(3) First Masoretic. We shall next proceed to describe the two Masoretic divisions. The first is that in Exodus. According to this arrangement, the first two commandments (according to the Origenian or Greek division), that is, the com mandment concerning the worship of one God, and that concerning images, make but one; the second is, 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,' and so on until we arrive at the last two the former of which is, 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.' and the last, or tenth, 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his servant,' etc., to the end. This was the division approved by Luther, and it has been ever since his time received by the Lutheran Church. This division is also followed in the Trent catechism, and may therefore be called the Roman Catholic division. Those who follow this division have been accustomed to give the decalogue very generally in an abridged form: thus the first commandment in the Lutheran shorter catechism is simply, 'Thou shalt have no other gods hut me :' the sec ond, 'Thou shalt not take the name of thy God in vain ;' the third. 'Thou shalt sanctify the sabbath day' (Feyertag). A similar practice is followed by the Roman Catholics, although they, as well as the Lutherans, in their larger catechisms (as the Douay) give them at full length. This practice has given rise to the charge made against those denominations of leaving out the second command ment, whereas it would have been more correct to say that they had mutilated the first, or at least that the form in which they give it has the effect of concealing a most important part of it from such as had access only to their shorter cate chisms.
(4) Second Masoretic. The last division is the second Masoretie, or that of Deuteronomy, some times called the Augustinian. This division dif fers from the former simply in placing the precept 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife' before 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,' etc.; and for this transposition it has the authority of Dent. v :21. The authority of the Masorites can not, however, be of sufficient force to supersede the earlier traditions of Philo and Josephus. This division was that approved by Augustine who thus expresses himself on the subject: Fol lowing up what he had said he observes, 'but to me it seems more congruous to divide them into three and seven, inasmuch as to those who diligently look into the matter, those which ap pertain to God seem to insinuate the Trinity.'
And, indeed, the command, 'Thou shalt have no other gods but me,' is more perfectly ex plained when images are forbidden to be wor shiped. Besides, the sin of coveting another man's wife differs so much from coveting his house. that to the house was joined his field, his servant, his maid, his ox, his ass, his cattle, and all that is his. But it seems to divide the coveting of the house from the coveting of the wife, when each begins thus: 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,' to which it then begins to add the rest. For, when he had said, 'thou shalt not covet thy neigh bor's wife; he did not add the rest to this, saying, nor his house, nor his field, nor his servant, etc.; but these seem plainly to be united, which appear to be contained in one precept, and distinct from that wherein the wife is named. But when it is said, 'thou shalt have no other gods but me,' there appears a more diligent following up of this in what is subjoined. For to what pertains, 'thou shalt not make an idol. nor a likeness ; thou shalt not adore nor serve them,' unless to that which had been said, 'thou shalt have none other gods but me.' The division of Augustine was followed by Bede and Peter Lombard.
The learned Sonntag has entirely followed Au gustine's view of this subject and has written a dissertation in vindication of this division in the Theologische Studien and Kritiken, Hamburg, 1836-7; to which there has been a reply in the same miscellany from Ziillg, in vindication of what he terms the Calvinistic division, or that of Origen, which is followed by a rejoinder from Sonntag. Sonntag is so convinced of the neces sity of that order of the words, according to which the precept against coveting the wife precedes (as in Deuteronomy) that against coveting the house, etc., that he puts down the order of the words in Exodus as an oversight. The order in the Sep tuagint version in Exodus agrees with that in Deuteronomy. The Greek church follows this order. Sonntag conceives that the Mosaic divis ion of the decalogue was lost in the period be tween the exile and the birth of Christ.
W. W.