father achieve
the Son's resurrection: Therefore he exalted him from the deadfr and bestowed
on him the name which is above every name (Phil 2:9). So the Father raised up
the Son by exnlting him and waking him from the dead. Doesn't the Son also
raise himself up? Of course he does. He said of the tempie, as representing his
body, Puli down this tempie, and in three days I will raise it up (Jn 2:19). Finally,
just as it belongs to his passion to lay down his life, so it belongs to his
resurrection to take it up again; so let’s see if the Son indeed laid down his life
and the Father, not he himself, gave him back his life. That the Father did give
56 SAINT A UGUSTtNE - SERMONS

it back to him is obvious; that’s what the psalm is talking about when it says,
And raise me up and I will repay them (Ps 41:10). But that the Son also gavc
himself back his own life—well, what are you expecting from me? Let him tell
you himself. I have power to lay down my life—l haven’t yet said what I
promised, 1 just said lay down, but you have already cried out, because you are
flying on ahead. You are well taught in the school of the heavenly master; like
pcople who listen carefully to the readings and dcvoutly repeat them, you are
not unaware of what follows. I have power, he says, to lay down my life, and I
have power to take it up again. Nohody takes itfrom me, hut I myselflay it down
ofmy own accord, and l take it up again (Jn 10:18).

Summary

14.1've carried out my promise; I have proved my propositions, I think, with

the strongest documentary evidence. Hołd on to what you have heard. I shall
repeat it briefly, and so commcnd to your minds’ safe keeping something that
is in my humble opinion exceedingly useful. The Father wasn't bom of the
virgin, and yet this birth of the Son from the virgin was the work of both Father
and Son. The Father did not suffer on the cross, and yet the passion of the Son
was the work of both Father and Son. The Father did not rise again from the
dead, and yet the resurrection of the Son was the work of both Father and Son.
You have the persons quitc distinct, and their working inseparable. So let us
never say that the Father worked anything without the Son, the Son anything
without the Father. Or perhaps you are worried about the miracles Jesus did, in
case perhaps he did somc which the Father didn‘t do? Then what about But the
Father abiding in me does his works (Jn 14:10)? What I have said is plain
enough, it only needed to be said. We don’t have to work at understanding it,
only to take care to remind ourselves of it.

The godhead is quite beyond materiał localization

15. There’s still something else I want to say, for which I really do require
botliyotrrkeenes’ altentk-n andy urintcrcesr.?::: \rithGod. Well then, it’sonly
bodies that are contained by and occupy local space. The godhead is quite
beyond materiał localization. No one should go looking for it.sotosay, in space.
It is present every where, invisible and inseparable; not morę in one part, less in
another, but everywhere whole, nowhere divided. Who can see this, who can
grasp it? Let us be modest in our aims; let us remember who we are that are
talking and what we are talking about. This and that, whatevcr it is that God is,
must be believed with piety, reflected on in a holy manner, and as far as possible,
as much as is granted us, it must be understood in a way beyond telling. Let
words be stilled, the longue cease from wagging; let the heart be stirred, the
heart be lifted up to the mystery. That, you sec, is not something that can rise
up into the heart of man,20 but something to which the heart of man should rise
up. Let us take a look at creation: For his invisible things are to be observed.
 SERMON 52 57

being understood from the creation of the world through the things that have
been madę (Rom 1:20); just in case, in the things God has madę, which we are
used to and on familiar terms with, we may perhaps find some likeness, through
which to show how there can be three somethings, three that can be separately
prcsented but that operate inseparably.

