72. But perhaps the word similarity may not seem fully appropriate. If so, I ask how I can express the equality of one Person with the other except by such a word? Or is to be like not the same thing as to be equal? If I say the divine nature is one I am suspected of meaning that it is undifferentiated: if I say the Persons are similar, I mean that I compare what is exactly like. I ask what position equal holds between like and one? I enquire whether it means similarity rather than singularity. Equality does not exist between things unlike, nor does similarity exist in one. What is the difference between those that are similar and those that are equal? Can one equal be distinguished from the other? So those who are equal are not unlike. If then those who are unlike are not equals, what can those who are like be but equals?

72. Vox homoeusion an minus propria.---Sed forte parum proprietatis in se habere similitudo videatur. Hoc si est, quaero quo modo possim alterum ad alium nisi per similitudinem coaequare? Aut 0527C numquid non idem est, esse similes quod aequales? Si unum dico, habet et unici suspicionem: si similem dixero, habet indifferentis comparationem. Inter similem et unum quaero quem locum habeat aequalis: et interrogo utrum similitudinis potius, aut solitudinis res sit. Non est aequalitas in dissimilibus, nec similitudo est intra unum. Aut quid differunt similes, et aequales; ut ab uno iterum discernatur aequalis? Non sunt itaque dissimiles aequales: Et quid aliud possunt esse similes quam aequales, cum in dissimilibus non sit aequalitas?