title: Dist. 37, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 827 -->

### Articulus II. *De mandatis Decalogi quoad distinctionem et ordinem.*
### Quaestio III. *De numero et ordine mandatorum quoad tabularum distinctionem.*

Tertio quaeritur de numero et ordine mandatorum per comparationem ad tabularum distinctionem; et cum diversimode a diversis dicantur fuisse scripta mandata in tabulis, quaeritur, quis verius dixerit. Nam Iosephus[^1] dicit, quod quinque fuerunt scripta in una, et quinque in altera; Origenes, quod quatuor in una, et sex in altera; Augustinus vero, quod tria in una, et septem in altera. — Et quod verius dixerit *Iosephus*, videtur:

1. *Primo*, quia illae tabulae aequales fuerunt[^2] quantum ad magnitudinem, secundum quod satis est probabile, cum non legatur contrarium: ergo videtur, quod tot debuerit una tabula continere, quot et altera.

2. *Item*, hoc ipsum videtur auctoritate Apostoli, ad Romanos decimo tertio[^3], ubi dicit, Legem impleri in dilectione proximi; et hoc probat inducendo solummodo in quinque mandatis: ergo videtur, quod si Apostolus sufficientem facit inductionem, quod in quinque mandatis sufficienter exprimat continentiam saltem unius tabulae.

3. *Item*, sicut denarius numerus convenit perfectioni, sic quinarius numerus convenit statui carnali, quoniam status ille per quinque habet designari propter quinarium quinque sensuum, secundum quod expositores dicunt[^4]: ergo sicut decebat, totam Legem contineri intra Decalogum, sic decebat, scribi in tabulis per quinarium et quinarium: ergo videtur, quod dictum Iosephi sit verum et congruum; quod si ita est, tunc alii dixerunt falsum.

Sed quod *Origenis* dictum fuerit magis verum, ostenditur:

1. *Primo* per ipsum textum[^5]: quia mandatum primum, quod spectat ad Dei venerationem, distinguit in affirmativum et negativum, cum dicit: *Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus*; et postea adiungit: *Non facies tibi sculptile*; mandatum vero de concupiscentia coniungit, unde interponit concupiscentiam uxoris inter concupiscentiam rerum, Exodi vigesimo[^6]: ergo videtur, quod praecepta ordinantia ad proximum sint tantum sex, praecepta ordinantia ad Deum sint quatuor.

<!-- page 828 -->

Si ergo illa quae ordinant ad Deum, debuerunt scribi simul, videtur, quod Origenes melius distinxerit per quaternarium et senarium.

2. *Item*, hoc ipsum ostenditur auctoritate Hieronymi, qui confirmat verbum ipsius Origenis. Ait enim Hieronymus super Osee[^7]: *Propter duas iniquitates etc.*: « Hae duae iniquitates sunt contra duo Decalogi praecepta, quibus dicitur: *Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus*; et: *Non erunt tibi alii dii praeter me* »: ergo videtur, quod quatuor mandata sint, quae ad Deum spectant: ergo quatuor sunt in prima tabula.

3. *Item*, hoc ipsum ostenditur per illud quod dicitur in libro de Quaestionibus novi et veteris Testamenti[^8], qui dicitur esse Augustini, ubi post enumerationem quatuor mandatorum dicitur: « *Haec quatuor verba proprie ad Deum pertinent et in prima tabula continentur* »: ergo videtur secundum hoc, quod dictum Origenis fuerit magis verum.

Sed quod *Augustinus* verius dixerit omnibus aliis, videtur:

1. *Primo*, quia scriptura tabularum exterior debet respondere scripturae interiori; sed in tabulis cordis interius mandata ordinantia ad summam Trinitatem scribuntur in superiori parte rationis; haec autem non sunt nisi tria, secundum quod tria sunt *appropriata*[^9], reliqua vero, quae ordinant ad proximum, scribuntur in inferiori parte, quae tenet quasi rationem alterius tabulae: cum ergo tabulae exteriores respondeant interioribus, videtur similiter, quod ita in tabulis exterioribus debeat esse, quod tria scriberentur in una, et septem in altera.