The creator is so far ahove us

16. Hey, brothers, I want your whole minds, your total concentration. First
see what it is I am proposing; perhaps 1 may find it in the created sphere, because
the creator himself is so far above us. And perhaps someone here, across whose
mind the brilliance of the truth has flashed likc lightning, perhaps someone here
is in a position to say those words, As for me, 1 said in my ecstasy—what did
you say in your ecstasy? I am cast out from the sight ofyour eyes (Ps 31:22).
Weil, the person who said this seems to me to have lifted his soul up to God, to
have poured out his soul above himself while it was said to him cvery day, Where
isyour Cod? (Ps 42:4.3) and to have come into a kind of spiritual contact with
that unchanging light; then, so it seems to me, bcing too wcak in the sensc of
sight to be able to bear that brilliance, he fell back into his own sick and sorry
condition, and began comparing himself with that light, and realized that he still
could not adjust the lens of his mind to the light of God’s wisdom. And because
he had done this in an ecstasy, bcing snatched away from bodily consciousness
and snatched up to God, he said on bcing fetched back somehow from God to
the human levcl, “As for me, I said in my ecstasy—for I saw something in-
describablc in ecstasy, which I couldn’t cndure for long; and on bcing retumed
to this mortal coil and the many thoughts of mortals arising from the body which
weighs down the soul,211 said—what? I am cast out from the sight of your eyes.
You are far, far above, I am far, far below.”
So what are we to say, brothers, about God? For if you havc fully grasped
what you want to say, it isn’t God. If you havc been able to comprchcnd it, you
have comprehended something clsc instead of God. If you think you have been
able to comprehend, your thoughts havc deceived you. So he isn’t this, if this is
what you haveunderstOQ(J;bm if he is this. then. you hwcift undttmtocd it. So
what is it you want to say, seeing you haven't been able to understand it?22

Seareh for the likeness of God in yourself

17. Let's see, then, if we can't find something in creation. by which to show
that there are three somethings which can both be separately presentcd and also
operate inseparably. What shall we tum to? The sky, to discuss the sun and the
moon and the stars? Or the carth, to investigate, perhaps, shrubs and trees and
animals that fili the carth? Or shall wc investigatc the sky itself, or the earth
itself, which contains everythirig to be found in heaven and on earth?
How long, O man, are you going to go round and round creation? Come back
to yourself, look at yourself, inspcct yourself, discuss yourself. You are looking
58 SAINTA UGUST1NE - SERMONS

in creation for threc somethings which can be pointed out separately and which
work inscparably. If you are looking for them in creation, first look in yourself.
After all you can’t say you are not a creature. You are looking for a likeness.
Are you going to look for it in animals? You were talking about Ood, remember,
when you were looking for some kind of likeness, you were talking about the
three persons of that inexpressible majesty; and because you failed at the divine
level, you confessed your weakness with a becoming humility, and came down
to the human level. lnvcstigate the problem there. Are you going to scarch
among animals? Are you going to search in the sun, in a star? Which of thesc,
I ask you, was madę after the image and likeness of God? You can look for
something altogether morę familiar and better than these in yourself. Ifs man,
you see, that God madę after his image and likeness.13 Search in yourself—per-
haps the image of the Trinity may hołd some tracę of the Trinity.54 And what
kind of image? A manufactured one and very remote, though even a very remote
image is a likeness. But not in the way the Son is the image and exactly the same
as the Father.53 Your image in your son, after all, is rather different from your
image in the minor. Very different, in fact. In your son, your image is yourself,
sińce your son is the same as you are in naturę; in substance he's the same as
you, in person he is other than you. So then man is not the image in the same
way as the only-bcgotten Son is, but he is madę after a certain image and after
a certain likeness. Let him scarch in himself for something, if he can possibly
find it, indeed for threc somethings that are separately stated and that work
inseparably. I wili search, you search with me; not I in you and you in me, but
you in you and I in me. Let us search in common, and in common study our
common naturę and substance.

One mul, imane uf God

18. Obscrve, man, and see if what I say is true. Have you got a body, have
you got flesh? “I have," you say. “How else is it, after all, that I am in a place,
that I move from place to place? How else do I hear the words you speak, bul
with ears of flesh? How else do I see the mouth you speak with, but eyes of
rlesh?" Sojou’ve got it, weare il ngieed, d w&.wdrft Ungerlongeror;such,
an obvious matter.
Now observe something else; observe what is acting through the flesh. You
hear with your ear, but hearing doesn’t come from your ear, there’s another
inside who hears through the ear. You sec through your eyes; well just look at
them. Have you acknowledged the house and ignored the householder? Do the
eyes see by themselves? Isn‘t there another who sces with them? l'm not just
saying the eyes of a dead person don‘t see, where it’s agreed that the householder
has departed from the body; but it's a fact that the eyes of someone who's
thinking deeply about another matter don*t see the face of someone who’s
present.
So tum your eyes to the person within. That is where some kind of likeness
is rather to be looked for of three somethings that can be indicatcd separately
 SERMON52_______ ______ 59

