site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 37, Art. 2, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; the markers here are renumbered continuously across the chunk.

<!-- page 821 -->

### Articulus II. *De mandatis Decalogi quoad distinctionem et ordinem.*

Consequenter quaeritur de mandatis Decalogi quantum ad ordinem et distinctionem. Et circa hoc tria possunt quaeri. Primo quaeritur de ipsorum mandatorum numero et sufficientia, utrum sint decem. Secundo quaeritur de ordine ipsorum ad invicem. Tertio vero quaeritur de numero et ordine in comparatione ad tabularum distinctionem.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum mandata Decalogi debeant esse tantum decem, an plura, an pauciora.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum mandata Decalogi debeant esse tantum decem, an plura, an pauciora. Et quod debeant esse *pauciora*, videtur:

1. Quia ad Romanos decimo tertio[^1] dicitur: *Qui diligit proximum Legem implevit*: ergo in mandato de dilectione proximi tota Lex potest includi: videtur ergo, quod mandata non debeant numero denario multiplicari, cum in paucioribus satis contineantur.

2. Item, super illud ad Romanos septimo[^2]: *Concupiscentiam nesciebam*; Glossa: « Bona est Lex, quae, dum concupiscentiam prohibet, omnia mala prohibet »: si ergo in prohibitione concupiscentiae cetera mala prohibentur, videtur, quod alia mandata superfluunt.

3. Item, quicumque peccat mortaliter, se ipsum occidit[^3]: ergo cum in occisione prohibeatur non tantum homicidium corporale, sed etiam spirituale, non tantum operis, sed etiam voluntatis; videtur, quod in illa prohibitione prohibeantur omnia peccata: ergo superfluunt omnia alia mandata.

4. Item, differentia Legis et Evangelii est, quod Lex prohibeat manum, non animum; Evangelium autem non solum manum, sed etiam animum prohibet[^4]: ergo videtur, quod solummodo deberet prohiberi actus exterior, et non, quod spectaret ad actum interiorem: ergo superfluit mandatum de non concupiscendo. Si tu dicas, quod prohibetur concupiscentia, quae progreditur in opus; *contra* hoc est: quia illa non distinguitur a peccato operis: ergo praeceptum de prohibitione illius concupiscentiae non debet connumerari praecepto de prohibitione operis exterioris.

**Sed contra:** quod debeant esse *plura* quam decem, videtur.

5. Magis sumus debitores Deo quam proximo: ergo plura deberent esse mandata ordinantia ad Deum quam ordinantia ad proximum: ergo cum mandata ordinantia ad proximum sint septem, videtur, quod mandata ordinantia ad Deum sint plura, vel saltem totidem.

6. Item, tantum obligamur ad benefaciendum proximo, quantum obligamur, ut non male faciamus ei[^5]: cum ergo sex sint mandata, secundum quae prohibemur, ne offendamus proximum; videtur, quod saltem sex deberent esse, secundum quae obligaremur et ordinaremur ad benefaciendum; et si hoc, omnia mandata essent saltem quindecim.

7. Item, septem sunt capitalia peccata ita magna, quantum est de natura sua, sicut peccatum avaritiae et luxuriae[^6]: ergo sicut speciale mandatum est, in quo prohibetur avaritia, et in quo prohibetur luxuria; ita speciale mandatum deberet esse ad alia vitia prohibenda, ita quod aliquod esset praeceptum, in quo specialiter prohiberetur superbia, aliquod, in quo invidia, et sic de aliis. Si tu dicas, quod implicite prohibentur in prohibitione concupiscentiae; obiicitur contra hoc, quod tres sunt radices peccatorum, secundum quod dicitur primae Ioannis secundo[^7]: *Concupiscentia oculorum, concupiscentia carnis et superbia vitae*: si ergo concupiscentia carnis et oculorum prohibetur explicite, videtur, quod et superbia vitae deberet habere specialem prohibitionem.

<!-- page 822 -->

8. Item, sicut contingit concupiscere uxorem alienam, et concupiscentiam consummari in opere; sic etiam est reperire circa homicidium et falsum testimonium et circa alia mandata: ergo sicut duo diversa sunt praecepta de concupiscentia uxoris alienae et rei alienae in opere et voluntate; sic deberent alia praecepta duplicari; quod si verum esset, tunc essent plura quam decem.

Est igitur quaestio, quare decem sint et non plura nec pauciora.

### Conclusio.

> Convenienter assignata sunt decem praecepta Decalogi.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod sufficientia et numerus mandatorum sumitur secundum rationem ordinis ipsius iustitiae *generalis*[^8], cuius est hominem ad Deum et ad proximum ordinare; unde quaedam sunt mandata ordinantia hominem ad Deum, quaedam vero ordinantia ad proximum. — Illa vero, quae ordinant hominem ad Deum, dicuntur esse praecepta primae tabulae; et ista sunt tria et non plura nec pauciora. Quorum numerus et sufficientia sumi potest tripliciter, videlicet ex parte *obiecti* et ex parte *subiecti* et ex parte *actus medii*.

Ex parte *obiecti* sic: nam cum in Deo sint tres *personae* et tria *appropriata* et triplex *genus causae*, secundum quod comparatur ad creaturam; triplex est praeceptum, secundum quod creatura rationalis ordinari habet ad Deum. Nam secundum rationem *maiestatis*, quae appropriatur *Patri* et convenit Deo, secundum quod est causa *efficiens* creaturae, ordinatur per illud praeceptum: *Non habebis deos alienos*. — Secundum rationem *veritatis*, quae appropriatur *Filio* et convenit Deo, secundum quod est causa *formalis exemplaris* creaturae, ordinatur per illud: *Non assumes nomen Dei tui in vanum*. — Secundum rationem *bonitatis*, quae appropriatur *Spiritui sancto* et convenit Deo, secundum quod est causa *finalis*, ordinatur per illud: *Memento, ut diem Sabbati sanctifices*; ita quod per illa tria sufficienter homo ordinetur ad Deum, videlicet ut subiaceat summae Maiestati, credat summae Veritati et adhaereat summae Bonitati. Et haec sufficientia sumta est ex parte obiecti[^9].

Secundo modo sumitur sufficientia ex parte *subiecti* ordinabilis, quod quidem est anima rationalis, in qua est triplex vis motiva, secundum quam habet in Deum ordinari, videlicet rationalis, concupiscibilis et irascibilis. Mandatum de adoratione respicit ipsam irascibilem; mandatum vero secundum respicit ipsam rationalem; sed mandatum tertium de sanctificatione respicit ipsam concupiscibilem, sicut intuenti satis apparet[^10]. Et haec sufficientia sumta est ex parte subiecti.

Tertio vero modo sumitur sufficientia ex parte *actus medii*. Triplex enim est actus, secundum quem habet homo in Deum ordinari, videlicet actus cordis, oris et operis[^11]. Penes actum operis attenditur mandatum adorationis. Penes actum oris attenditur secundum mandatum, quo prohibetur falsa invocatio nominis divini. Secundum actum cordis attenditur tertium mandatum, in quo praecipitur sanctificatio mentis. — Et sic patet sufficientia mandatorum ordinantium hominem ad Deum[^16], quoniam sunt tria tantum et non plura nec pauciora.

Sufficientia autem mandatorum secundae tabulae iuxta hunc modum tripliciter potest assignari, videlicet ex parte *obiecti* et *subiecti* et *actus medii*.

Ex parte namque conditionum ipsius *obiecti* sic potest sumi. In proximo enim, ad quem ordinant mandata secundae tabulae, relucet proprietas *Patris* et *Filii* et *Spiritus sancti*. Secundum quod in proximo relucet proprietas *Patris*, sic debemus ei honorem et reverentiam; et penes hoc attenditur illud mandatum: *Honora patrem tuum* etc.; in quibus relucet proprietas summi Patris in hoc, quod habent rationem *principii*[^12]. — Secundum autem quod in proximo relucet proprietas *Filii*, sic debemus ei veritatem; et sic est illud mandatum: *Non loqueris contra proximum tuum falsum testimonium*. — Secundum autem quod relucet in proximo proprietas *Spiritus sancti*, sic debemus ei dilectionem et innocentiae puritatem. Et quoniam possumus nocere proximo sive damnificare eum multipliciter: in persona propria et in persona coniuncta et in rebus suis, et hoc dupliciter: vel actu interiori, vel exteriori; ideo sunt ulterius quinque mandata. Contra nocumentum enim, quod

<!-- page 823 -->

habet fieri in persona proximi, est illud praeceptum: *Non occides*. — Contra nocumentum vero, quod habet fieri in persona coniuncta, est illud praeceptum: *Non moechaberis*, secundum quod exercetur in opere. — Contra nocumentum, quod fit in rebus, est illud: *Non furtum facies*. — Et quia nocumentum illud duplex, videlicet in persona coniuncta et in rebus, frequentius fit in voluntate per concupiscentiam, quam fiat in opere; ideo sunt alia duo mandata, in quorum uno prohibetur concupiscentia uxoris, in hoc quod dicitur: *Non concupisces uxorem*; in alio prohibetur concupiscentia rerum, in hoc quod dicitur: *Non concupisces rem proximi tui* etc. Sic igitur patet sufficientia ex parte conditionum obiecti.

Ex parte vero *subiecti* secundum triplicem potentiam animae contingit etiam sufficientiam assignare hoc modo. Triplex enim est potentia animae, secundum quam contingit ad proximum ordinari, videlicet rationalis, concupiscibilis et irascibilis. Quantum autem ad potentiam irascibilem habet homo convenienter ordinari ad superiorem per reverentiam et honorem, et sic est illud: *Honora patrem tuum* etc.; ad proximum vero per pacem et odii declinationem, et sic est illud: *Non occides*. — Secundum autem rationalem virtutem ordinamur ad proximum per veritatis loquelam et testificationem; et sic est illud mandatum: *Non loqueris contra proximum tuum falsum testimonium*. — Secundum vero potentiam concupiscibilem habet homo ordinari ad proximum per ipsius refrenationem. Et quoniam illa est multipliciter corrupta per cupiditatem et concupiscentiam[^13]; ideo prohibetur cupiditas et concupiscentia in actu exteriori per duo mandata, per hoc videlicet: *Non moechaberis*, et: *Non furtum facies*; prohibetur etiam in actu interiori per alia duo, per hoc videlicet: *Non concupisces uxorem proximi tui*; *non agrum nec aliquam rem*. Et sic potest sumi sufficientia ex parte virium animae in mandatis secundae tabulae.