2. *Item*, melius distinguit mandata qui distinguit ea secundum speciem[^10], quam secundum materiam; sed mandatum de non concupiscendo uxorem et de non concupiscendo res formaliter distinguuntur, quia illa est concupiscentia carnis, ista est concupiscentia oculorum; mandatum vero de non colendo deos alienos et de non faciendo sculptilia non diversificantur nisi secundum materiam: cum ergo Augustinus hoc modo distinguat, videtur, quod assignatio eius sit magis idonea.

3. *Item*, cum omnia mandata ordinent ad unius Dei cultum, videtur, quod quantum est de se, debuerint simul in unum colligi et ordinari: si ergo fuerunt per tabulas divisa, hoc non fuit nisi ad commendandum duo caritatis praecepta, quorum unum ordinat ad Deum, alterum ordinat ad proximum. Cum ergo tria sint ordinantia ad Deum, et septem ordinantia ad proximum, sicut patet ex sufficientia mandatorum superius[^11] assignata; videtur, quod assignatio Augustini sit magis recta, ut tria scripta fuerint in prima tabula, et septem in secunda.

*Item*, obiicitur contra omnes assignationes prius habitas: quoniam, si per mandata Decalogi prohibetur omne peccatum, et contingit, hominem « peccare in Deum et in proximum et in se ipsum[^12] »; videtur, quod secundum multiplicationem personarum, contra quas peccare contingit, debuerit multiplicari numerus tabularum: ergo Lex debuit scribi in tabulis tribus, non in duabus; alioquin videtur, quod mandata Decalogi aut sint insufficienter tradita, aut inconvenienter per tabulas distincta.

### Conclusio

> In sensu litterali erant quinque mandata in una tabula, quinque in altera; in sensu spirituali vel secundum Origenem quatuor in una, sex in altera, vel melius secundum Augustinum tria in una, septem in altera.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod scriptura mandatorum in tabulis dupliciter habet distingui, videlicet secundum sensum litteralem et secundum mysticum. Si fiat distinctio illius scripturae secundum sensum litteralem; sic quinque fuerunt[^13] in una tabula, et quinque in alia; et hoc modo distinguit Iosephus, qui fuit historiographus, et qui ad sensum litteralem principaliter respiciebat. — Si autem fiat distinctio secundum spiritualem sive mysticum sensum; sic distinxerunt doctores sacrae Scripturae dicentes, mandata ordinantia ad Deum pertinere ad primam tabulam, mandata vero ordinantia ad proximum pertinere ad secundam. Illa enim distinctio tabularum fiebat ad geminam caritatem commendandam et insinuandam; et quoniam mandata ordinantia ad Deum et ad proximum dupliciter possunt distingui et diversificari, videlicet diversitate *formali* et *materiali*: hinc est, quod adhuc doctores nostri fuerunt diversificati. Considerando enim distinctionem *materialem*, quatuor sunt mandata, quae ordinant hominem ad Deum. Materialiter enim loquendo, in hoc quod dicitur: *Non adorabis deos alienos*; et: *Non facies tibi sculptile*, duo mandata includuntur[^14]. Et hunc modum distinguendi et assignandi servat Origenes.

<!-- page 829 -->

Si vero consideretur distinctio mandatorum secundum rationem *formalem*; sic mandata ordinantia ad Deum non sunt nisi tria, tribus appropriatis trium personarum correspondentia, secundum quod tactum est supra[^15]; mandata autem ordinantia ad proximum sunt septem, ita quod illud quod est de concupiscentia uxoris alienae, distinguitur ab illo quod est de concupiscentia rerum, secundum quod alia et alia est concupiscentia secundum formam et speciem. Et hoc modo consideravit Augustinus. Ait enim sic super Exodum[^16]: « *Convenientius enim mihi videtur, accipi illa tria et ista septem, quia et Trinitatem videntur illa quae ad Deum pertinent, insinuare. Et quod dictum est: Non erunt tibi dii alieni praeter me, hoc ipsum perfectius explicatur, cum prohibentur figmenta coli* ». — Sic igitur respiciendo ad sensum *litteralem*, bene distinxit Iosephus. Respiciendo vero ad intellectum *spiritualem* et distinctionem *materialem*, bene distinxit Origenes. Respiciendo autem ad sensum *spiritualem* et distinctionem *formalem*, bene distinxit Augustinus et excellentius quam Origenes. Nec est ibi aliqua contradictio, quia diversus modus distinguendi *spiritualiter* et *litteraliter* non repugnant; similiter diversus modus distinguendi *materialiter* et *formaliter* non repugnant[^17]. — Et secundum hoc rationes et auctoritates probantes, unumquemque bene distinguere secundum suam rationem, satis possunt concedi.