but operate inseparably. What has your mind got in it?“ No doubt, if I look
thoroughly, I will find many things. But there is something rcady to hand which
can be morę easily understood. What has your soul got inside? I will rcmind
you, you musi recollect. I am not requiring you just to bclieve what I am about
to say; don't accept anything I say unless you find it in yoursclf. So take a look
at yourself.
But first—this is something I had overlooked—let us see whether man is the
image, not of the Son alone or the Father alone, but of the Father and the Son
together, and also of coursc in consequence of the Holy Spirit too. Genesis is
speaking: Let us make man, it says, after our image and Hkeness (Gn 1:26). So
the Father isn’t making without the Son, nor the Son without the Father. Let us
make man after our image and likeness. “Let us make,” not “let me make," or
“make," or “let him make," but “let us make.” “After our image," not yours or
minę, but ours.

The likeness of the Trinity in man

19. So, I begin the interrogation—and I am talking of something that is in

fact unlike God. No one has any business to say, “Look what he’s comparing
God to." I have already said it, and said it again, and I've wamed you, and Fve
wamed mysclf: these things are very, very remote—the lowest from the highest,
changeable from unchanging, created things from thosc that create, human
things from divinc. Take notę, I begin by insisting that what I am going to say
is very, very remote from God. Nobody has any right to slander me. So in case
somcone is sharpening his tecth, while all Fm asking for is ears, this is what I
have promised to show you: some three things indicated separately, operating
inseparably. How likc or unlike these things are to the omnipotent Trinity I am
not now considering but at this lowest and changeable created level we can find
three sotnelhings which can be indicated separately and which operate in­
separably.
Oh, how pedestrinn can your imagination be, how obstinate and unbelieving
can you get in your prejudices! Why do you hesitate to allow in that inexpres-
sible majesty of the godhead what you have been able to disewer in yoHree!£?J’*
This is what I am saying, this is my question: Man, have you got memory? If
you havcn’t, how have you retained what I have been saying? But perhaps you
have already forgotten what I said just now. All right then, take just this that 1
say: “I said," two syllables which you could only retain through memory. After
all, how could you know there are two of them if you had forgotten the first
while the second was being uttered? So why wasle any morę timc? Why am I
being chiwied and harried in this way to convince you of the obvious?“ It’s as
plain as a pikestaff, you havc got memory.
Another question: have you gol understanding? “I have," you say. If you
didn’t have memory, you wouldn't retain what I have said; if you didn’t have
understanding, you wouldn’t be able to assess what you have retained. So you
have got this too. You apply your understanding to what you retain inside you,
60 SAINT AUGUSTINE - SERMONS

and you see it, and by sccing it you are formed by it, so that you can be said to
know it.2*
Thirdquestion: You've got memory, by which you retain what is said; you’vc
got understanding, by which you understand what is retained; about these two
I ask you a furthcr question: Havc you been willing to retain and understand?
“I’ve certainly been willing," you say. So then, you have got will. These are the
three things which I promjsed 1 would declare in your hearing and to your minds;
these three which are in you, which you can count distinctly, and which you
cannot separate. So these three, memory, understanding and will; notice, I say,
that these three are uttered separately, but operate inseparably.