Ex parte autem *actus* potest sumi sic. Ordinari enim habemus ad proximum secundum *innocentiam* et secundum *beneficentiam*. Si secundum beneficentiam, sic est illud mandatum: *Honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam*. Si secundum innocentiam, hoc est tripliciter: aut secundum actum cordis, aut oris, aut operis. Si secundum actum operis, aut hoc est in prohibendo deordinationem[^14], quae est contra ipsius esse *individui*; et sic est illud: *Non occides*. Aut contra debitam conservationem *speciei*; et sic est illud: *Non moechaberis*. Aut contra possessionem *temporalis subsidii*[^15]; et sic est illud: *Non furtum facies*. — Si autem ordinemur ad proximum secundum actum *oris*; sic est illud mandatum: *Non falsum testimonium dices*. — Si vero secundum actum *cordis*, qui quidem consistit in affectu, hoc contingit dupliciter: aut liberaliter contra cupiditatem, aut honeste contra voluptatem; et secundum hoc sunt duo mandata: unum contra voluptatis concupiscentiam, et sic est illud: *Non concupisces uxorem*; aliud vero contra cupiditatem et avaritiam, et sic est illud: *Non concupisces rem*.

Et sic per omnem modum patet numerus et sufficientia mandatorum Decalogi: quoniam tria sunt, quae ordinant hominem respectu summae Trinitatis; et septem sunt, quae ordinant hominem respectu totius inferioris universitatis; ut sic non tantum sit congruentia numeri ex parte rei, sed etiam ex parte ipsius numeralis proportionis; quam rectissime contingit in denario invenire, secundum quod docet Augustinus in libro *Musicae*[^17], ubi ostendit, in denario quandam excellentem esse perfectionem, ob quam status est in numero illo, et ultra in numerando non procedimus nova numeratione, sed redimus ad caput: et ideo in numero illo decebat terminari et comprehendi divina praecepta, quae sunt via deveniendi ad perfectionem summam. — Concedendum est igitur, quod decem sunt mandata Decalogi, secundum quod Lex dicit, nec plura nec pauciora.

1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod qui diligit proximum Legem implevit; dicendum, quod quamvis in dilectione proximi claudantur mandata ordinantia ad proximum in quadam generalitate, nihilominus propter obnubilationem peccati opportunum erat et congruum, mandata illa, per quae evitantur speciales deordinationes, explicari in *speciali*[^18]. Unde sicut unitas generis non excludit multitudinem specierum, nec unitas finis excludit multitudinem eorum quae sunt ad finem; sic ex unitate mandati dilectionis in proximum non potest concludi, quod non sit pluralitas mandatorum ad proximum ordinantium.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Lex prohibendo concupiscentiam prohibet omnia mala; dicendum, quod concupiscentia sumitur *generaliter* et *specialiter*. Generaliter concupiscentia dicitur quilibet appetitus libidinosus et immoderatus, specialiter vero dicitur esse appetitus delectabilis secundum gustum et tactum[^19]. Et primo quidem modo in prohibitione concupiscentiae dicuntur omnia mala prohiberi; secundo autem modo tenet rationem specialis mandati et numeratur inter mandata Decalogi.

<!-- page 824 -->

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui peccat mortaliter se ipsum occidit; dicendum, quod in prohibitione homicidii non prohibetur deordinatio cuiuscumque vis, sed deordinatio potentiae irascibilis, quae est in actu exteriori, vel ad actum exteriorem aliquo modo habet ordinari[^20]. Unde quamvis prohibeatur ibi homicidium operis et voluntatis, non tamen prohibetur omne peccatum. Et propterea ex hoc non potest concludi superfluitas aliorum mandatorum Decalogi.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Lex prohibet manum et non animum: dicendum, quod hoc non dicitur, quod Lex non prohibeat peccatum cordis, sed hoc dicitur, quia peccatum cordis non punit poena mortis, secundum quod peccatum operis, quod potest exterius probari; unde per prohibitionem intelligere possumus poenae inflictionem. Et ex hoc non potest haberi, quod peccatum cordis non debeat prohiberi in mandatis Decalogi.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod deberent esse plura, quia plura debemus Deo quam homini; dicendum, quod omnia quae debemus homini, quodam modo debemus et solvimus Deo; ideo plura sunt, quae debentur et redduntur Deo quam proximo. Quia tamen ad Deum ordinamur secundum vitam *contemplativam*, ad proximum secundum vitam *activam*; et in vita contemplativa quaeritur unitas, in activa vero versatur multiplex rerum varietas[^21]: hinc est, quod plura sunt mandata, quae directe obligant ad proximum, quam quae directe obligant ad Deum. Hinc est etiam, quod plura sunt peccata, quibus directe peccatur in proximum, quam quibus directe peccatur in Deum.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tot modis contingit alicui benefacere, quot etiam modis contingit male; dicendum, quod quia corruptio concupiscentiae in nobis, quantum est de se, ad malum inclinat; ideo sumus difficiles ad bonum faciendum, quia proni sumus ad malum perpetrandum[^22]. Hinc est, quod plura sunt praecepta negativa ordinantia ad proximum quam affirmativa; plura sunt, in quibus prohibetur, ne fiat malum, quam in quibus praecipitur, ut fiat bonum.

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ita debet prohiberi superbia et invidia, sicut avaritia et luxuria; dicendum, quod illa duo magis habent prohiberi explicite, quia propter improbitatem libidinis citius progrediuntur in actum exterioris operis[^23]; nihilominus tamen et alia peccata capitalia in mandatis Decalogi habent prohiberi. Nam superbia prohibetur in adoratione Dei et in honorificatione proximi; invidia vero et ira in fuga homicidii; accidia in sanctificatione Sabbati; avaritia vero in prohibitione furti; luxuria et gula sibi coniuncta in prohibitione moechiae et adulterii, ubi prohibetur omnis illicitus coitus et immoderata delectatio carnalis. — Et si obiiciat, quod ita debet prohiberi in speciali superbia vitae, sicut concupiscentia carnis et oculorum; dicendum, quod non est simile: quoniam, sicut iam patet, non ita radix illa est progressiva in actum exteriorem, secundum quod aliae.

8. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ita contingit homicidium perpetrare corde et opere, sicut adulterium et furtum; dicendum, quod non est simile duplici ex causa: tum quia irascibilis non est adeo corrupta, secundum quod concupiscibilis, quae propter suam immoderatam corruptionem dicitur corrupta et infecta et magis ad malum prona; tum etiam, quia ira ortum habet ex concupiscentia, secundum quod dicit Damascenus, quia « ira est vindex laesae concupiscentiae ». Et ideo, dum prohibetur concupiscentia in sua origine, quodam modo prohibetur et ira; ideo non sic oportuit geminari mandatum, quod respicit actum irascibilis sive ipsam iram, sicut mandatum, quod respicit actum concupiscentiae sive ipsam concupiscentiam. Et ex hoc eodem potest haberi, quare non oportuit duplicari alia mandata.

english:
### Article II. *On the commandments of the Decalogue with respect to their distinction and order.*

Consequently it is asked concerning the commandments of the Decalogue with respect to order and distinction. And concerning this three things can be asked. First it is asked concerning the number and sufficiency of the commandments themselves, whether they are ten. Secondly it is asked concerning their order to one another. Thirdly it is asked concerning the number and order in comparison to the distinction of the tables.

### Question I. *Whether the commandments of the Decalogue ought to be only ten, or more, or fewer.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus and asks whether the commandments of the Decalogue ought to be only ten, or more, or fewer. And that they ought to be *fewer*, it seems:

1. Because in Romans 13[^1] it is said: *He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law*: therefore in the commandment of the love of neighbor the whole Law can be included: it seems therefore that the commandments ought not to be multiplied to the number ten, since they are sufficiently contained in fewer.

2. Likewise, on that text of Romans 7[^2]: *I did not know concupiscence*; the Gloss: « Good is the Law, which, while it forbids concupiscence, forbids all evils »: if therefore in the prohibition of concupiscence the other evils are forbidden, it seems that the other commandments are superfluous.

3. Likewise, whoever sins mortally kills himself[^3]: therefore since in killing there is forbidden not only bodily homicide, but also spiritual, not only of deed, but also of will; it seems that in that prohibition all sins are forbidden: therefore all the other commandments are superfluous.

4. Likewise, the difference between the Law and the Gospel is that the Law forbids the hand, not the mind; but the Gospel forbids not only the hand, but also the mind[^4]: therefore it seems that only the exterior act ought to be forbidden, and not that which would regard the interior act: therefore the commandment about not coveting is superfluous. If you say that the concupiscence which proceeds into deed is forbidden; *to the contrary* is this: because that is not distinguished from the sin of deed: therefore the precept about the prohibition of that concupiscence ought not to be numbered along with the precept about the prohibition of the exterior deed.

**But on the contrary:** that they ought to be *more* than ten, it seems.

5. We are more debtors to God than to neighbor: therefore there ought to be more commandments ordering toward God than ordering toward neighbor: therefore since the commandments ordering toward neighbor are seven, it seems that the commandments ordering toward God are more, or at least as many.

6. Likewise, we are obligated to do good to neighbor just as much as we are obligated not to do him evil[^5]: since therefore there are six commandments according to which we are forbidden to offend our neighbor; it seems that there ought to be at least six according to which we would be obligated and ordered to do good; and if this is so, all the commandments would be at least fifteen.

