Contemporary Edwards scholars frequently use the threeness – oneness paradigm to interpret his trinitarianism. The threeness – oneness paradigm maintains that the trinitarian traditions and particular theologians within the traditions reduce to an emphasis on either divine unity/substance or plurality/persons. Eastern Cappadocian trinitarianism and Western theologian Richard of St Victor use the social analogy and represent the threeness trajectory. The Western Augustinian tradition uses the psychological analogy and represents the oneness trajectory. Amy Plantinga Pauw's writings are the most thorough interpretations of Edwards's trinitarianism in terms of the threeness – oneness paradigm. She concludes that Edwards employed both the psychological and social models of the trinity. She argues that Edwards's genius lies in his ability to draw on both the psychological and social models of the trinity. In contrast, I maintain that the threeness – oneness paradigm is an overgeneralized understanding of the trinitarian traditions and, as such, unsuitable as a template to interpret Edwards's trinitarianism. Moreover, Edwards did not employ two models of the trinity, but one – the Augustinian mutual love model. Edwards's use of the Augustinian mutual love model reflects his continuity with the dominant Western Augustinian trinitarian tradition and early Enlightenment apologetics for the traditional doctrine of the trinity.