Memory, understanding, and will

20. The Lord will be on hand to help; indeed I see he is on hand, from your
understanding I understand that he is standing by. I infer from your voices, you
see, how well you have understood; and I presume that he is the one who helps
you to understand cverything. I promised to show you three things indicated
separately, operating inseparably. There you are; I had no idea what you had in
mind; you showed me by saying "Memory." This word, this sound, this Ut-
terance proceedcd to my ears from your mind. You were silenlly thinking about
this thing that is memory, you wcren‘t saying anything. It was in you, it hadn’t
yet come to me. Then in order to present me with what was in you, you spokc
that word, “memory." I heard it, I heard the three syllables of the noun
“memory."30 It’s a noun of three syllables, an utterance; it was pronounced, it
reached my car, it suggested something to my mind. What was pronounced has
faded away, what was suggested, and what suggested it remains.’1
But the point I am now inquiring about is this: when you spoke the word
“memory,” you can sec, clearly, that this word is proper only to memory. The
other two things havc their own names, one being called understanding, not
memory, the other being called will, not memory; it's only the third one that is
called memory. But in order to say this, in order to operate or make these three
syllables, what were you operating with? This word, which belongs to memory
alone, was the work in you both of memory, for you to retain what you were
sayjng^rndof understanding, for you to know what you were retgining, and of.
will, for you to utter what you were knowing.
Thanks be to the Lord our God! He has hclpcd us, both in me and in you.
Really and truły, I’m te]ling your graces, I undertook to discuss this matter and
put it across with the greatest trepidation; I was afraid, you see, that I might
delight the wit of the clever, and borę the less clever to tears. But now I can see
that you have not only grasped what I have said, listening so attentively and
understanding so readily, but you have also flown ahead of what I was going to
say. The Lord be thanked.
 SERMON 52 61

Memory, understanding, and will and the mystery of the Trinity

21. So now you can sce that I have no worries about making a suggcstion
that you have already undcrstood. I am not drumming something unknown into
you, but repeating a suggcstion you have already grasped. Herc it is thcn: of
thosc three things one was named, the name of only one of them was mentioned;
“memory" is the name of just one of thosc three. And yet all three wcre in
operation to produce the name of one of the three. The single word “memory”
couldn't be pronounced without will, undcrstanding and memory all operating.
The single word “understanding” can‘t be pronounced without memory, will
and understanding all operating. Nor can the single word “will” be pronounced
without memory and understanding and will all operating.
So I think I have explained what I proposed. What I have scparately
pronounced, I have inscparably operated. All three produced just one of these
names; and yet this one name which all three havc produced docsn’t belong to
all three but only to one of them. All three produced the name “memory,” but
the only one of them it belongs to is the memory. All three produced the name
“understanding," but the only one of them it belongs to is the understanding.
All three produced the name “will," but the only one of them it belongs to is the
will.
So too, the Trinity produced the flesh of Christ, but the only one of them it
belongs to is Christ. The Trinity produced the dove from the sky, but the only
one of them it belongs to is the Holy Spirit. The Trinity produced the voice from
heaven, but the only one of them the voice belongs to is the Father.

Memory, understanding, and will in relation to Father, Son. and Holy Spirit

22. So let nonę of you say to me, nonę of you try to bully or trick poor feeble
me with the question, “So which of these three, which you have pointed out to
us in our minds or souls, which of these three belongs to the Father, that is to
some sort of likeness of the Father, which of them to some sort of likeness of
the Son, which to some sort of likeness of the Holy Spirit?" I can’t tell you, I
can't explain. Let’ś leave something as well to people’s reflcctions, Icfs
. gencrously al'r. v scuiethiitgfcls?! tb silcńcc. Return to yourself, w ithdra w from
all the din. Look inside yourself and see if you have there any pleasant private
nook in your consciousness where you don't make a row, where you don‘t go
to law, where you don’t prepare yourcase, where you don't broodon pigheadcd
quarrels. Be gentle in hearing the word, in order to understand. Perhaps you will
be able to say, You will give exultation and joy to my hearing, and bones will
rejoice, but ones that have been humhled (Ps 51:8), not “madę proud.”