7. Likewise, there are seven capital sins so great, as far as their own nature is concerned, as the sin of avarice and lust[^6]: therefore just as there is a special commandment in which avarice is forbidden, and in which lust is forbidden; so there ought to be a special commandment for prohibiting the other vices, such that there would be some precept in which pride would be specially forbidden, some in which envy, and so of the others. If you say that they are implicitly forbidden in the prohibition of concupiscence; it is objected against this, that there are three roots of sins, according as it is said in 1 John 2[^7]: *The concupiscence of the eyes, the concupiscence of the flesh, and the pride of life*: if therefore the concupiscence of the flesh and of the eyes is forbidden explicitly, it seems that the pride of life too ought to have a special prohibition.

<!-- page 822 -->

8. Likewise, just as it happens to covet another's wife, and for the concupiscence to be consummated in deed; so too it is to be found with respect to homicide and false testimony and the other commandments: therefore just as there are two diverse precepts concerning the concupiscence of another's wife and of another's property in deed and in will; so the other precepts ought to be doubled; and if this were true, then there would be more than ten.

It is therefore a question why there are ten and not more nor fewer.

### Conclusion.

> The ten precepts of the Decalogue have been suitably assigned.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that the sufficiency and number of the commandments is taken according to the account of the order of *general* justice itself[^8], whose office is to order man toward God and toward neighbor; whence some commandments order man toward God, and some order toward neighbor. — Now those which order man toward God are called the precepts of the first table; and these are three and not more nor fewer. Their number and sufficiency can be taken in three ways, namely from the side of the *object* and from the side of the *subject* and from the side of the *middle act*.

From the side of the *object* thus: for since in God there are three *persons* and three *appropriated [attributes]* and a threefold *kind of cause*, according as he is compared to the creature; there is a threefold precept, according as the rational creature has to be ordered toward God. For according to the account of *majesty*, which is appropriated to the *Father* and befits God, according as he is the *efficient* cause of the creature, [the creature] is ordered through that precept: *Thou shalt not have strange gods*. — According to the account of *truth*, which is appropriated to the *Son* and befits God, according as he is the *formal exemplar* cause of the creature, [the creature] is ordered through this: *Thou shalt not take the name of thy God in vain*. — According to the account of *goodness*, which is appropriated to the *Holy Spirit* and befits God, according as he is the *final* cause, [the creature] is ordered through this: *Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day*; in such a way that through those three man is sufficiently ordered toward God, namely that he be subject to the supreme Majesty, believe the supreme Truth, and cleave to the supreme Goodness. And this sufficiency is taken from the side of the object[^9].

In a second way the sufficiency is taken from the side of the orderable *subject*, which indeed is the rational soul, in which there is a threefold motive power, according to which it has to be ordered toward God, namely the rational, the concupiscible, and the irascible. The commandment of adoration regards the irascible itself; but the second commandment regards the rational itself; but the third commandment, concerning sanctification, regards the concupiscible itself, as appears sufficiently to one who considers[^10]. And this sufficiency is taken from the side of the subject.

But in a third way the sufficiency is taken from the side of the *middle act*. For there is a threefold act, according to which man has to be ordered toward God, namely the act of the heart, of the mouth, and of the deed[^11]. With respect to the act of deed the commandment of adoration is attended to. With respect to the act of the mouth the second commandment is attended to, by which the false invocation of the divine name is forbidden. According to the act of the heart the third commandment is attended to, in which the sanctification of the mind is enjoined. — And thus appears the sufficiency of the commandments ordering man toward God[^16], since they are only three and not more nor fewer.

Now the sufficiency of the commandments of the second table can be assigned according to this mode in three ways, namely from the side of the *object* and of the *subject* and of the *middle act*.

For from the side of the conditions of the *object* itself it can be taken thus. For in the neighbor, toward whom the commandments of the second table order, there shines forth the property of the *Father* and of the *Son* and of the *Holy Spirit*. According as the property of the *Father* shines forth in the neighbor, so we owe him honor and reverence; and with respect to this that commandment is attended to: *Honor thy father* etc.; in which there shines forth the property of the supreme Father in this, that they have the account of *a principle*[^12]. — But according as the property of the *Son* shines forth in the neighbor, so we owe him truth; and so is that commandment: *Thou shalt not speak against thy neighbor false testimony*. — But according as the property of the *Holy Spirit* shines forth in the neighbor, so we owe him love and purity of innocence. And since we can harm our neighbor or damage him in many ways: in his own person and in a conjoined person and in his goods, and this in two ways: either by interior act, or by exterior; therefore there are further five commandments. For against the harm which

<!-- page 823 -->

has to be done in the person of the neighbor, there is that precept: *Thou shalt not kill*. — But against the harm which has to be done in a conjoined person, there is that precept: *Thou shalt not commit adultery*, according as it is exercised in deed. — Against the harm which is done in goods, there is this: *Thou shalt not steal*. — And because that harm is twofold, namely in a conjoined person and in goods, [and] is more frequently done in the will through concupiscence than it is done in deed; therefore there are two other commandments, in one of which the concupiscence of the wife is forbidden, in what is said: *Thou shalt not covet [thy neighbor's] wife*; in the other the concupiscence of goods is forbidden, in what is said: *Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's property* etc. Thus therefore appears the sufficiency from the side of the conditions of the object.

But from the side of the *subject* according to the threefold power [it] also happens to assign the sufficiency in this way. For there is a threefold power of the soul, according to which it happens to be ordered toward neighbor, namely the rational, the concupiscible, and the irascible. Now as regards the irascible power man has suitably to be ordered toward the superior through reverence and honor, and so is that: *Honor thy father* etc.; but toward neighbor through peace and the avoidance of hatred, and so is that: *Thou shalt not kill*. — But according to the rational virtue we are ordered toward neighbor through the speech and attestation of truth; and so is that commandment: *Thou shalt not speak against thy neighbor false testimony*. — But according to the concupiscible power man has to be ordered toward neighbor through its restraint. And since that [power] is in many ways corrupted through cupidity and concupiscence[^13]; therefore cupidity and concupiscence are forbidden in the exterior act through two commandments, namely through this: *Thou shalt not commit adultery*, and: *Thou shalt not steal*; they are forbidden also in the interior act through two others, namely through this: *Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife*; *nor his field nor any property*. And thus the sufficiency can be taken from the side of the powers of the soul in the commandments of the second table.

But from the side of the *act* it can be taken thus. For we have to be ordered toward neighbor according to *innocence* and according to *beneficence*. If according to beneficence, so is that commandment: *Honor thy father and thy mother*. If according to innocence, this is in three ways: either according to the act of the heart, or of the mouth, or of the deed. If according to the act of deed, either this is in prohibiting a disorder[^14] which is against the *being of the individual* himself; and so is that: *Thou shalt not kill*. Or against the due preservation of the *species*; and so is that: *Thou shalt not commit adultery*. Or against the possession of *temporal sustenance*[^15]; and so is that: *Thou shalt not steal*. — But if we are ordered toward neighbor according to the act of the *mouth*; so is that commandment: *Thou shalt not bear false testimony*. — But if according to the act of the *heart*, which indeed consists in the affection, this happens in two ways: either liberally against cupidity, or honorably against pleasure; and according to this there are two commandments: one against the concupiscence of pleasure, and so is that: *Thou shalt not covet the wife*; but the other against cupidity and avarice, and so is that: *Thou shalt not covet the property*.

And thus in every way appears the number and sufficiency of the commandments of the Decalogue: since there are three which order man with respect to the supreme Trinity; and there are seven which order man with respect to the whole lower totality; so that thus there is not only a fittingness of number from the side of the thing, but also from the side of the numerical proportion itself; which it happens most rightly to find in the number ten, according as Augustine teaches in the book *On Music*[^17], where he shows that in the number ten there is a certain excellent perfection, on account of which there is a stop in that number, and beyond it in counting we do not proceed by a new numeration, but return to the head: and therefore it was fitting that the divine precepts, which are the way of arriving at the supreme perfection, be terminated and comprehended in that number. — It is to be granted therefore that there are ten commandments of the Decalogue, according as the Law says, neither more nor fewer.

1. To that which is first objected to the contrary, that he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law; it must be said that although in the love of neighbor the commandments ordering toward neighbor are enclosed in a certain generality, nevertheless on account of the obscuring of sin it was opportune and fitting that those commandments, through which special disorders are avoided, be explicated *in particular*[^18]. Whence just as the unity of a genus does not exclude the multitude of species, nor the unity of an end exclude the multitude of those things which are toward the end; so from the unity of the commandment of love toward neighbor it cannot be concluded that there is no plurality of commandments ordering toward neighbor.

2. To that which is objected, that the Law by forbidding concupiscence forbids all evils; it must be said that concupiscence is taken *generally* and *specially*. Generally, concupiscence is called any libidinous and immoderate appetite, but specially it is said to be the delectable appetite according to taste and touch[^19]. And in the first way indeed in the prohibition of concupiscence all evils are said to be forbidden; but in the second way it holds the account of a special commandment and is numbered among the commandments of the Decalogue.

<!-- page 824 -->

3. To that which is objected, that he who sins mortally kills himself; it must be said that in the prohibition of homicide there is not forbidden the disorder of any power whatever, but the disorder of the irascible power, which is in the exterior act, or has in some way to be ordered toward the exterior act[^20]. Whence although homicide of deed and of will is forbidden there, nevertheless not every sin is forbidden. And therefore from this the superfluity of the other commandments of the Decalogue cannot be concluded.

4. To that which is objected, that the Law forbids the hand and not the mind: it must be said that this is not said, that the Law does not forbid the sin of the heart, but this is said, because the sin of the heart is not punished by the penalty of death, according as the sin of deed [is], which can be proved exteriorly; whence by the prohibition we can understand the infliction of penalty. And from this it cannot be had that the sin of the heart ought not to be forbidden in the commandments of the Decalogue.

5. To that which is objected, that there ought to be more, because we owe more to God than to man; it must be said that all the things which we owe to man, in a certain way we owe and pay also to God; therefore there are more things which are owed and rendered to God than to neighbor. Yet because we are ordered toward God according to the *contemplative* life, toward neighbor according to the *active* life; and in the contemplative life unity is sought, but in the active there is engaged a manifold variety of things[^21]: hence it is that there are more commandments which directly obligate toward neighbor than those which directly obligate toward God. Hence it is also that there are more sins by which one directly sins against neighbor than those by which one directly sins against God.

