Dist. 19, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3
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-q3
----------------------------------------
### QUESTION III.

#### *Whether the equality of the divine persons is reciprocal.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether in divine matters there is equality with convertibility. And that there is not, seems [to be shown] in this manner.

1. Chrysostom on that text to the Hebrews 1: *Who, since he is the splendor* etc.: «The Son is equal to the Father, [but] not the Father to the Son».

2. Likewise, Hilary: «An image, if it perfectly fulfils that of which it is itself [the image], is coequated to it, not it to its [image]».

3. Likewise, Augustine in the first book *On Christian Doctrine*: «In the Father is unity, in the Son equality»: therefore it seems that the Father is not equal to the Son as the Son [is equal] to the Father.

4. Likewise, Dionysius: «In causes and things caused we do not admit reciprocation»; but the Father is the principle of the Son: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. Every relative of equiparance denominates its extremes according to a like manner; but equality is a relation of equiparance: therefore there is a like reciprocation.

2. Likewise, oneness in quantity makes equality; but just as the Son is one with the Father, so the Father [is] one with the Son with respect to substance and quantity: therefore just as the Son is equal to the Father, so the Father [is equal] to the Son: therefore there is reciprocation there.

3. Likewise, mutual and reciprocated equality is greater than equality not reciprocated: therefore if in divine matters there is the highest equality, it is plain etc.

4. Likewise, every quantum compared to a quantum either is greater, or less, or equal; but the Father is a quantum in power, and likewise the Son: therefore either the Father is greater in power than the Son, or less, or equal; but not greater or less: therefore equal.

### CONCLUSION.

> The relation of equality in divine matters is reciprocal; but the act of coequation is not said of the Father with respect to the Son.

**I respond:** It must be said that equality is there with convertibility, not only because they are *divine*, but also because equality from its own account expresses reciprocation insofar as it is equality. And according to this it must be believed that the Father is equal to the Son and the Son to the Father.

And for the understanding of the objections it must be noted that there is a twofold way of speaking of equality: either as it expresses the regard of equiparance, or as beyond the regard it concerns the act of coequation. Insofar as it expresses the regard of equiparance, as the reasons show, it is necessary that there be reciprocation there; but insofar as it further concerns the act of coequation, it then expresses the account of imitation: and thus it does not belong to the Father with respect to the Son, because it would imply a sub-authority in the Father. Hence the Father is not said to be coequated to the Son, because he does not imitate the Son either perfectly or imperfectly. And it is similar, if it be said: *this [is] with that*. For it can be understood in two ways: either as it expresses a conjunction of two; and thus of necessity it is taken according to convertibility; for if this one goes with that one, it is necessary also that the converse be true. In another way *this with that* expresses association, and thus a certain sub-authority in the one associating; and thus it is said that the soldier goes with the king, not the converse, because the soldier associates the king, not the converse. The like is to be understood concerning equality.

**To 1, 2, 3, 4.** And from these the authorities of the Saints are clear, because they speak of equality in the second way, except that of Dionysius, to which it must be responded that it has no place in our proposition, because Dionysius speaks properly of cause, according as that is called cause whose being some other follows, and thus it differs by essence from its effect, and in this way it does not occur in God with respect to a person.