Three but one

23. Its enough then that we havc been able to show three things which are
indicated separately but operate inseparably. If you have found this in yourself,
62 _____________ SAINT A UG USUNĘ - SERMONS

if you have found it in man, in any person walking the face of the earth, still
carrying around a fragile body which weighs down the soul;32 then believe that
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit can both be separately indicated by
ccrtain visible signs and certain created appearances taken over for the occasion,
and also that they operatc inseparably, Thafs enough for now.
I don’t say mcmory is the Father, understanding is the Son, will is the Spirit.
I don't say it, however it may be understood, Idon't darc to. Let's reservc these
greater matters for those who can grasp them; for the weak, as one of them, I
havc done what I can. I havcn’t introduced these three things as though they
were to be equated to that di vine triad, as though they were to be marshaled into
an analogy, that is to say into a strict comparison. I don’t mean that.
What do I mean, then? Look, I've found three things in you, indicated
separately, operating inseparably; and each one of those three has a name
produced by the three; but it doesn't belong to the three, only to one of them.
So now believe the same about that three which you cannot see, if you have
heard and seen and grasped it about this three. What’s in you, after all, you can
know. When will you ever be able to know what is in the one who madę you,
whatever that may be? Even if you will be able to, you certainly can't now. And
yet, when you are able to, do you thinkyou will be able to know God in the same
way as God knows himself? So let that be enough for your graces. I have said
what I could; I have kept the promisc you were cxacting from mc. Whatcver
morę needs to be added, well you must ask the Lord to perfect and complete
your understanding.

NOTES

I. The sermon is actuully on one of the implications for trinitarian doctrine of the story of the
haptism of Jesus, Ml 3:16-17. The problem is that in that scene each of the divine persona is
manifested separately bv a scpanile sign. the Son by the man Jesus himself, the Holy Spirit by the
£xnr ufa dove,.»nd 'Jv? Father hy the vnico from ho^ycn; and yet it ^cardinal point of trinitarian
doctrine that the three divine persons work inseparably ad estra, that is to say in the created sphere
we cannot aay that the Father does sonie things. the Son other things, and the Holy Spirit different
things again.
The point is diseussed, very bricfly, in The Triniry IV, 21, 30, and raiscd, but hardly diseussed
at the beginning of (hal work, 1,5,8. Though in this last passage Augustine says that people weary
him with questions on this particular point, it is not in fact one (Jut he devotes much altention to in
his magistcrial work on the Trinity. He ilcals with this again in Lctlcr 169,2,6, wrillcn to his friend
and colleague Evodius (but it is a slightly huffy letterl) toward the end of the year 415. Both herc
and in The Trinity IV he uses the same illustralion of mcmory, nnderstanding and will to make his
point.
Does this connection with other Augustinian texts help us to datę this sermon? Before answering,
we must notę (hal in one instance what Augustine says herc does not accord with a major Ihcme of
his The Trinity. In the closingscction of the sermon lic says unequivocally, "I don't say mcmory is
the Father, understanding is the Son, will is the Spirit. I don’t say it... 1 don't dare to." He is clearly
 SERMON 52