6. To that which is objected, that in as many ways as it happens to do good to someone, in just as many ways it happens [to do] evil; it must be said that because the corruption of concupiscence in us, as far as it is in itself, inclines toward evil; therefore we are difficult toward doing good, because we are prone toward perpetrating evil[^22]. Hence it is that there are more negative precepts ordering toward neighbor than affirmative; there are more in which it is forbidden that evil be done, than in which it is enjoined that good be done.

7. To that which is objected, that pride and envy ought so to be forbidden, as avarice and lust; it must be said that those two have rather to be forbidden explicitly, because on account of the wickedness of lust they more quickly proceed into the act of exterior deed[^23]; nevertheless the other capital sins too have to be forbidden in the commandments of the Decalogue. For pride is forbidden in the adoration of God and in the honoring of neighbor; but envy and anger in the avoidance of homicide; sloth in the sanctification of the Sabbath; but avarice in the prohibition of theft; lust and gluttony joined to it in the prohibition of adultery and fornication, where every illicit coitus and immoderate carnal pleasure is forbidden. — And if one should object that the pride of life ought so to be forbidden in particular, as the concupiscence of the flesh and of the eyes; it must be said that it is not similar: since, as is already plain, that root is not so progressive into the exterior act, according as the others.

8. To that which is objected, that homicide happens to be perpetrated in heart and in deed just as adultery and theft; it must be said that it is not similar, for a twofold cause: both because the irascible is not so corrupted as the concupiscible, which on account of its immoderate corruption is called corrupted and infected and more prone toward evil; and also because anger has its origin from concupiscence, according as Damascene says, since « anger is the avenger of injured concupiscence ». And therefore, when concupiscence is forbidden in its origin, in a certain way anger too is forbidden; therefore it was not so necessary to double the commandment which regards the act of the irascible or anger itself, as the commandment which regards the act of concupiscence or concupiscence itself. And from this same thing it can be had why it was not necessary to double the other commandments.

la: Vers. 8. — In fine arg. pro *satis contineantur* codd. *via magis* (codd. M O *maior*), quod forte est loco proverbii.

en: Verse 8. — At the end of the argument, for *satis contineantur* (are sufficiently contained) the codices read *via magis* (codices M O *maior*), which is perhaps in place of a proverb.

la: Vers. 7. — De Glossa, quae est *ordinaria*, vide tom. II. pag. 528, nota 4. et pag. 721, nota 2.

en: Verse 7. — Concerning the Gloss, which is the *ordinary [gloss]*, see vol. II, p. 528, note 4, and p. 721, note 2.

la: Sap. 1, 11: Os autem, quod mentitur, occidit animam. August., XX. contra Faustum, c. 23: Quia enim non intelligebant homicidium nisi peremptionem corporis humani, per quam vita privaretur, aperuit Dominus, omnem iniquum modum ad nocendum fratri in homicidii genere deputari. Unde et Ioannes (I. 3, 15.) dicit: Qui odit fratrem suum homicida est. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: Wisdom 1:11: But the mouth that lieth killeth the soul. Augustine, *Against Faustus* XX, c. 23: For since they did not understand homicide except as the destruction of the human body, by which life would be deprived, the Lord made plain that every wicked manner of harming a brother is to be reckoned in the genus of homicide. Whence John also (1 John 3:15) says: He who hates his brother is a murderer. Cf. here the Master's text [Lombard], c. 3.

la: Cfr. Matth. 5, 21. seqq. — Superius pro *prohibebat* cod. ob. *prohibebat*, edd. cum pluribus codd. *prohibet*.

en: Cf. Matthew 5:21ff. — Above, for *prohibebat* (forbade) codex ob. [reads] *prohibebat*, the editions with several codices *prohibet* (forbids).

la: Vide Matth. 5, 44.

en: See Matthew 5:44.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 32. dub. 3.

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 32, dub. 3.

la: Vers. 16.

en: Verse 16.

la: Cfr. supra d. 33. dub. 1. — Aliquanto inferius pro *Illa vero* edd. *Illa enim*.

en: Cf. above, d. 33, dub. 1. — Somewhat below, for *Illa vero* the editions read *Illa enim*.

la: Cfr. August., Epist. 55. (alias 119.) c. 11. n. 20; II. Qq. in Pentateuch. q. 71. n. 2; Serm. 8. c. 1. n. 2. seq.; Serm. 9. (alias 96. de Tempore) c. 3. n. 3. et c. 5. n. 6. et Serm. 33. (alias 18. de Diversis) c. 3. n. 3; Isidor., Comment. in Exod. c. 29.

en: Cf. Augustine, *Letter* 55 (otherwise 119), c. 11, n. 20; *Questions on the Heptateuch* II, q. 71, n. 2; *Sermon* 8, c. 1, n. 2f.; *Sermon* 9 (otherwise 96, On the Seasons), c. 3, n. 3, and c. 5, n. 6, and *Sermon* 33 (otherwise 18, On Diverse Subjects), c. 3, n. 3; Isidore, *Commentary on Exodus*, c. 29.

la: Vide supra pag. 579, nota 9. — Paulo superius pro *sufficientia* plurimi codd. *ratio* et *quae quidem* pro *quod quidem*. Aliquanto inferius pro *satis apparet* cod. Z *manifeste apparet*.

en: See above p. 579, note 9. — A little above, for *sufficientia* very many codices [read] *ratio*, and *quae quidem* for *quod quidem*. Somewhat below, for *satis apparet* codex Z [reads] *manifeste apparet* (clearly appears).

la: August., Enarrat. in Ps. 149. n. 1: Laudemus Dominum et in voce et in intellectu et in opere bono. Cfr. Enarrat. in Ps. 148. n. 2. — Paulo superius pro *ex parte* plures codd. *a parte*.

en: Augustine, *Enarration on Ps. 149*, n. 1: Let us praise the Lord both in voice and in understanding and in good work. Cf. *Enarration on Ps. 148*, n. 2. — A little above, for *ex parte* several codices read *a parte*.

la: Hugo de S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. XII. c. 5: Primum praeceptum primae tabulae ad Deum Patrem pertinet, sicut praeceptum primum secundae tabulae ad hominem patrem, ut utrinque paternitas principii auctoritate honoretur. Cfr. ibidem c. 7. August., Serm. 9. (alias 96. de Tempore) c. 6. n. 7: Ad parentes enim suos homo aperit oculos, et haec vita ab eorum amicitia sumit exordium etc.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* I, p. XII, c. 5: The first precept of the first table pertains to God the Father, just as the first precept of the second table to man the father, so that on both sides the fatherhood of a principle may be honored by authority. Cf. ibid. c. 7. Augustine, *Sermon* 9 (otherwise 96, On the Seasons), c. 6, n. 7: For to his parents man opens his eyes, and this life takes its beginning from their friendship, etc.

la: Cod. K addit *propria*. Aliquanto inferius post *nocumentum illud* codd. incongrue addunt *est*, edd. 1, 2 *fit*.

en: Codex K adds *propria* (his own). Somewhat below, after *nocumentum illud* the codices incongruously add *est*, editions 1, 2 *fit*.

la: Cod. Z *inordinationem*, edd. *in prohibenda deordinatione*. Paulo inferius pro *subsidii* cod. Z *substantiae*.

en: Codex Z reads *inordinationem*, the editions *in prohibenda deordinatione*. A little below, for *subsidii* codex Z reads *substantiae* (sustenance).

la: Cfr. a. 1. q. 3. in corp. — De ipsa solutione vide supra d. 27. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4. et d. 33. q. 1. ad 1. — In fine solut. Vat. omittit *ordinantium*.

en: Cf. a. 1, q. 3, in the body. — Concerning this solution see above, d. 27, a. 1, q. 1, ad 4, and d. 33, q. 1, ad 1. — At the end of the solution the Vatican edition omits *ordinantium*.

la: Libr. I. c. 11. n. 19: In numerando enim progredimur ab uno usque ad decem, atque inde ad unum revertimur etc.

en: Book I, c. 11, n. 19: For in counting we advance from one up to ten, and thence we return to one, etc.

la: Vide infra dub. 3. — Pro *in actu exteriori* Vat. *in actu interiori*.

en: See below, dub. 3. — For *in actu exteriori* the Vatican edition reads *in actu interiori* (in the interior act).

la: Luc. 10, 39: Maria, quae etiam sedens secus pedes Domini, audiebat verbum illius; Martha autem satagebat circa frequens ministerium etc. — Aliquanto superius pro *quae debemus* plurimi codd. et edd. 1, 2 *quae damus*, et subinde pro *quodam modo debemus* cod. M *quodam modo damus*. Post pauca pro *quam proximo* cod. Z *quam homini vel proximo*.

en: Luke 10:39: Mary, who also, sitting at the feet of the Lord, was hearing his word; but Martha was busy about frequent ministry, etc. — Somewhat above, for *quae debemus* very many codices and editions 1, 2 [read] *quae damus*, and thereupon for *quodam modo debemus* codex M [reads] *quodam modo damus*. After a little, for *quam proximo* codex Z reads *quam homini vel proximo* (than to man or neighbor).

la: Gen. 8, 21: Sensus enim et cogitatio humani cordis in malum prona sunt ab adolescentia sua.

en: Genesis 8:21: For the sense and thought of man's heart are prone to evil from his youth.

la: Aliam rationem affert S. Thom. (vide infra d. 40. q. 1. scholion), qui etiam solut. ad 4. in speciali quaestione (III. Sent. d. 40. a. 2.) approbat. — Mox: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 31. n. 1. q. 3. — De definitione *irae* ex Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 16, vide tom. II. pag. 560, nota 12. Cfr. etiam supra pag. 339, nota 13.

en: St. Thomas brings forward another reason (see below, d. 40, q. 1, scholion), which he also approves in the solution ad 4 in the special question (III Sent., d. 40, a. 2). — Presently: Cf. II Sent., d. 31, n. 1, q. 3. — Concerning the definition of *anger* from Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* II, c. 16, see vol. II, p. 560, note 12. Cf. also above p. 339, note 13.

latin_scholion:
**I.** De differentia in enumerandis et distinguendis singulis Decalogi praeceptis, quae ab antiquo fuit inter auctores, vide infra q. 3. Observamus etiam, Decalogum saepe a Patribus secundum Scripturam et usum Hebraeorum vocari *decem verba* (cfr. Exod. 34, 28; Deut. 4, 13; 10, 4.). — Pro convenientia *distinctionis* et *ordinis*, secundum distributionem inter Catholicos communiter usitatam, multae rationes congruentiae ab auctore nostro in hac et seq. quaestione afferuntur, ab aliis Scholasticis autem etiam aliae, quas longum esset singulas recensere. Prae ceteris diffusius de his aliisque connexis quaestionibus disputat Alex. Hal., Sum. p. III. q. 29. m. 2. a. 1-5, unde non pauca sumsit S. Bonav. — Praeter laudatum de hac et seq. (2.) quaestione: S. Thom., hic a. 2. quaestiunc. 1-3; S. I. II. q. 100. a. 5. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 4. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de his qq. et etiam de 3. q. hic q. 1.

