Dist. 37, Art. 2, Q. 3
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-q3
----------------------------------------
### 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 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 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, 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: 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: 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: therefore it seems that the precepts ordering [man] to neighbor are only six, [and] the precepts ordering [man] to God are four.

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: *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*, 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], 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, 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; 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 »; 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 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. And Origen keeps this manner of distinguishing and assigning.

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; 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: « *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. — 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. 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, 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 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; 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.

---