thinking il, bul hc is vcry hesitant about it. Now in the last books of The Trinity, books IX, X and
XI espccially, he vcry definitely and (!efinitively does say jusl that; hc uscs the mcnlal triad as a
very elear in<xlel or analogy for the divine triad—of coursc with all the neccssary rescrvatiuns that
he touchcs on here, and states morę prccisely in his lelter to Evodius.
Now while in The Trinity he is using Ihe mcntal triad, and in particular the relationships between
thesc three mcntal octs to cast light on the pr<x:essions of the divinc pcrsons, and not to solve the
problem of combining their distinctncss with the inseparahility of thcir actions as here, could he
havc said what hc says herc at the conclusion of his sermon aficr writing thosc books of The Trinity?
1 find it bard to believe that hc could.
The Trinity was a work that took him a long timc to writc and was oftcn intctrupted, as indeed
he says in Lelter 169. That letlcr, as we havc scen, was written in 415 (this is the datę given by the
Maurists). Now in Lelter 174 to Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, Augustine says hc is sending his
colleague the complcte work, but complains that because hc had becn so slow about it, sotne irn-
patient friends had got hołd of an incomplclc tcxt and published it (that is to say, had it copied)
without his permission. This inconiplete test went up to the first two thirds or so of book XII—so
it conlaincd the books in which he develops the analogy of memory, understanding, and will repre-
senting Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This pirating of his incomplete texl had clearly not taken place
when hc wrote to Evodius in 415. But the lelter to Aurelius, according to the Maurists, was written
tn 4 Ib. I am inclined to think that is loo early a data, because in the lelter Augustine says he gavc
up work on the project when he discovered what had happened, and only completed it (writing books
Xm, XIV and XV) at the cxpress request of Aurelius—and all that would Itace covercd u much
longer period dian a year.
Nonethcless, I think we nuty tcntatively infer Ihat when he wrote to Ev<xlius, he had already gol
two thirds of Ute way through book XII of The Trinity, and stopped there under the pressure of other
demands on him. If that is so, this sermon would havc been preachcd quitc a long limę before 415.
The rnajority of the scholars in fact dato it to 410-412, while one puls it as lale as 419-420. For the
reasons givcn, I cast my vote with the rnajority.
The scholars make no suggestions about the place. Bul in notę 15 bclow I give reasons for
thinking thut it was probably preachcd at home in Hippo.
2. Caritaiem vestram. This is now my definilive translation of this honorific address.
3. In trinitate. The word trinitas simply mcans threeness or a threesome. Of coursc it also mcans
"the Trinity." But “the Trinity" in English is a special religious word, anolher word for God in a
special context. And that is not how Augustine is using it, for the most part, in this sermon. Hc uscs
it to refer to the element of threeness in the divinc mystery. So 1 will rarely translate it by "Trinity."
The Latin text givcs it here. I think incorrectly, a capital T.
4. Sec Phil 2:7.
5. Reading vera with the text (Maurists) instead of vestrn, "your faith," widi RB.
6. Sce Acta 15:9.
7. The text does not read altogethcr grummatically here: et i/uasi aperientes sinum, donet ipse
unde quod aperuistis impleanr. Ute first phnisc is hanging in the air, Six mjnuscripts b«veri^nriant,
changing aperientes into the imperative aperite, parafie! to Orate, "pray"; then donet etc. would be
a separale scntence. I suggesl cmcnding er to ur, which would then govem /lunet. Il still lcaves
aperientessinum a littlc ungrnmmatical (it should be an ablative absolutc), but rather more satisfac-
torily containcd in the scntencc. The mcaning is the same. You open your lap by spreading your
knees (you are wearing a lunie, and possibly a long gown, not tmusers) so as to catch more in the
skirts of your garment.
8. See 1 Cor 1:24.
9. Sce Ps 116:10.
10. Meaning “Falhcr-suffcred-ites." Thcy are more cotnmonly known as Sabellians, from SabeF
lius their alleged originator of whom nothing is really known; or as M<xlalists, because dtcy treat
the three as no more dian three modes or masks of the one, single divine bcing. Thcy came to the
fore about 200 AD, and were vigorously opposcd by Tcrtullian in his trealisc Adversus Pnueam.
In the following ccntury sonie of Ihe opponents of Arius and allies of the greal Athanasius were
accuscd of being such, and condemned for it.
64 SAINTAUGUSTINE - SERMONS

