3. We shall next proceed to describe the two Ilfasoretic divisions. The first is that in Exodus. We call it the Masoretic division, inasmuch as the commandments in the greater number of manu scripts and printed editions are separated by a D or D, which mark the divisions between the smaller sections in the Hebrew. According to this ar rangement, the two first commandments (accord ing to the Origenian or Greek division), that is, the commandment 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 two last, the former of which is, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,' and the last or tenth, 'Thou shalt not covet thy neigh bour'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 Lu theran Church. The correctness of this division has been at all times maintained by the most learned Lutherans, not only from its agreement with the Hebrew Bibles, but from the internal structure of the commandments, especially from the fact of the two first commandments (according to Origen's division) forming but one subject. If these form but one commandment, the necessity of dividing the precept, thou shalt not covet,' etc., into two is obvious. (For a learned defence of this division, see Pfeiffer, Opera, vol. i. loc. 96, p. 125). Pfeiffer considers the accentuation also of the Hebrew as equally decisive in favour of this division, notwithstanding the opposite view is taken by many others, including the learned Buxtorf. This division is also followed in the Trent cate chism, and may therefore be called the Roman Catholic division. The churches of this com munion have not, however, been consistent in fol lowing uniformly the Tridentine division, having revived, as in this country, the second Masoretic division, to which we shall presently allude. In the Trent catechism the first commandment is, Ego sum Dominus Deus tuns, qui eduxi to de terra ./Egypti, de domo servitt.tis ; non habebis Deos alienos coram me. Non facies tibi sculp tile,' etc. Ego sum Dominus Deus tuns, fortis, zelotes,' etc., to prcepta mea.' The two last commandments (according to the Roman division) are, however, in the same catechism, combined in one, thus : Non concupisces domum proximi tui ; nec desiderabis uxorem ejus, non servum, non ancillam, non bovem, non asinum, nec omnia gum Mitts sunt. In his duobus etc. It had appeared in the same form in England, in Mar shall's and Bishop Hilsey's Primers, 1534, and Those who follow this division have been accus tomed 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 but me ; ' the second, 'Thou shalt not take the name of thy God in vain ;' the third, Thou shalt sanctify the sabbath day' (Flyer tag). 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 leav ing out the second commandment, 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 only access to their shorter catechisms.
The last division is the second Ilfasoretic, or that of Deuteronomy, sometimes called the Augus tinian. This division differs from the former simply in placing the precept Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife' before Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,' etc.; and for this trans position it has the authority of Dent. v. 21. The authority of the Masorites cannot, however, be of sufficient force to supersede the earlier traditions of Philo and Josephus.
This division was that approved by Augustin, who thus expresses himself on the subject—`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 appertain to God seem to insinuate the Trinity. And, indeed, the command, Thou shalt have no other gods but me' is more perfectly explained when images are forbidden to be worshipped. 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 neighbour's wife, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,' to which it then begins to add the rest. For, when he had said, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour'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 per tains, thou shalt not make an idol, nor a like ness ; 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 Augustin was followed by Bede and Peter Lombard.
The learned Sonntag has entirely followed Au gustin's view of this subject, and has written a dissertation in vindication of this division in the Theologische Stua'iett und Kritiken, Hamburg, 1836 37 ; to which there has been a reply in the same miscellany from Ziillig, 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 necessity of that order of the words, according to which the pre. cept 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 Deu teronomy. The Greek church follows this order. Sonntag conceives that the Mosaic division of the decalogue was lost in the period between the exile and the birth of Christ.—W. W.