Verumtamen ad illud quod obiicitur, quod debeant scribi in tabulis exterioribus, sicut scribuntur in tabulis interioribus; dicendum, quod etsi debeat esse similitudo ipsius figurae ad veritatem, et signi visibilis ad intellectum invisibilem, non tamen debet esse omnimoda similitudo; immo sic est similitudo in uno, quod sit dissimilitudo in altero, ut per hoc appareat, quod illud est umbra, et istud est veritas[^18]. Ideo non oportuit, quod omnino scriberentur *exterius*, secundum quod scribuntur *interius*; immo quia populo carnali tradebantur secundum litteralem sensum, ideo distinguuntur per quinarium et quinarium. Quia vero secundum spiritualem intellectum duo praecepta caritatis insinuabantur[^19], ideo scribebantur in duplici tabula; unde quodam modo est ibi similitudinis convenientia, quodam modo discrepantia.

Ad illud vero quod obiicitur ad confirmationem dicti Origenis de auctoritate Quaestionum veteris et novi Testamenti, responderi potest, quod Augustinus aliquando loquitur secundum opinionem propriam, aliquando secundum opinionem alienam: et ibi distinguebat mandata secundum opinionem alienam, non secundum suam. — Aliquibus autem videtur, quod ille liber non sit Augustini, pro eo quod plura ibi dicuntur, quae verbis beati Augustini repugnare videntur, quod melius patet diligenter inspicienti[^20] librum illum.

Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod deberent scribi in tribus tabulis; dicendum, quod sicut in mandato de dilectione Dei et proximi clauditur mandatum de dilectione sui[^21]; sic in praeceptis, per quae intelligitur homo ordinari ad Deum et ad proximum, clauditur ordinatio sui ad se ipsum; et ideo non oportuit, tabulas triplicari, sicut etiam non oportuit, triplicari mandata caritatis. — Alia etiam est ratio, quia mandata distinguuntur secundum regulam iustitiae; iustitia autem ad alterum ordinat: et ideo non oportuit, tertiam tabulam intervenire, secundum quam insinuaretur ordinatio hominis ad propriam personam[^22].

---

english:
<!-- page 827 -->

### Article II. *On the commandments of the Decalogue with respect to their distinction and order.*
### Question III. *On the number and order of the commandments with respect to the distinction of the tables.*

Thirdly, inquiry is made concerning the number and order of the commandments by comparison to the distinction of the tables; and since they are said by different authors to have been written on the tables in different ways, it is asked who has said it more truly. For Josephus[^1] says that five were written on one, and five on the other; Origen, that four on one, and six on the other; but Augustine, that three on one, and seven on the other. — And that *Josephus* spoke more truly seems so:

1. *First*, because those tables were equal[^2] as to magnitude, as is probable enough, since the contrary is not read: therefore it seems that one table ought to have contained as many as the other.

2. *Likewise*, this same thing seems [to be shown] by the authority of the Apostle, to the Romans the thirteenth chapter[^3], where he says that the Law is fulfilled in love of neighbor; and he proves this by adducing only five commandments: therefore it seems that, if the Apostle makes a sufficient induction, then in five commandments he sufficiently expresses the content of at least one table.

3. *Likewise*, just as the number ten befits perfection, so the number five befits the carnal state, since that state is wont to be designated by five on account of the quinary of the five senses, as the expositors say[^4]: therefore, just as it was fitting that the whole Law be contained within the Decalogue, so it was fitting that it be written on the tables by a quinary and a quinary: therefore it seems that Josephus's saying is true and congruous; and if it is so, then the others said what is false.

But that *Origen's* saying was more true is shown:

1. *First*, by the very text[^5]: because the first commandment, which pertains to the veneration of God, he distinguishes into an affirmative and a negative, when it says: *I am the Lord thy God*; and afterward he adds: *Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing*; but the commandment concerning concupiscence he joins together, whence he interposes the concupiscence of [another's] wife among the concupiscence of things, in Exodus the twentieth chapter[^6]: therefore it seems that the precepts ordering [man] to neighbor are only six, [and] the precepts ordering [man] to God are four.