11. Thal is, the communion of the Catholic failhful. He is clearly echoing the Apostles' Creed;
it scems certain that by “saints" herc he is not thinking primari ly of the saints in heaven, but of "the
holy people of God.” which is the primary scnse of tlie expression in the creed.
12. See Sermon 23:1, notes 5 and 7.
13. Augustine may havc becn refcrring 10 an eminent Roman jurist of the third century, Julius
Paulus. This is the most likcly way of taking the passage. On tlić other hand, he may have becn
alluding to the litigants who morę and morę iii his day bmughl thcir cascs to the bishop for adjudica-
tion thus imposing a burden on him, and his collcagues, that he pcrsonally found extrcmely irksomc,
but wasn‘t able to refusc. I suppose such litigants in the bishop’s court may have quotcd Paul the
a posilę in support of their cascs, espccially, perhaps, marriage cases. Sec, for cxamplc, 1 Cor 6:1-6,
also 7:1-16.
14. The word ”made" sounds rather odd; it reprcsents the rather crabbed Lalin translalion of the
Greek, which RSV translales “bom.”
15. This gives us some idea of the occasion on which the sermon was preached. It was clearly
not at a Sunday Mass for the whole coinmunity, where many of ibc congregation, perhaps most,
would be illiterate. So it would probably havc becn at some wcckday scrvice, orscrvicc for some
spccial group of the devoul—some kind of house Mass perhaps? Now would Augustine hołd such
a scrvice ouLside his own local Church? At Carthage he certainly might havc donc so, by invitation.
Bul there is no suggestion of an invitalion here. So I read this passage as implying that the sermon
was probably preached in Hippo.
16. See Nin 31:17-18; Jgs 21:11, In fact these texts go against him; he introduccs the negative.
But tho Vulgate tcxts distinguish betwecn mulieres who had known the bed of a man, and feminae
puellae or uirgiiunt who had not. Perhaps in Nm 31:18 his text had mulieres where the Yulgatc has
feminae.
17. The Maurists add “in the virgin's womb.”
18. In Latin (and Greek) it is the same word which 1 have succcssively translaled “give up" and
“hand over," that is also uscd for Judas bclraying Jesus—(rado. Thal is why Judas is brought in here.
From this same word, we should obscrve, comcs the idea of tradition—handing on from one genera-
tion to another.
19. “From the dead“ omitted by the Maurists.
20. Sec I Cor 2:9, litcrally translated.
21. Sec Wis 14:15.
22. Before coming to his proposal—to try and understand something of the Trinity in a creatcd
likeness—he puls in this very important caveat against supposing we can understand anything at all
about Ood directly and unicocally. He was quitc as committed to a ncgalivc or “apophatic” theology
which says what God is not instead of what he is—as any of the Greek Fathers. Compare also what
Thomas Aquinas says in his Summa Theologiae la, q. 3, prologue.
23. Sec Gn 1:26.
24. This is a different usc of the words “image" and 'tracę" (imaga and vestigium) from tlie one
we lind in The Trinity. itae his usc of the tcims is Icnar and lid hdc, but thfc tracę scems to be an
extra qualily of the image, ensuring ils gcnuinc likeness. In The Triniry on the other hand traces or
vestigia are to be found throughout the materia! creation, and thcir likeness to the original or ex-
cmplar is far more remote than that of the image, which is only to be found in the hurnan (and
angclic) mind. Perhaps this is just one morę indication that this sermon was preached well before
the rclevant books of The Trinity (IX to XI) were composed.
25. Herc I follow the Maurists, as rcproduced by Mignę, in treating “Son" and “Father" as
referring to the divine persona, by giving them capitals. The text of the Italian edition gives them
lower casc first letters, treating this sentence as a generał remark about sons and fathers such as he
goes on to make. If you prefer that, you will translate “a son" and “a father" instead of "the Son”
and "the Father." I do not think it makes such good scnse.
26. Saint Augustine locatcs the divine image in man in the mind, not as the łater, decadcnt,
catechetical tradition has it, in the soul. Truć, hc doesn't always usc these words slrictly; but gcncral-
ly for him the soul is the animating principia which is active in the bodily senses and appetites, and
so Augustine is quitc ready to talk about the souls of animals or planLs. The mind on the other hand
 __________ SERMON52______________________65

(mens ot animus, as distinct from anima, soul), is the esscntially non-bodily or spiritual element in
man.
27. That is, three things that operate inseparably, while they are separately indicated, and thus
rcally distinct.
28. He is acting this out, of course, in the pulpit, prctcnding to be pcstered by silly questions.
29. In his view (the commonplace of ancient philosophy, shared by all schools) the inlcllect is
formed by its object, the lliing known, just as the senscs are by their ohjects; i.e. it rcccives an
impression from its objcct as wax receives an impression from a scal or signet ring; it is "shapcd"
by its object.
30. In Latin, the four syllables of memoria.
31. What was suggested: the meaning or idea in my mind; what suggestcd it: the meaning or
idea in youts.
32. Sec Wis 9:5.