Dist. 31, 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/31/q/bon-sent-I-d31-p1-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### Articulus Unicus. *On the names "like" and "equal."*
### Question I. *Whether equality and likeness are said of God positively or privatively.*

That they are said by way of privation is shown:

1. By the authority of the Master in the text: "It seems to some that by the name of equality and likeness nothing is posited but [something is] removed, so that the Son is said to be equal to the Father because he is neither greater nor less than he."

2. Likewise, this can be proved thus: Euclid defines *equal* thus: "The equal is what, when applied to another, neither exceeds nor is exceeded": therefore since this definition is given by way of privation, it is clear etc.

3. Likewise, *equal* and *like* express not only unity but also diversity; but diversity is not to be posited in the divine: therefore these names are said not by way of position, but by way of privation.

4. Likewise, *equal*, insofar as it expresses position, expresses commensuration; but in the divine there is no commensuration nor excess: therefore they are said by way of privation of excess, not by way of position.

**On the contrary:**

1. Likeness and equality among lower things are said positively; but these are more completely in God, since, as Augustine says, in the Son is first found the account of likeness and equality: therefore much more strongly do they express position in God.

2. Likewise, every negation that is not a pure negation is founded upon position: therefore since this which I call *equal* imports a removal of excess and does not import a pure negation — for then a chimaera would be equal to God — it must be that it imports position.

3. Likewise, this is false: "the Father and the Son are unequal": therefore that which is *unequal* deprives [the Father and Son] of something that is in God; but this is nothing other than what is imported by *equality*: therefore *equality* posits something, because if its opposite deprives, it is necessary that it itself posits.

4. Likewise, the heretics call this false: "the Father is equal to the Son" — therefore either because something is posited, or because something is removed. Not because something is removed, since they call this true: "the Father is unequal," which removes: therefore [it must be] because something is posited, therefore etc. — And each of these reasons is founded upon the opposition of *unequal* to *equal*. For if *equal* and *unequal* were taken privatively, then, since they are opposites, they would [equally] be taken positively.

### Conclusion.

> *Equality and likeness are not said of God privatively, but positively.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, according to what is intimated in the text and what the ancient doctors say, the position of the Master was that names which do not express a personal property or unity of essence are taken privatively. Hence, since *like* and *equal* express the relation of the Father to the Son, and that relation is neither a personal property nor essence, he wished to hold that all such [names] are said by way of privation, just as *two*, *three*, *like* and *equal* and similar [terms]. — Yet this position cannot stand, as was proved above concerning the unity and plurality of the divine names. For if in the divine there is unity positively and plurality, and these two make likeness and equality, it is necessary that these be taken positively in the divine. And the reasons adduced for this are to be conceded.

**To the arguments on the affirmative side:**

*2.* To that which is objected, that the equal is that which does not exceed; it must be said that beneath that negation lies an affirmation and a position, which is signified through the privation of its opposite, namely excess.

*3.* To that which is objected, that there is no diversity in the divine; it must be said that they indicate no diversity except of supposit, not of form in itself; and since in the divine there is a plurality of supposits, it is clear etc.

*4.* To that which is objected, that insofar as they are said positively, they express commensuration; it must be said that in the divine there is no commensuration absolutely, but nevertheless there is commensuration with respect to the infinite, and this does not posit commensuration absolutely.

Otherwise it can be said that *equal* and *like*, by [their] nature, in their primary understanding posit a unity of quantity and quality; but that *equal* posits commensuration is because that quantity is measured. Since therefore in the divine [the quantity] is immense, [*equal*] there expresses an agreement in the quantity of power, although it does not posit commensuration there.