**II.** Quoad quaestionem seq. (3.) observamus, quod iam inter antiquos Hebraeos non eadem fuit opinio circa distinctionem decem praeceptorum Decalogi et numerum eorum in utraque tabula. Nam in libro Talmud et usu nunc communi Iudaeorum alia est distributio, quam quae exhibetur a Iosepho, qui fere convenit cum Philone, ut hic in corp. refertur. Distributionem Origenis praeter S. Hieronymum approbat etiam Sulpitius Severus (Sacra Histor. I. 17.) — Alex. Hal. (loc. cit. a. 3. q. collater.) et S. Thom. (S. I. II. q. 100. a. 4.) commemorant etiam singularem opinionem Hesychii (in Levit. 26.), qui praeceptum sanctificationis Sabbati ut singulare mandatum *morale* expunxit, et nihilominus quatuor primae tabulae praecepta enumerat. — In modo has diversas opiniones aliquatenus conciliandi S. Bonav. sequitur Alexandrum Hal., loc. cit. — De hac (3.) quaestione praeter laudatos: B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the difference in enumerating and distinguishing the individual precepts of the Decalogue, which existed of old among authors, see below, q. 3. We observe also that the Decalogue is often called by the Fathers, according to Scripture and the usage of the Hebrews, the *ten words* (cf. Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4). — As to the fittingness of the *distinction* and *order*, according to the distribution commonly used among Catholics, many reasons of fittingness are brought forward by our author in this and the following question, but by other Scholastics still others, which it would be long to recount one by one. Beyond the rest, Alexander of Hales disputes more diffusely concerning these and other connected questions, Sum. p. III, q. 29, m. 2, a. 1-5, whence St. Bonaventure took not a few things. — Besides the one cited, concerning this and the following (second) question: St. Thomas, here a. 2, quaestiunculae 1-3; S. I-II, q. 100, a. 5, 6. — Blessed Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I, a. 2, quaestiunculae 2, 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 4. — Durand, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on these questions and also on the third question, here q. 1.

**II.** As to the following (third) question, we observe that already among the ancient Hebrews there was not the same opinion concerning the distinction of the ten precepts of the Decalogue and their number in each table. For in the book Talmud and in the now common usage of the Jews there is a different distribution from that which is presented by Josephus, who nearly agrees with Philo, as is reported here in the body. The distribution of Origen, besides St. Jerome, Sulpicius Severus also approves (Sacred History I, 17). — Alexander of Hales (loc. cit. a. 3, q. collateral) and St. Thomas (S. I-II, q. 100, a. 4) also mention the singular opinion of Hesychius (on Leviticus 26), who struck out the precept of the sanctification of the Sabbath as a singular *moral* commandment, and nevertheless enumerates four precepts of the first table. — In the manner of somewhat reconciling these diverse opinions, St. Bonaventure follows Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. — Concerning this (third) question, besides those cited: Blessed Albert, here a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I, a. 2, quaestiuncula 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p82{1,2,3,4,5}-{L,R}-*.png`); raw OCR range 56964–57244 (`bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`). Vol III two-column + PDF-priority inversion. Offset pdf = printed + 22 → printed pp.821–825 = PDF 843–847 (running-head TEXT trusted over OCR'd digits; p.823 head OCR'd cleanly `DIST. XXXVII. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 823`; p.825 head `DIST. XXXVII. ART. II. QUAEST. II. 825`).

**RE-BOUNDING (forward).** The auto-chunk skeleton range was line_start 56974 / line_end 57393 and spanned BOTH QUAESTIO I (*utrum sint decem*) AND QUAESTIO II (*De ordine ad invicem*). This chunk has been re-bounded FORWARD at `QUAESTIO II.` (OCR `QUAESTIO H.`) raw **57245** — only the QUAESTIO I material is translated here (ART. II opener raw 56964 + q1 body + q1's own SCHOLION up to raw 57244). The QUAESTIO II *De ordine mandatorum Decalogi ad invicem* material (raw 57245→57393) is EXCLUDED — it belongs to the scaffolded `vol3/bon-sent-III-d37-a2-q2.md` (a later dispatch, untouched). Frontmatter `line_start` reset 56974→**56964** (to include the ART. II opener), `line_end` 57393→**57244**. New range = **56964–57244**.

**ART. II opener folded in.** Per the Vol III convention (and the d37-a1-q1 / a2-template precedent), the short **ARTICULUS II** opener — *De mandatis Decalogi quoad distinctionem et ordinem* / *Consequenter quaeritur … tria possunt quaeri. Primo … Secundo … Tertio …* (raw 56964) — folds into this q1 along with the `QUAESTIO I.` header/title. There is no standalone a2-divisio chunk.

**Alignment check — PASS.** TRACTATIO **Primo** *de ipsorum mandatorum numero et sufficientia, utrum sint decem* (raw 56967) ↔ `QUAESTIO I.` *Utrum mandata Decalogi debeant esse tantum decem, an plura, an pauciora* (raw 56973) maps 1:1. Bound forward at `QUAESTIO II.` (OCR `QUAESTIO H.`) raw 57245 (= a2-q2, *De ordine … ad invicem*). No misalignment.

**Body structure.** ART. II opener (tria possunt quaeri) + q1 opener + args *pauciora* 1–4 (Rom.13:8 *Qui diligit proximum Legem implevit* / Rom.7 Glossa *Bona est Lex* / *qui peccat mortaliter se ipsum occidit* / Lex-prohibet-manum-non-animum → *Non concupiscendo* superfluit) + **Sed contra** *plura* 5–8 (magis-debitores-Deo / tantum-obligamur-benefacere-quantum-non-male → quindecim / septem-capitalia → speciale-mandatum-superbia/invidia, 1 John 2:16 tres-radices / concupiscere-uxorem + homicidium/falsum-testimonium → duplicari → plura quam decem) + Conclusio (*Convenienter assignata sunt decem praecepta Decalogi*) + Respondeo (sufficientia secundum **iustitiam generalem** → ad Deum [3 = prima tabula] / ad proximum [7 = secunda tabula]; first table taken *tripliciter* ex parte obiecti [3 personae/appropriata/genera causae — Pater/efficiens/maiestas → Non habebis deos; Filius/formalis-exemplaris/veritas → Non assumes nomen; Spiritus/finalis/bonitas → Memento Sabbati] / subiecti [rationalis/concupiscibilis/irascibilis] / actus medii [cordis/oris/operis]; second table likewise *tripliciter* ex parte obiecti [proprietas Patris→honor *Honora patrem*; Filii→veritas *Non falsum testimonium*; Spiritus→dilectio → 5 mandata, nocumentum in-persona-proxima/coniuncta/rebus × interior/exterior] / subiecti [irascibilis/rationalis/concupiscibilis] / actus [innocentia/beneficentia; cordis-oris-operis]; **congruentia numeralis proportionis** — denarius perfectus per August. *de Musica*, status in decem, redimus ad caput) + Solutio ad 1–8 (1: unitas-generis-non-excludit-species; 2: concupiscentia generaliter/specialiter [gustum et tactum]; 3: irascibilis-deordinatio non omne-peccatum; 4: peccatum-cordis non-punit-poena-mortis; 5: contemplativa-unitas / activa-multiplex-varietas; 6: proni-ad-malum → plura-negativa; 7: superbia/invidia citius-in-actum, sed alia-capitalia tamen-prohibentur [superbia in adoratione+honorificatione / invidia+ira in homicidio / accidia in Sabbato / avaritia in furto / luxuria+gula in moechia]; 8: irascibilis non-adeo-corrupta sicut concupiscibilis + ira ortum-ex-concupiscentia [Damasc. *ira est vindex laesae concupiscentiae*] → non-oportuit-geminari).

**Page-split map (apparatus, 23 entries, per-page restart, renumbered continuous):**
- **p.821** footer nn.2–8 → **[^1]–[^7]** (n.1 = *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* was q3's, picked up as a1-q3's [^25]; the n.2-onward band is THIS q1's). nn.2–4 sit in the p.821 L-col footer (arg-1 *Vers.8 via-magis-loco-proverbii* / arg-2 *Vers.7 Glossa ordinaria tom.II-pag.528+721* / arg-3 *Sap.1,11 Os-quod-mentitur + August. contra Faustum c.23 + Ioan.3,15*); nn.5–8 in the R-col footer (arg-4 *Matth.5,21 prohibebat/prohibet* / arg-6 *Matth.5,44* / arg-7 *II.Sent.d.32.dub.3* / arg-7 *Vers.16* = 1 John 2:16).
- **p.822** footer nn.1–5 → **[^8]–[^12]** (Respondeo *supra d.33.dub.1 iustitiae-generalis* / *August. Epist.55 + Qq.Pentateuch + Serm.8/9/33 + Isidor.* / *supra pag.579 sufficientia-variants* / *August. Enarrat. Ps.149 actus-operis-oris-cordis* / *Hugo de S.Vict. de Sacram. p.XII c.5 principii*).
- **p.823** footer nn.1–6 → **[^13]–[^18]** (*Cod.K propria concupiscentiam* / *II.Sent.d.32.a.2.q.1 Non-occides* / *Cod.Z inordinationem deordinationem* / *a.1.q.3 in-corp. + supra d.27/d.33 in-speciali* / *August. de Musica I.c.11.n.19 denarius* / *II.Sent.d.32.a.2.q.1 gustum-et-tactum*).
- **p.824** footer nn.1–5 → **[^19]–[^23]** (Solutio ad-3 *infra dub.3 in-actu-exteriori* / ad-5 *Luc.10,39 Maria-Martha rerum-varietas* / ad-6 *Gen.8,21 prona-ad-malum* / ad-7 *S.Thom. d.40 + improbitatem-libidinis* / ad-8 *Damasc. de-Fide-orthod. de-definitione-irae*). The OCR body marker `prona6` (Solutio ad 8) is a misread of n.**5** (footer note opener `s` = 5) — corrected to [^23].

