Dist. 37, Art. 2, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/37/q/bon-sent-III-d37-a2-q2
----------------------------------------
### 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: therefore they ought to be ordered in the first place.

2. Likewise, "the more universal something is, the prior it is"; 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: 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: 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 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 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. 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* 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

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 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.

*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. 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; 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. — 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; 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.

*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*, 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

is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, whose person faith orders in the third place in the Trinity; it is not so, 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; 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.

---