← Back to Distinction 37

Dist. 37, Art. 2, Q. 2

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 37

Textus Latinus
p. 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 Deum1: ergo priori loco deberent ordinari.

2. Item, «quanto aliquid universalius, tanto prius2»; 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 operis3: 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 irascibilis4: 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 sit5 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 observari6 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 praeposteratio7. 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 sufficiens8, 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 sibi9

p. 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 quod10 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 exsecutionis11.

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 dignitate12. Et sic in proposito est intelligendum.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod prior est actus cordis quam oris13; 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 originis14. — 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 Trinitate15; 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 coli16.

Ad 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in mandatis primae tabulae nobilissimum ponitur ultimo loco; responderi potest per interemptionem17, 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

p. 827

appropriatur Spiritui sancto, cuius personam ipsa fides in Trinitate ordinat tertio loco; non18 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 respicit19; 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 valet20.

---

English Translation
p. 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 God1: therefore they ought to be ordered in the first place.

2. Likewise, "the more universal something is, the prior it is2"; 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 work3: 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 irascible4: 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 is5 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 observed6 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 there7. 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 number8 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 him9

p. 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 as10 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 execution11.

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 dignity12. 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 mouth13; 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 origin14. — 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 Trinity15; 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 worshiped16.

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 interemption17, 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

p. 827

is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, whose person faith orders in the third place in the Trinity; it is not so18, 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 positively19; 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 hold20.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cfr. supra d. 27. a. 2. q. 4. argg. pro I. parte.
    Cf. above, d. 27, a. 2, q. 4, the arguments for the first part.
  2. 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.
    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.
  3. Matth. 15, 19: De corde enim exeunt cogitationes malae, homicidia etc.
    Matt. 15:19: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, etc.
  4. Cfr. supra pag. 641, nota 7. et pag. 720, nota 1.
    Cf. above, p. 641, note 7, and p. 720, note 1.
  5. Non multi codd. non sit, perperam.
    Not many codices [read] non sit, wrongly.
  6. Ita codd. AGHKLTZbbel et edd. 1, 2: alii et Vat. servari.
    Thus codices AGHKLTZbbel and editions 1, 2: others and the Vatican [edition read] servari.
  7. Edd. repugnantia.
    The editions [read] repugnantia.
  8. Vide quaest. praeced. — Cod. K numerus et sufficientia. Pro consideratur cod. Z servatur, qui etiam paulo inferius pro convenientissime substituit ordinatissime.
    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.
  9. 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.
    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.
  10. Cod. Z addit homo.
    Codex Z adds homo.
  11. 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.
    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.
  12. 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.
    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.
  13. In Vat. additur et operis. Circa finem solut. post maioritatem cod. A supplet obligationis.
    In the Vatican [edition] et operis is added. Toward the end of the solution, after maioritatem codex A supplies obligationis.
  14. Vide supra q. 1. ad 8.
    See above, q. 1, ad 8.
  15. Cfr. 1. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. ad 3, ubi simile habetur de memoria, quae Patri appropriatur.
    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.
  16. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. et 3, nec non infra dub. 1. — Superius pro affirmativo edd. cum aliquot codd. affirmativis.
    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.
  17. Cfr. supra pag. 570, nota 6 et pag. 640, nota 2.
    Cf. above, p. 570, note 6, and p. 640, note 2.
  18. In Vat. desideratur non. Superius pro non est cod. F non esset.
    In the Vatican [edition] non is wanting. Above, for non est codex F [reads] non esset.
  19. Videsis infra dub. 3. — Paulo superius post non edd. subiungunt tamen.
    See below, dub. 3. — A little above, after non the editions subjoin tamen.
  20. Cod. K non cogit. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    Codex K [reads] non cogit. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---
← Dist. 37, Art. 2, Q. 1Dist. 37, Art. 2, Q. 3→