(Vol. iii, pp. 166, 230, 412.)
The earliest divisions of the Decalogue are those of Josephus (_Ant.
Jud._, lib. iii. c. v. s. 5.), the Chaldee Paraphrase of Jonathan, and
_Philo-Judæus de Decem Oraculis_. According to the two former, the 3rd
verse of Exod. xx., "Thou shalt have no other gods but me," contains the
first commandment, the 4th, 5th, and 6th, the second. Philo makes the
Preface or Introduction to be a distinct commandment, as do also St.
Jerome and Hesychius. The two latter make what we call the first and
second to be the second only; but Philo does not recite the words "Thou
shalt have no other gods but me;" and whether he understood them in the
first or the second, does not hence appear. The same uncertainty is
found in Athanasius in _Synopsi S. Scripturæ_.
It may however be inferred, from these two writers giving the
commencement only of the other commandments, that they made the
prohibition, "Thou shalt not make," &c., in the same manner the
commencement of the second; and therefore joined the other, "Thou shalt
have," &c., to the words "I am the Lord thy God."
Those which we call the first and second were united by St. Augustine.
The distinction made by Josephus and the Chaldee Paraphrast, separating
the two prohibitions, was adopted by the following early writers: Origen
(Hom. viii. in Exod.); Greg. Nazianzen (_Carmina, Mosis Decalogus_)
Irenæus (lib. ii. c. xlii.); Ambrose (in _Ep. ad Ephes._ c. vi.).
The Jews divide the Decalogue thus:
1. I am....
2. Thou shalt not have....
3. Thou shalt not take....
But in the field of speculation, the Jews have followed a variety of
systems for dissecting the Decalogue, as may be seen in Abarvanel in the
Pericope "Jethro," and in Voisin's _Prooemium ad Martini Pugionem
Fidei_.
The following authors may be consulted on the arguments which have been
adduced to support their respective divisions by the Church of Rome and
the Lutherans on the one side, and the Reformers or Calvinists and the
Church of England on the other.
1. Church of Rome.--Gother's _Papist Misrepresented_; Godden's
_Catholics No Idolaters_; _Gotti Vera Ecclesia Christi_.
2. Lutherans.--_Salmuthi Theses_; _Winckelmanni Dissertatio, &c._;
_Crameri de distinguendo decalogo, &c._; _Franzii Disputatio_; _Weimari
Demonstratio_; _Opitii Dissertatio de usu accentuationis geminæ in
genuina divisione decalogi_; _Dasdorfii Dissertatio de decalogo, ex
fundamento accentuum examinato_; _Hackspanii Notæ Philologicæ in varia
loca S. Scripturæ_; _Pfeifferi Opera_ (_cent._ 1.).
3. Reformers.--_Sam. Bohlii vera divisio decalogi ex infallibili
principio accentuationis._
In reference to this argument, which is used by both parties, I have
been favoured with the following remarks by a learned professor of
languages, of the Jewish faith:
"On the subject of your inquiry, the accents do not appear to me
to offer any decision. They show which words are to be connected
with each other to make up one proposition; but not how many
propositions shall go to make up one commandment."
4. The Church of England.--Ussher's _Answer to a Jesuit (Images), and
his Sermon preached before the Commons House of Parliament_, 1620;
Taylor's _Ductor Dubitantium_ (where, in connexion with the Romish
controversy, this subject is exhausted); Stillingfleet's _Replies to
Gother and Godden_; and _Forbesii Theologia Christiana_.