<!-- page 828 -->

If, therefore, those which order [man] to God ought to have been written together, it seems that Origen distinguished better by a quaternary and a senary.

2. *Likewise*, this same thing is shown by the authority of Jerome, who confirms the word of Origen himself. For Jerome says on Hosea[^7]: *On account of two iniquities, etc.*: « These two iniquities are against two precepts of the Decalogue, by which it is said: *I am the Lord thy God*; and: *Thou shalt not have other gods before me* »: therefore it seems that there are four commandments which pertain to God: therefore four are in the first table.

3. *Likewise*, this same thing is shown through what is said in the book *On the Questions of the New and Old Testament*[^8], which is said to be Augustine's, where, after the enumeration of four commandments, it is said: « *These four words pertain properly to God and are contained in the first table* »: therefore it seems, according to this, that Origen's saying was more true.

But that *Augustine* spoke more truly than all the others seems so:

1. *First*, because the exterior writing of the tables ought to correspond to the interior writing; but in the tables of the heart, interiorly, the commandments ordering [man] to the highest Trinity are written in the higher part of reason; and these are only three, according as there are three *appropriated* [attributes][^9], while the rest, which order [man] to neighbor, are written in the lower part, which holds, as it were, the character of the other table: since, therefore, the exterior tables correspond to the interior ones, it likewise seems that it ought to be thus in the exterior tables, that three be written on one, and seven on the other.

2. *Likewise*, he distinguishes the commandments better who distinguishes them according to species[^10], than according to matter; but the commandment about not coveting [another's] wife and about not coveting things are distinguished formally, because the former is concupiscence of the flesh, the latter is concupiscence of the eyes; whereas the commandment about not worshiping strange gods and about not making graven images are distinguished only according to matter: since, therefore, Augustine distinguishes in this way, it seems that his assignment is more fitting.

3. *Likewise*, since all the commandments order [man] to the worship of the one God, it seems that, as far as concerns itself, they ought to have been gathered and ordered together into one: if, therefore, they were divided through tables, this was only for commending the two precepts of charity, of which one orders [man] to God, the other orders [man] to neighbor. Since, therefore, there are three ordering [man] to God, and seven ordering [man] to neighbor, as is clear from the sufficiency of the commandments assigned above[^11]; it seems that Augustine's assignment is more correct, namely that three were written in the first table, and seven in the second.

*Likewise*, an objection is raised against all the assignments held above: since, if by the commandments of the Decalogue every sin is prohibited, and it happens that a man « sins against God and against neighbor and against himself[^12] »; it seems that, according to the multiplication of the persons against whom one happens to sin, the number of tables ought to have been multiplied: therefore the Law ought to have been written on three tables, not on two; otherwise it seems that the commandments of the Decalogue are either insufficiently handed down, or unfittingly distinguished through tables.

### Conclusion

> In the literal sense there were five commandments on one table, five on the other; in the spiritual sense, either according to Origen four on one, six on the other, or better, according to Augustine, three on one, seven on the other.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that the writing of the commandments on the tables can be distinguished in two ways, namely according to the literal sense and according to the mystical. If the distinction of that writing be made according to the literal sense; thus there were five[^13] on one table, and five on the other; and in this way Josephus distinguishes them, who was a historiographer, and who looked principally to the literal sense. — But if the distinction be made according to the spiritual or mystical sense; thus the doctors of sacred Scripture distinguished them, saying that the commandments ordering [man] to God pertain to the first table, but the commandments ordering [man] to neighbor pertain to the second. For that distinction of the tables was made for commending and conveying the twofold charity; and since the commandments ordering [man] to God and to neighbor can be distinguished and diversified in two ways, namely by a *formal* and a *material* diversity: hence it is that even our doctors were diversified. For considering the *material* distinction, there are four commandments which order man to God. For, speaking materially, in this which is said: *Thou shalt not adore strange gods*; and: *Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing*, two commandments are included[^14]. And Origen keeps this manner of distinguishing and assigning.