Marker pairing 23/23 in both Latin and English bodies.

**pass-3b 2026-06-14: 5 mid-Respondeo anchors placed, now 23/23 paired.** Read the pp.822–823 body bands at 450 dpi and anchored the five formerly-orphaned defs to their PDF footer lemmata in both bodies: [^10] (Vide supra pag. 579, n. 9 / *satis apparet*) → first-table *subiecti* "respicit ipsam concupiscibilem, sicut intuenti satis apparet"; [^11] (August., Enarrat. in Ps. 149) → first-table *actus medii* "actus cordis, oris et operis"; [^12] (Hugo de S. Vict., de Sacram. p. XII c. 5, *paternitas principii*) → second-table *obiecti* "habent rationem *principii*" (the marker formerly mislabeled [^9] on this lemma was corrected to [^12], and [^9] — August. Epist. 55, p.822 n.2 — was placed at the first-table *obiecti* conclusion "sumta est ex parte obiecti", its true PDF position); [^15] (Cod. Z *inordinationem* / *subsidii* variant) → second-table *actus* "possessionem *temporalis subsidii*"; [^16] (Cfr. a. 1. q. 3. in corp.; Vat. omittit *ordinantium*) → first-table corpus conclusion "sufficientia mandatorum ordinantium hominem ad Deum". Verified by grep: every def [^1]–[^23] now has exactly one Latin and one English body anchor (23/23/23, no duplicates).

**Scholion (`has_scholion: true`).** OWN article-scholion §I–§II (header OCR'd cleanly `SCHOLION.`, raw 57213, bottom of p.824 R-col, spilling to p.825 top; body-then-scholion LAST per parser rule). **§I** = the inter-author differentia in enumerating the Decalogue precepts (forwards to *infra q. 3*); *decem verba* Patristic usage; the *distinctio*/*ordo* congruentiae drawn from Alex. Hal. Sum. p.III q.29 m.2 a.1-5; the cross-author roster for this and seq. q.2 (S.Thom. / B.Albert / Petr. a Tar. / Richard. a Med. / Durand. / Dionys. Carth.). **§II** = the Hebrew/Talmud vs Josephus-Philo distribution divergence; Origen's distribution (Hieron./Sulpitius Severus); Hesychius' singular opinion (sanctification of Sabbath struck as a moral mandate); Bonaventure follows Alex. Hal. in reconciling; cross-author roster for q.3 (B.Albert / Petr. a Tar.). The scholion carries NO own numbered footnote markers (its citations are inline). It surveys q.2 and q.3 prospectively but its prose belongs to THIS q1 scholion block (printed under q1, before QUAESTIO II opens lower on p.825).

**Footer hand-offs.** PICKED UP: p.821 footer **n.2 onward** from a1-q3's forward hand-off (commit for a1-q3; q3 kept only p.821 n.1 *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* as its [^25]; the n.2–n.8 band keys to THIS q1's args). FORWARDED: **NOTHING to a2-q2.** q1's own footer band closes on p.824 (n.5 = [^23]); the SCHOLION on pp.824–825 carries no footnotes; QUAESTIO II (a2-q2, *De ordine … ad invicem*, raw 57245) opens lower on p.825 with its own fresh per-page footer band — those belong to a2-q2, NOT this chunk.

**`[?]` flags:** none — pp.821–825 legible at 450 dpi.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 37, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 825 -->

### Quaestio II. *De ordine mandatorum Decalogi ad invicem.*

Secundo quaeritur de ordine mandatorum Decalogi. Et videtur, quod mandata Decalogi male ordinentur:

1. Quia prius est illud quod est via ad aliud, quam illud, ad quod ducit; sed mandata ordinantia ad proximum sunt via respectu mandatorum ordinantium ad Deum[^1]: ergo priori loco deberent ordinari.

2. Item, «quanto aliquid universalius, tanto prius[^2]»; sed praecepta negativa sunt universalioris obligationis quam affirmativa: ergo negativa deberent praeponi affirmativis, cuius contrarium fit in secunda tabula, quia praeceptum de honorando proximo, quod est affirmativum, praemittitur aliis.

3. Item, prior est actus cordis quam oris et operis[^3]: ergo mandatum illud, in quo prohibetur deordinatio circa actum cordis, debet praecedere illud, in quo prohibetur deordinatio circa actum operis; cuius contrarium reperitur in ordine mandatorum, quia illa mandata, in quibus prohibetur concupiscentia cordis, ultimo loco nominantur.

4. Item, prior est actus potentiae rationalis quam concupiscibilis et quam irascibilis[^4]: ergo mandatum illud, in quo prohibetur deordinatio rationalis, debet praecedere illud, in quo prohibetur deordinatio irascibilis et concupiscibilis; cuius contrarium invenitur in ordine mandatorum, quia prius mandatum est de non committendo homicidium quam de non dicendo falsum testimonium.

5. Item, videtur, quod sit[^5] ibi ordinis repugnantia inter mandata ordinantia ad Deum et mandata ordinantia ad proximum: quia inter mandata ordinantia ad Deum negativa praemittuntur, et affirmativum subiungitur, illud videlicet: *Memento, ut diem Sabbati sanctifices;* econtra vero est in mandatis ordinantibus ad proximum, quia affirmativum praemittitur, et negativa subiunguntur.

6. Item, hoc videtur alia ratione: quia in mandatis primae tabulae nobilissimum ponitur ultimo loco, in mandatis vero secundae ponitur primum. Si dicas, quod hoc non est inconveniens, quia aliter habet homo ordinari ad Deum, aliter ad proximum; *contra* hoc est: quia imago debet correspondere ei cuius est imago, et exemplum exemplari: ergo idem ordo, qui servatur in mandatis ordinantibus ad Deum, debet observari[^6] in mandatis ordinantibus ad proximum.

7. Item, in mandatis secundae tabulae praecepta respicientia actum cordis ponuntur ultimo, in mandatis vero primae tabulae est e contrario: ergo videtur, quod sit ibi ordinis praeposteratio[^7]. Et huius ratio sumitur ex hoc, quod dilectio proximi conformari debet dilectioni Dei: ergo eodem ordine, quo ordinantur mandata primae tabulae, debent ordinari mandata secundae.

8. Item, videtur, quod *nullus* ordo sit ibi observandus: quia a quolibet ipsorum mandatorum potest quis incipere bene facere, et a quolibet potest incipere peccati transgressionem: ergo qua ratione unum debet praeponi, eadem ratione et quodlibet: ergo non videtur aliqua vis facienda esse in ordine.

### Conclusio.

> Mandata Decalogi recte ordinata sunt.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut in mandatis Decalogi consideratur *numerus sufficiens*[^8], ita etiam reperitur *ordo conveniens*, secundum quem ordinem ipse Legislator ordinat ea convenientissime. Illius autem ordinis convenientiam dupliciter possumus advertere, videlicet secundum regulam *fidei dirigentis* et secundum regulam *iustitiae exsequentis.*

Fides autem dictat, nos primo ordinari ad Deum, et deinde ad proximum secundum conformitatem ad Deum. In ordine autem ad Deum primo dictat fides, nos ordinari ad Patrem exhibendo sibi debitam reverentiam; secundo ad Filium refugiendo eius iniuriam, ut non credamus, eum esse creaturam; tertio ad Spiritum sanctum praeparando sibi[^9]

<!-- page 826 -->

habitationem sanctam. Et hic est rectus ordo, quia Pater a nullo, Filius a Patre solo, Spiritus sanctus vero procedit simul a Patre et Filio. — Iuxta hunc ordinem docet ordinari ad proximum, in quantum habet conformitatem ad Deum. Unde secundum quod[^10] conformatur Patri, primo docet, exhiberi sibi reverentiam. Secundum quod conformatur Filio, docet vitare eius iniuriam; quod potest fieri quadrupliciter: per homicidium, per adulterium, per furtum et per falsum testimonium. Postremo, secundum quod homo habet conformari Spiritui sancto, dictat, fugiendam esse concupiscentiam, per quam inquinatur cordis habitaculum, et hoc quidem fit per duo mandata postrema. — Et sic patet ordo ipsorum mandatorum Decalogi secundum regulam dictaminis ipsius fidei.

Alio etiam modo considerare possumus congruentiam ordinis mandatorum Decalogi, videlicet secundum exigentiam *obligationis iustitiae.* Et quoniam iustitia magis dictat, nos obligari Deo quam proximo; ideo praemittuntur mandata ad Deum ordinantia tanquam digniora et excellentiora et magis obligantia. — Rursus, quia plus est obligari ad actum operis quam ad actum oris, et ad actum oris quam ad actum cordis; hinc est, quod praeceptum adorationis in opere respectu Patris est primum; praeceptum vero confessionis in ore respectu Filii est secundum; praeceptum vero sanctificationis in corde respectu Spiritus sancti est tertium. — Similiter, quia plus est obligari ad beneficentiam quam ad innocentiam; praeceptum illud, per quod obligamur ad benefaciendum alii, praecedit illa, per quae obligamur ad non nocendum. — Et iterum, quia magis obligamur vitare maius nocumentum proximi; et magis nocumentum est in homicidio quam in adulterio, et in adulterio quam in furto, et in furto quam in falso testimonio, et in his omnibus quam in concupiscentia cordis, et in concupiscentia cordis magis respectu uxoris quam respectu rei temporalis; et hoc ordine ordinantur mandata Decalogi: hinc est, quod convenientem habent ordinem secundum regulam *obligationis ipsius iustitiae.* — Concedendum est igitur, quod mandata Decalogi recto ordine ordinantur, sive consideremus regulam fidei dictantis, sive regulam iustitiae exsequentis.

