Dist. 19, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/1/d/19/q/bon-sent-I-d19-p1-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### ARTICLE UNIQUE. *On the equality of the divine persons and on its properties.*
### Question I. *Whether equality is to be posited in divine things.*

As to the first [question], that there is equality there, it is shown:

1. First, by what is said in the Creed: «All three persons are coeternal to one another and coequal».

2. Likewise, this very thing is shown by reason thus: every multitude is reduced to unity; therefore every inequality to equality; but the unity from which every multitude [arises] is uncreated unity: therefore also the equality to which every inequality is reduced is uncreated equality: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, everything which is of perfection is to be transferred to divine things: but equality is of perfection in the creature: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, oneness in substance makes identity, oneness in quantity equality, oneness in quality makes likeness; but in divine things there is not only unity in substance, but also in quantity — otherwise there would not be there a perfect unity: therefore there is there not only identity of substance, but also equality.

**On the contrary:** 1. Where there is equality, there is divisibility, since the simple is not made equal to the simple; but in divine things divisibility is not to be posited: therefore neither equality.

2. Likewise, where there is equality, there is quantity, since «it is the property of quantity that according to it [a thing] is called equal or unequal»; but in divine things quantity is not to be posited, since according to Augustine «God is great without quantity»: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, where there is equality, there is finitude, because there is commensuration, therefore measure and finitude; but in divine things there is infinity: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, where there is equality, there is diversity, since nothing is equal to itself; but in divine things there is unity in every mode: therefore there is no equality there.

> **Conclusion.** Equality is to be posited in divine things — [the equality] which follows upon the quantity of virtue [*quantitatem virtutis*].

**I respond:** It must be said that equality is posited in divine things, according to what is said in the Creed, and Augustine says.

And for the understanding of this it must be noted that equal and unequal is a proper accident following upon quantity. But quantity is said in two ways: properly, namely the quantity of mass [*quantitas molis*], and by transference, the quantity of virtue [*quantitas virtutis*]. And because that is a proper accident of quantity, it follows upon both [kinds of] quantity: where therefore one is to posit quantity of virtue, there one is to posit equality or inequality. But this quantity of virtue is posited in spiritual things and is found supremely in divine things, because this quantity is not repugnant to simplicity, but is consonant with it; and likewise neither is the equality which follows upon this quantity. And because the more complete part of the contradiction is to be attributed to God, and equality precedes inequality: therefore equality is to be posited in divine things; and the reasons in favor of this are to be conceded.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected to the contrary, that where there is equality, there is divisibility: it must be said that this is true of the equality which follows upon the quantity of mass.

2. To that which is objected secondly: where there is equality, there is quantity; it must be said that it is true either according to genus, or according to species; and although the name of quantity is not transferred, nevertheless the name of the species is transferred, as *magnitude*.

3. To that which is objected: where there is equality, there is finitude; it must be said that equality in creatures imports two things, namely conterminātion and the privation of excess; the first is of incompletion by reason of limitation, the second of perfection: therefore it is transferred by reason of the second, not of the first.

Yet it could be said that the infinite, which is incomprehensible, in truth is comprehensible by [another] infinite, and is therefore commensurable to [that] infinite and is finite to it. And from this it does not follow: it is commensurable to the infinite, therefore [it is] finite; rather, the more infinite: and there is there a "[finite] in some respect" and "[finite] simply".

4. To that which is objected: where there is equality, there is diversity: it must be said that there is a diversity of supposits and a diversity of form. For equality and likeness, diversity of supposits is required, but not diversity of form, but unity. But [the fact] that in inferior things there follows upon a diversity of supposits a numeration of form or of quantity — this is of imperfection; and therefore the whole, which is of perfection, is transferred into God. Yet there is not, in the supposits properly speaking, diversity, but distinction.