<!-- page 829 -->

But if the distinction of the commandments be considered according to the *formal* character; thus the commandments ordering [man] to God are only three, corresponding to the three appropriated [attributes] of the three persons, according as has been touched on above[^15]; while the commandments ordering [man] to neighbor are seven, in such wise that that which is about the concupiscence of another's wife is distinguished from that which is about the concupiscence of things, according as the concupiscence is one and another according to form and species. And in this way Augustine considered [it]. For he says thus on Exodus[^16]: « *For it seems to me more fitting to take those three and these seven, because those things which pertain to God seem also to convey the Trinity. And what is said: There shall not be other gods before thee, this same thing is more perfectly explained when fashioned figments are forbidden to be worshiped* ». — Thus, therefore, looking to the *literal* sense, Josephus distinguished well. But looking to the *spiritual* understanding and the *material* distinction, Origen distinguished well. But looking to the *spiritual* sense and the *formal* distinction, Augustine distinguished well, and more excellently than Origen. Nor is there any contradiction there, because the different manner of distinguishing *spiritually* and *literally* do not conflict; likewise the different manner of distinguishing *materially* and *formally* do not conflict[^17]. — And according to this, the reasons and authorities proving that each one distinguishes well according to his own ground can well enough be granted.

Nevertheless, to that which is objected, that they ought to be written on the exterior tables just as they are written on the interior tables; it must be said that, although there ought to be a likeness of the figure itself to the truth, and of the visible sign to the invisible understanding, nevertheless there need not be an entire likeness; rather, the likeness is such in one respect that there is unlikeness in another, so that through this it may appear that the one is a shadow, and the other is the truth[^18]. Therefore it was not necessary that they be written entirely *exteriorly* according as they are written *interiorly*; rather, because they were handed over to a carnal people according to the literal sense, therefore they are distinguished by a quinary and a quinary. But because, according to the spiritual understanding, the two precepts of charity were conveyed[^19], therefore they were written on a twofold table; whence in one respect there is a fitting correspondence of likeness there, in another respect a discrepancy.

But to that which is objected for the confirmation of Origen's saying from the authority of the *Questions of the Old and New Testament*, it can be answered that Augustine sometimes speaks according to his own opinion, sometimes according to another's opinion: and there he was distinguishing the commandments according to another's opinion, not according to his own. — But to some it seems that that book is not Augustine's, on the ground that many things are said there which seem to conflict with the words of blessed Augustine, which appears better to one who diligently inspects[^20] that book.

To that which is objected lastly, that they ought to be written on three tables; it must be said that, just as in the commandment about the love of God and neighbor the commandment about the love of oneself is enclosed[^21]; so in the precepts by which man is understood to be ordered to God and to neighbor, the ordering of oneself to oneself is enclosed; and therefore it was not necessary that the tables be tripled, just as it was also not necessary that the commandments of charity be tripled. — There is also another reason, because the commandments are distinguished according to the rule of justice; but justice orders [one] to another: and therefore it was not necessary that a third table intervene, according to which the ordering of man to his own person would be conveyed[^22].

---

la: Libr. III. Antiq. c. 6. (alias c. 5.): *Et cum hoc dixisset [Moyses], duas tabulas ostendit eis, habentes scripta illa decem praecepta, in utraque quina. Et c. 7: In hac ergo arca duas tabulas recondidit, in quibus fuerant decem verba conscripta; quina quidem per singulas tabulas binas, semis autem per unamquamque paginulam.* — Origenes sententiam suam profert in Homil. 8. in Exod. 20, 3, n. 2. — August. autem de hoc disserte loquitur II. Quaest. in Pentateuch. q. 71, n. 2. Cfr. Petr. Comestor (+ 1178), Histor. scholastic., libri Exodi c. 40, ubi dicit: *Quod nonnisi decem praecepta Dominus dedit, omnes asserunt Sancti, sed in distinctione eorum differunt. Primum enim et unum, secundum Augustinum, dividit Origenes in duo, et quae sunt duo ultima secundum Augustinum, colligit in unum; cui consentit Iosephus. Praeterea dicit Augustinus, tria fuisse in una tabula, et septem in alia; Iosephus vero et Hebraei quinque in utraque.*