**Ad argumenta:**

*Ad 1.* Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod via prior est quam illud, ad quod ducit; dicendum, quod quamvis impletio mandatorum secundae tabulae praecedat in exsecutione perfectam impletionem mandatorum primae tabulae, in consideratione tamen et in intentione est e contrario. Ordo autem mandatorum magis attenditur penes ordinem dignitatis quam nostrae exsecutionis[^11].

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod quanto aliqua universaliora, tanto priora; dicendum, quod etsi illud sit verum secundum aliquod genus prioritatis; nihil tamen prohibet alio genere prioritatis esse e contrario, utpote quantum ad prioritatem electionis et dignitatis. Quamvis enim flos sit prior fructu tempore et origine, fructus tamen est prior electione et dignitate[^12]. Et sic in proposito est intelligendum.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod prior est actus cordis quam oris[^13]; dicendum similiter, quod quamvis prior sit origine actus cordis quam operis; nihil tamen prohibet, hominem magis obligari ad vitandum actum operis quam cordis. Ordo autem praeceptorum magis respicit maioritatem quam prioritatem originis.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod prior est actus rationalis quam irascibilis vel concupiscibilis; dici potest secundum praehabitam viam, quod hoc est verum de prioritate originis[^14]. — Aliter etiam potest dici, quod nihil prohibet, secundum aliquam appropriationem actum irascibilis praecedere, secundum quod ille actus correspondet personae Patris, quae est prima persona in Trinitate[^15]; et secundum illam correspondentiam assignatur ordo in mandatis, quae spectant ad secundam tabulam.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est ibi ordinis *repugnantia* inter mandata primae tabulae et secundae, quia inter mandata primae tabulae negativa praeponuntur affirmativo; dicendum, quod hoc est falsum: quia, quamvis primum mandatum videatur esse negativum quantum ad modum, affirmativum tamen est quantum ad rem. Prohibentur enim adorari sculptilia, et in hoc clauditur, quod unus solus Deus debeat adorari et coli[^16].

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in mandatis primae tabulae nobilissimum ponitur ultimo loco; responderi potest *per interemptionem*[^17], quia non est maius Sabbatum sanctificare quam Deum adorare. — Aliter etiam responderi potest, quod esto, quod nobilissimum poneretur tertio loco, adhuc non est deordinatio, quia illud respondet bonitati, quae

<!-- page 827 -->

appropriatur Spiritui sancto, cuius personam ipsa fides in Trinitate ordinat tertio loco; non[^18] sic autem est reperire circa mandata secundae tabulae. — Posset etiam dici, quod maioris difficultatis est ultimum de mandatis secundae tabulae quam primum, quia maioris perfectionis est rem alienam non concupiscere quam patri benefacere. Et si tu obiicias tunc, quod deberet primo ordinari; non valet, tum quia mandatum illud non respondet Patri, sed Spiritui sancto, tum quia non est in eo tanta obligatio.

*Ad 7.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in mandatis primae tabulae praeceptum cordis ponitur primo, et praeceptum operis ultimo; respondendum est *per interemptionem:* quoniam, etsi mandatum de sanctificatione Sabbati respiciat operationem exteriorem, utpote opus servile, non respicit positive, sed potius negative; actum vero cordis interiorem, qui attenditur in vacando Deo, positive respicit[^19]; in mandato vero primo non tantum praecipitur cultus cordis interior, verum etiam adoratio exterior.

*Ad 8.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *nullus* est ibi ordo, quia a quolibet potest fieri inchoatio; dicendum, quod ordo non attenditur in mandatis Decalogi secundum exsecutionem nostrae impletionis, vel omissionem nostrae praevaricationis, sed secundum *dictamen* ipsius *fidei* et *obligationem iustitiae,* sicut praetactum est; et ideo ratio illa non valet[^20].

---

english:
<!-- page 825 -->

### Question II. *On the order of the Decalogue's commandments to one another.*

Secondly, inquiry is made into the order of the commandments of the Decalogue. And it seems that the commandments of the Decalogue are badly ordered:

1. For that which is the way to another is prior to that to which it leads; but the commandments ordering us to our neighbor are the way with respect to the commandments ordering us to God[^1]: therefore they ought to be ordered in the first place.

2. Likewise, "the more universal something is, the prior it is[^2]"; but the negative precepts are of a more universal obligation than the affirmative: therefore the negative ought to be put before the affirmative, the contrary of which happens in the second table, since the precept about honoring one's neighbor, which is affirmative, is set before the others.

3. Likewise, the act of the heart is prior to that of the mouth and of work[^3]: therefore that commandment in which a disorder concerning the act of the heart is forbidden ought to precede that in which a disorder concerning the act of work is forbidden; the contrary of which is found in the order of the commandments, since those commandments in which concupiscence of the heart is forbidden are named in the last place.

4. Likewise, the act of the rational power is prior to that of the concupiscible and to that of the irascible[^4]: therefore that commandment in which the rational disorder is forbidden ought to precede that in which the irascible and concupiscible disorder is forbidden; the contrary of which is found in the order of the commandments, since the commandment about not committing homicide is prior to that about not bearing false witness.

5. Likewise, it seems that there is[^5] a clash of order between the commandments ordering us to God and the commandments ordering us to our neighbor: because among the commandments ordering us to God the negatives are set first, and the affirmative is subjoined, namely this: *Remember to sanctify the day of the Sabbath;* but the contrary holds in the commandments ordering us to our neighbor, since the affirmative is set first, and the negatives are subjoined.

6. Likewise, this seems so by another reason: because in the commandments of the first table the noblest is placed in the last place, while in the commandments of the second it is placed first. If you say that this is not unfitting, because a man is ordered to God in one way and to his neighbor in another; *against* this is: that the image ought to correspond to that of which it is the image, and the copy to its exemplar: therefore the same order which is kept in the commandments ordering us to God ought to be observed[^6] in the commandments ordering us to our neighbor.

7. Likewise, in the commandments of the second table the precepts regarding the act of the heart are placed last, while in the commandments of the first table it is the reverse: therefore it seems that there is a preposterous ordering there[^7]. And the reason for this is taken from the fact that the love of neighbor ought to be conformed to the love of God: therefore in the same order in which the commandments of the first table are ordered, the commandments of the second ought to be ordered.

8. Likewise, it seems that *no* order is to be observed there: because from any one of the commandments one can begin to do well, and from any one can begin the transgression of sin: therefore by whatever reason one ought to be set first, by the same reason any whatever may be: therefore there does not seem to be any force to be placed in the order.

### Conclusion.

> The commandments of the Decalogue are rightly ordered.

**I respond:** It must be said that just as in the commandments of the Decalogue a *sufficient number*[^8] is considered, so too a *fitting order* is found, according to which order the Lawgiver himself orders them most fittingly. Now we can observe the fittingness of that order in two ways, namely according to the rule of *directing faith* and according to the rule of *executing justice.*

For faith dictates that we be ordered first to God, and then to our neighbor according to conformity to God. But in the ordering toward God, faith first dictates that we be ordered to the Father by showing him due reverence; secondly to the Son by shunning injury to him, that we may not believe him to be a creature; thirdly to the Holy Spirit by preparing for him[^9]

<!-- page 826 -->

a holy habitation. And this is the right order, because the Father is from none, the Son from the Father alone, while the Holy Spirit proceeds at once from the Father and the Son. — According to this order he teaches us to be ordered to our neighbor, inasmuch as he has conformity to God. Hence according as[^10] he is conformed to the Father, he first teaches that reverence be shown to him. According as he is conformed to the Son, he teaches us to avoid injury to him; which can be done in four ways: by homicide, by adultery, by theft, and by false witness. Lastly, according as a man has to be conformed to the Holy Spirit, he dictates that concupiscence is to be shunned, by which the dwelling of the heart is defiled, and this indeed is done by the two last commandments. — And thus the order of the commandments of the Decalogue is made plain according to the rule of the dictate of faith itself.

In another way also we can consider the fittingness of the order of the commandments of the Decalogue, namely according to the exigency of the *obligation of justice.* And since justice rather dictates that we are obliged to God more than to our neighbor; therefore the commandments ordering us to God are set first as more worthy and more excellent and more obligating. — Again, since it is more to be obliged to the act of work than to the act of the mouth, and to the act of the mouth than to the act of the heart; hence it is that the precept of adoration in work with respect to the Father is first; the precept of confession in the mouth with respect to the Son is second; the precept of sanctification in the heart with respect to the Holy Spirit is third. — Likewise, since it is more to be obliged to beneficence than to innocence; that precept by which we are obliged to do good to another precedes those by which we are obliged not to do harm. — And again, since we are more obliged to avoid the greater harm to our neighbor; and the harm is greater in homicide than in adultery, and in adultery than in theft, and in theft than in false witness, and in all these than in concupiscence of the heart, and in concupiscence of the heart greater with respect to a wife than with respect to a temporal thing; and the commandments of the Decalogue are ordered in this order: hence it is that they have a fitting order according to the rule of the *obligation of justice itself.* — It must therefore be granted that the commandments of the Decalogue are ordered in a right order, whether we consider the rule of dictating faith, or the rule of executing justice.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* As for that which is first objected to the contrary, that the way is prior to that to which it leads; it must be said that although the fulfillment of the commandments of the second table precedes in execution the perfect fulfillment of the commandments of the first table, yet in consideration and in intention it is the reverse. But the order of the commandments is regarded rather in terms of the order of dignity than of our execution[^11].

*To 2.* As for that which is objected, that the more universal things are, the prior they are; it must be said that although that is true according to a certain kind of priority, nothing nevertheless prevents it from being the reverse in another kind of priority, namely as to the priority of election and of dignity. For although the flower is prior to the fruit in time and in origin, the fruit is nevertheless prior in election and in dignity[^12]. And thus it is to be understood in the matter proposed.