en: *Antiquities*, Book III, c. 6 (otherwise c. 5): « And when [Moses] had said this, he showed them two tables, having written on them those ten precepts, five on each. » And c. 7: « In this ark, therefore, he stored away two tables, on which the ten words had been written; five indeed by [pairs] on each table, and half on each page. » — Origen sets forth his opinion in *Homily* 8 on Exodus 20, 3, n. 2. — Augustine, however, speaks expressly of this in *Questions on the Pentateuch* II, q. 71, n. 2. Cf. Peter Comestor (d. 1178), *Scholastic History*, on the book of Exodus c. 40, where he says: « That the Lord gave none but ten precepts, all the saints assert, but in the distinction of them they differ. For the first and the one [precept], according to Augustine, Origen divides into two, and the two which are last according to Augustine he gathers into one; with which Josephus agrees. Moreover Augustine says that three were on one table, and seven on another; but Josephus and the Hebrews [say] five on each. »

la: Ita codd. AKZbb, in aliis et edd. *sunt*, cod. H *erant*. Subinde pro *legatur* plures codd. cum edd. 1, 2 *legitur*.

en: Thus codd. AKZbb; in others and in the editions, *sunt*; cod. H, *erant*. Then for *legatur* several codices, together with editions 1 and 2, [read] *legitur*.

la: Vers. 8. et 10. Ibid. v. 9: *Nam: non adulterabis, non occides, non furaberis, non falsum testimonium dices, non concupisces.*

en: Verses 8 and 10. Likewise v. 9: « For: thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet. »

la: De perfectione numeri *denarii* cfr. supra pag. 823, nota 1. De imperfectione numeri *quinarii* vide Hieronym., III. Comment. in Ezech. 11, 2. seqq., ubi respiciens parabolam de decem Virginibus (Matth. 25, 1. seqq.) ait: *Sciamus, hunc numerum [quinarium] in medio positum et pro qualitate utentium vel ad bonam vel ad malam partem posse conferri.* August., Enarrat. in Ps. 49, n. 9: *Sed in quinario numero intelligitur continentia quinque sensuum carnis. Etenim multis venit corruptio per oculos etc.* — Pro *quinarium quinque sensuum*, quod probabilius habent codd. AZbb, plures alii codd. *quinarium num sensum*, Vat. *quinarium sensum*, edd. 1, 2 *quinarium sensuum*.

en: On the perfection of the number *ten*, cf. above, p. 823, note 1. On the imperfection of the number *five* see Jerome, *Commentary on Ezekiel* III, on 11, 2 and following, where, regarding the parable of the ten Virgins (Matt. 25, 1 and following), he says: « Let us know that this number [five], set in the midst, can be applied, according to the quality of those who use it, either to the good part or to the bad. » Augustine, *Expositions on the Psalms*, on Ps. 49, n. 9: « But in the number five is understood the continence of the five senses of the flesh. For corruption comes to many through the eyes, etc. » — For *quinarium quinque sensuum*, which codd. AZbb more probably have, several other codices [read] *quinarium num sensum*, the Vatican edition *quinarium sensum*, editions 1 and 2 *quinarium sensuum*.

en: Exodus 20, 2 and 4.

la: Vers. 17; codd. allegant Levit. 20. — Mox pro *sint* plures codd. *his sunt*.

en: Verse 17; the codices cite Leviticus 20. — Presently, for *sint*, several codices [read] *his sunt*.

la: Cap. 10, 10. In testimonio Hieronymi, III. in Osee 10, 10, textus origin. *erupere* pro *sunt*.

en: Chapter 10, 10. In the testimony of Jerome, [Comment.] III on Hosea 10, 10, the original text [reads] *erupere* for *sunt*.

la: Quaest. 7. — In fine arg. edd. omittunt *secundum hoc*.

en: Question 7. — At the end of the argument the editions omit *secundum hoc*.

la: Cfr. supra q. I. et d. 33. q. I. ad 3. — Inferius pro *scriberentur* cod. T *scribentur*, edd. *scribantur*.

en: Cf. above, q. I, and d. 33, q. I, ad 3. — Below, for *scriberentur*, cod. T [reads] *scribentur*, the editions *scribantur*.

la: Sive formam, cfr. supra pag. 803, nota 4. — Inferius respicitur I. Ioan. 2, 16: *Quoniam omne quod est in mundo, concupiscentia carnis est etc.*

en: Or form; cf. above, p. 803, note 4. — Below there is a reference to 1 John 2, 16: « For all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, etc. »

la: Quaest. 1. — De duplici caritatis praecepto cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXXVI. c. 3. — In maiori pro *ordinent* cod. M *pertinent*, edd. *ordinentur*, et pro *debuerint* multi codd. *debuerant*.

en: Question 1. — On the twofold precept of charity, cf. above, the text of the Master, d. XXXVI, c. 3. — In the major [premise], for *ordinent*, cod. M [reads] *pertinent*, the editions *ordinentur*, and for *debuerint* many codices [read] *debuerant*.

la: Ut dicit Magister, II. Sent. d. XLII. c. 4. — Mox pro *multiplicationem* cod. K *triplicationem*. Inferius post *non in duabus* Vat. addit *tantum*.

en: As the Master says, *Sentences* II, d. XLII, c. 4. — Presently, for *multiplicationem*, cod. K [reads] *triplicationem*. Below, after *non in duabus*, the Vatican edition adds *tantum*.

la: Edd. addit *tantum*.

en: The editions add *tantum*.

la: Codd. UZ *intelliguntur*, Vat. *intelliguntur et includuntur*.

en: Codd. UZ [read] *intelliguntur* [are understood], the Vatican edition *intelliguntur et includuntur* [are understood and included].

la: Quaest. 1.

en: Question 1.

la: Quaest. 71, n. 2, ubi textus originalis, posito *congruentius* pro *convenientius*, post *insinuare* sic prosequitur: *diligentius intuentibus. Et re vera quod dictum est… cum prohibentur figmenta colenda.*

en: Question 71, n. 2, where the original text, putting *congruentius* for *convenientius*, after *insinuare* continues thus: « to those who look more diligently. And indeed what has been said… when fashioned figments are forbidden to be worshiped. »

la: Petr. Comestor, loc. cit.: *Forte quia Augustinus voluit, tria pertinere ad dilectionem Dei, et septem ad dilectionem proximi, pro dignitate potius quam pro scriptura dixit, ea esse primae et secundae tabulae, sicut dicere consuevimus homines primae classis et secundae. Quocumque vero modo distinguantur, idem est sensus.*

en: Peter Comestor, in the place cited: « Perhaps because Augustine wished that three pertain to the love of God, and seven to the love of neighbor, he said, by reason of dignity rather than by reason of the writing, that they belong to the first and second table, just as we are accustomed to say men of the first class and of the second. But in whatever way they be distinguished, the sense is the same. »

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXVII. c. 4. seqq. et d. XXVIII. c. 1. — Paulo inferius pro *ideo non oportuit* cod. A *ideo non oportebit*.

en: Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. XXVII, c. 4 and following, and d. XXVIII, c. 1. — A little below, for *ideo non oportuit*, cod. A [reads] *ideo non oportebit*.

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXXVI. c. 3. — Paulo inferius pro *insinuabantur* codd. G H K L T V Z aa bb *insinuabant.*

en: Cf. above, the letter of the Master, d. XXXVI, ch. 3. — A little below, for *were conveyed* (*insinuabantur*) codd. G H K L T V Z aa bb [read] *conveyed* (*insinuabant*).

la: Edd. *speculanti*.

en: The editions [read] *speculanti* [one who speculates].

la: Cfr. quaest. praeced. — Cod. K prosequitur *iustitiam autem dico, quae ad alterum etc.*

en: Cf. the preceding question. — Cod. K continues *iustitiam autem dico, quae ad alterum etc.* [« but I mean the justice which [orders] to another, etc. »].

en: See the scholion on the first question of this article.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp.827–829 (PDF 849–851; offset pdf = printed + 22), per the Vol III PDF-priority inversion (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shattered the *pro distributione* sub-arguments and the page footers; OCR retained only as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing). Raw anchor `QUAESTIO III.` raw 57394; bounded forward at `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` (OCR `DUBIA CIRCA UTTERAM MAOISTRI`) raw 57563 (the d.37 dubia, NOT this chunk). line_start 57394 / line_end 57562.