*To 3.* As for that which is objected, that the act of the heart is prior to that of the mouth[^13]; it must be said likewise that although the act of the heart is prior in origin to that of work, nothing nevertheless prevents a man from being more obliged to avoid the act of work than that of the heart. But the order of precepts regards greatness rather than priority of origin.

*To 4.* As for that which is objected, that the act of the rational power is prior to that of the irascible or concupiscible; it can be said according to the way already held, that this is true of priority of origin[^14]. — In another way also it can be said that nothing prevents, according to a certain appropriation, the act of the irascible from preceding, according as that act corresponds to the person of the Father, who is the first person in the Trinity[^15]; and according to that correspondence the order is assigned in the commandments which pertain to the second table.

*To 5.* As for that which is objected, that there is a *clash* of order between the commandments of the first table and of the second, because among the commandments of the first table the negatives are set before the affirmative; it must be said that this is false: because, although the first commandment seems to be negative as to its mode, it is nevertheless affirmative as to its reality. For graven images are forbidden to be adored, and in this is enclosed that the one sole God ought to be adored and worshiped[^16].

*To 6.* As for that which is objected, that in the commandments of the first table the noblest is placed in the last place; it can be answered *by interemption*[^17], since it is not greater to sanctify the Sabbath than to adore God. — In another way also it can be answered that, granted the noblest were placed in the third place, still there is no disorder, because that corresponds to goodness, which

<!-- page 827 -->

is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, whose person faith orders in the third place in the Trinity; it is not so[^18], however, to be found concerning the commandments of the second table. — It could also be said that the last of the commandments of the second table is of greater difficulty than the first, since it is of greater perfection not to covet another's thing than to do good to a father. And if you then object that it ought to be ordered first; it does not hold, both because that commandment does not correspond to the Father, but to the Holy Spirit, and because there is not so great an obligation in it.

*To 7.* As for that which is objected, that in the commandments of the first table the precept of the heart is placed first, and the precept of work last; it must be answered *by interemption:* since, although the commandment about the sanctification of the Sabbath regards exterior operation, namely servile work, it does not regard it positively, but rather negatively; whereas the interior act of the heart, which is attended to in being free for God, it regards positively[^19]; but in the first commandment not only the interior worship of the heart is commanded, but also exterior adoration.

*To 8.* As for that which is objected, that *no* order is there, because an inception can be made from any one; it must be said that order is not attended to in the commandments of the Decalogue according to the execution of our fulfillment, or the omission of our transgression, but according to the *dictate* of *faith* itself and the *obligation of justice,* as has been touched on; and therefore that reasoning does not hold[^20].

---

la: Cfr. supra d. 27. a. 2. q. 4. argg. pro I. parte.

en: Cf. above, d. 27, a. 2, q. 4, the arguments for the first part.

la: Secundum Aristot., de quo vide supra pag. 574, nota 1. — Circa finem arg. pro *proximo* edd. cum pluribus codd. *proximum,* et post *affirmativum* cod. A addit *tantum.*

en: According to Aristotle, on whom see above, p. 574, note 1. — Toward the end of the argument, for *proximo* the editions, with several codices, read *proximum,* and after *affirmativum* codex A adds *tantum.*

la: Matth. 15, 19: *De corde enim exeunt cogitationes malae, homicidia* etc.

en: Matt. 15:19: *For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders,* etc.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 641, nota 7. et pag. 720, nota 1.

en: Cf. above, p. 641, note 7, and p. 720, note 1.

la: Non multi codd. *non sit,* perperam.

en: Not many codices [read] *non sit,* wrongly.

la: Ita codd. AGHKLTZbbel et edd. 1, 2: alii et Vat. *servari.*

en: Thus codices AGHKLTZbbel and editions 1, 2: others and the Vatican [edition read] *servari.*

la: Edd. *repugnantia.*

en: The editions [read] *repugnantia.*

la: Vide quaest. praeced. — Cod. K *numerus et sufficientia.* Pro *consideratur* cod. Z *servatur,* qui etiam paulo inferius pro *convenientissime* substituit *ordinatissime.*

en: See the preceding question. — Codex K [reads] *numerus et sufficientia.* For *consideratur* codex Z [reads] *servatur,* which also a little below substitutes *ordinatissime* for *convenientissime.*

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. et 3, ubi et de primo et tertio praecepto respectu Patris et Spiritus sancti agitur. — Mox pro *habitationem sanctam* cod. A *habitaculum sanctum.*

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, cc. 2 and 3, where there is treatment also of the first and third precept with respect to the Father and the Holy Spirit. — Presently, for *habitationem sanctam* codex A [reads] *habitaculum sanctum.*

la: Cod. Z addit *homo.*

en: Codex Z adds *homo.*

la: Vide supra pag. 610, nota 11. verba August. allegata. — Axioma: *Quod primum est in intentione est ultimum in exsecutione,* proponit Aristot., II. de Generat. animal. c. 4. (c. 6.), et III. Ethic. c. 3.

en: See above, p. 610, note 11, for the words of Augustine cited. — The axiom *That which is first in intention is last in execution* is propounded by Aristotle, *On the Generation of Animals* II, c. 4 (c. 6), and *Nicomachean Ethics* III, c. 3.

la: August., XII. Confess. c. 29. n. 40, docet, quatuor modis dici aliquid prius: aeternitate, sicut Deus [praecedit] omnia; tempore, sicut flos fructum; electione, sicut fructus florem; origine, sicut sonus cantum. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 2. p. I. a. 2. q. 3. ad 1. et supra pag. 603, nota 8.

en: Augustine, *Confessions* XII, c. 29, n. 40, teaches that a thing is said to be prior in four ways: in eternity, as God [precedes] all things; in time, as the flower [precedes] the fruit; in election, as the fruit [precedes] the flower; in origin, as the sound [precedes] the song. Cf. *II Sent.* d. 2, p. I, a. 2, q. 3, ad 1, and above, p. 603, note 8.

la: In Vat. additur *et operis.* Circa finem solut. post *maioritatem* cod. A supplet *obligationis.*

en: In the Vatican [edition] *et operis* is added. Toward the end of the solution, after *maioritatem* codex A supplies *obligationis.*

la: Vide supra q. 1. ad 8.

en: See above, q. 1, ad 8.

la: Cfr. 1. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. ad 3, ubi simile habetur de memoria, quae Patri appropriatur.

en: Cf. *I Sent.* d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, ad 3, where the like is held concerning memory, which is appropriated to the Father.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. et 3, nec non infra dub. 1. — Superius pro *affirmativo* edd. cum aliquot codd. *affirmativis.*

en: See here the text of the Master, cc. 1 and 3, and also below, dub. 1. — Above, for *affirmativo* the editions, with some codices, [read] *affirmativis.*

la: Cfr. supra pag. 570, nota 6 et pag. 640, nota 2.

en: Cf. above, p. 570, note 6, and p. 640, note 2.

la: In Vat. desideratur *non.* Superius pro *non est* cod. F *non esset.*

en: In the Vatican [edition] *non* is wanting. Above, for *non est* codex F [reads] *non esset.*

la: Videsis infra dub. 3. — Paulo superius post *non* edd. subiungunt *tamen.*

en: See below, dub. 3. — A little above, after *non* the editions subjoin *tamen.*

la: Cod. K *non cogit.* — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Codex K [reads] *non cogit.* — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** This chunk was a reconstructed missing skeleton (the auto-chunker dropped the file and merged its text into a2-q1). Promoted to Tier 2 on 2026-06-13: Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p82{5,6,7}-{L,R}-*.png`), cross-checked against raw OCR lines 57243–57393; English freshly translated literally; apparatus built from the raw OCR footers walked page by page.

**Alignment verdict: PASS (1:1).** The ARTICULUS II tractatio listing (raw 56964–56970) reads: *Primo* de ipsorum mandatorum numero et sufficientia (= a2-q1, done), *Secundo* de ordine ipsorum ad invicem (= this chunk), *Tertio* de numero et ordine in comparatione ad tabularum distinctionem (= a2-q3). The opener *Secundo quaeritur de ordine mandatorum Decalogi* matches the *Secundo* slot exactly.

**Page-split map.**
- p.825 (PDF 847): QUAESTIO II header + opener + objections 1–8 + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (Modus 1, regula fidei, through "praeparando sibi"). Footer nn.1–9 → [^1]–[^9].
- p.826 (PDF 848): Respondeo cont. (habitationem sanctam … Modus 2, regula iustitiae) + Solutio ad 1 through ad 6 (first part). Footer nn.1–8 → [^10]–[^17].
- p.827 (PDF 849): Solutio ad 6 (tail) + ad 7 + ad 8 (ends "…ratio illa non valet"). Footer nn.1–3 → [^18]–[^20]; QUAESTIO III opens mid-page (raw 57394).

**Scholion: none (`has_scholion: false`).** No SCHOLION header in the range (raw 57245–57393). The congruentiae of the order were prospectively surveyed in the a2-q1 scholion §I/§II; p.827 footer note [^20] explicitly directs "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." Redirect any scholion lookup to a2-q1 §I/§II.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Picked up:* none. a2-q1's scholion §I–§II on pp.824–825 carries no footnotes; this chunk opens its own fresh per-page footer band at p.825 n.1.
- *Forwarded to a2-q3:* p.827 footer nn.4–9 (the *quoad tabularum distinctionem* material — Josephus/Origen/Augustine on the tables, the denarius/quinarius numerology) all belong to QUAESTIO III, which opens mid-p.827 at raw 57394. q3's first body marker is n.4 (*Iosephus⁴*), confirming the 1–3 / 4–9 split on p.827.

**[?] flags:** none. All 20 footers and all body markers resolved cleanly against the PDF bands; OCR garbles (`QUAESTIO H.` = QUAESTIO II, the `s`/`*` superscript renderings, two-column bleed) silently corrected with PDF confirmation.

**Line range:** line_start 57243 set two lines before the OCR `QUAESTIO H.` header (57245) to include the header band; line_end 57393 (last line of ad 8, "…non valet"), bounded forward by QUAESTIO III at 57394.