**Alignment.** PASS 1:1 — opener *Tertio quaeritur de numero et ordine mandatorum per comparationem ad tabularum distinctionem* = TRACTATIO **Tertio** *de numero et ordine in comparatione ad tabularum distinctionem*.

**Page-split map.** Body opens mid-L-col of **p.827** beneath a2-q2's solution tail (QUAESTIO III header + title + opener + *pro Iosephi* args 1–3 + *pro Origene* arg 1 → markers [^1]–[^6]). Continues on **p.828** (*pro Origene* args 2–3 + *pro Augustini* args 1–3 + objection *contra omnes* + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo through *materialem* → [^7]–[^14]). Closes on **p.829** (Respondeo *formalem* + Epilogus + Solutiones Ad-1 / Ad-3-pro-Origene / Ad-ultimum → [^15]–[^22]), ending just before the DUBIA opener. The running head **DIST. XXXVII. DUBIA. 829** appears within the p.829 region; the p.829 footer band keys to this chunk's body markers (the dubia's own footers, including the *axiomate* note keyed to *nihil habet simile*, begin only after raw 57563 and belong to the scaffolded `dubia` chunk).

**Hand-offs picked up.** From a2-q2: **p.827 footer nn.4–9 → [^1]–[^6]** (a2-q2's band closed at p.827 n.3; n.4 *Libr.III. Antiq. c.6* Josephus keyed to body *Iosephus⁴*, n.5 *Ita codd…sunt*, n.6 *Vers.8 et 10*, n.7 *De perfectione numeri denarii…quinarii*, n.8 *Exod.20,2,4*, n.9 *Vers.17*).

**Hand-offs forwarded.** NOTHING forwarded. This chunk's footer band closes fully on **p.829 n.8** ([^22] = *Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.*, keyed to the body's final word *propriam personam*). The DUBIA opens fresh below with its own per-page footer band (p.829 n.9 *De hoc axiomate…* keys to the Dub. I body, not to this chunk) — those belong to `bon-sent-III-d37-dubia` as its [^1].

**⚠ PASS-3b BOUNDARY FIX (2026-06-14).** Two seam defects corrected at the a2-q3→dubia boundary (shared p.829), verified eyes-on against the 450 dpi p.829 column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p829-{L,R}-*.png`):
1. **DROPPED footer recovered.** p.829 **L-col n.4** (*Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XXXVI. c. 3. — Paulo inferius pro insinuabantur codd. G H K L T V Z aa bb insinuabant*) had been omitted. Re-set as **[^19]**, anchored in both bodies at *insinuabantur* (the *duo praecepta caritatis insinuabantur* clause). The footer band on p.829 is L-col nn.1–5 + R-col nn.6–9; the chunk previously skipped from n.3 to n.6.
2. **DOUBLE-COUNTED footer removed.** The chunk had wrongly claimed p.829 **n.9** (*De hoc axiomate cfr. tom. II. pag. 904… Senecae Epist. 65… exemplare…*) as its own [^22]. That note keys to the **Dub. I** body (*idolum quod nihil habet simile*), opens fresh in the dubia chunk, and is already correctly held there as **`bon-sent-III-d37-dubia` [^1]**. Removed from a2-q3.
After the fix, body-marker order ↔ footer notes: [^15]=n.1, [^16]=n.2, [^17]=n.3, [^18]=n.6, **[^19]=n.4 (recovered)**, [^20]=n.5, [^21]=n.7, [^22]=n.8 — 22/22 marker pairing, no double-count, no dropped footer. (Footer note order is L-col-then-R-col; body-marker order interleaves them per content, hence n.6 precedes n.4/n.5 in body sequence.)

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false` — grep-verified no SCHOLION/SOHOLION header anywhere in raw 57394–57562. a2-q1's article-scholion §I/§II already prospectively surveyed q.3's distribution debates (Hebrew/Talmud/Josephus/Philo/Origen/Hieron./Hesychius cross-author roster + the *infra q.3* forward), the p.827 footer (a2-q2's [^20]) directs *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*, and **this chunk's own [^22] (p.829 n.8) directs *Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.*** — i.e. back to a2-q1's scholion. Redirect → `bon-sent-III-d37-a2-q1` §I/§II.

**`[?]` flags.** NONE — pp.827–829 fully legible at 450 dpi.