The Reply.

The whole frame of his Answer, if I had taken it from the beginning to the end, is so weak and slight, that I half suspect he was invited to it merely for that last conceits sake; to break ajest betwixt the second and ninth precept upon his Adversary. For first, though I should admit the understanding would be the same though the first Table were divided but into three Commandments, so no words of the first Table were left out; nay though the first Table were called one Commandment or Decree touching our duty towards God, yet my Page  204 charge against the Church of Rome for leaving out so great and so material a part of this Decree, or of the first Commandment if you will, would not be a jot mitigated thereby, the understanding being the same, as my Antagonist himself confes∣ses, whether it be held one Commandment, or two. For if it be held one Commandment yet it is plainly divisible into these two parts which we call the first and second Commandments. And this that we call the second Commandment, and you the second part of the first Commandment, be∣ing really one and the same, and you acknowledg∣ing you leave out that part of the Commandment, where then is the Calumny? any more then if one should accuse another that he took away two shillings six pence, and he should Reply, it is an unworthy slander, it was onely half a crown that he took away: would not this to any indifferent judge seem a very pleasant Apology to clear one of the Theft?

But now in the second place, Though St. Austin and St. Hierome (•eter Lombard says it is Origen and Austin) may differ in their Opinion about the first and second Commandment, whether they be one or two Commandments, yet I presume the more ancient, and the more general sense of the Church is that they are two. And it is well known that Origen flourished long before Austin: But it is acknowledged of all hands out of the word of God, that there are just ten Commandments, nei∣ther more nor less. Now the Church of Rome that would have the first Table consist but of Page  205 three Commandments, is constrained to divide the last Commandment into two; which is against the Antiquity of the distinction of the Greek and He∣brew Text into verses. For it is observable that both in the Greek and Hebrew Text, though the length of some of the Commandments has occa∣sioned them to be divided into more verses than one, yet they no where have crouded two Com∣mandments into one verse; in so much that they make, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adul∣tery, Thou shalt not steal, three distinct verses: Whence it is plain that that which we call the tenth Com∣mandment is really but one Commandment, as being contained in one verse; and that, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife, is not a whole Com∣mandment distinct from the rest contained in that verse.

Besides, which is hugely remarkable; if, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife, be one intire Commandment, viz. the ninth; part of the tenth Commandment, viz. Thou shalt not covet thy neigh∣bours house, is set before it, which is not a thing credible. But there is no absurdity nor incon∣venience, supposing it but one Commandment, that, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house, is set first in Exodus, and, Thou shalt not covet thy neigh∣bours wife, is placed first in Deuteronomy. This methinks should be enough to the impartial to de∣monstrate, that that which we usually call the tenth Commandment, is not to be divided into two but is all one entire Commandment; and that there∣fore the first and second Commandments ordina∣rily Page  206 so called cannot be one Commandment but two, that there may be ten.

To all which you may add, that but even a mo∣derate smattering in Logick may easily discover the tenth Commandment usually so called to be but one, and the first and second Command∣ments so called to be really two; namely, from the consideration of their Objects. Now the Ob∣ject in the tenth Commandment is but one in Ge∣neral, viz. the keeping our desires from other mens goods of what nature soever, Thou shalt not covet any thing that is his; That is the general of the whole Commandment plainly: And House, Wife, Servant, Oxe, Asse, are but particulars be∣longing to this general, and by the same reason that you make an intire Commandment of any one of these Particulars, you may of every one of them, and so divide the last Commandment at least into five, which is very absurd. But as the Object of the tenth Commandment shows it can be but one, so the Objects of the first and second plainly show they must be two Commandments, because their Objects are distinctly two. The first having for its Object the onely one true God whom alone to retain we are plainly taught or command∣ed by that Precept; the second having for its Ob∣ject Graven Images or whatsoever similitudes of things, which we are strictly forbid any way to wor•hip. So plain every way is it, That that which we call the second Commandment is the second Commandment, and that there is not the least show of calumny, in saying, They have left Page  207 out the second Commandment in their Cate∣chisms.

But yet it is further observable, that if the first and second Commandments were to be held but one Commandment, there can be no so rational ground as this, That the second has a close subser∣viency to the first, and that it is added that we may keep the first more intirely and have no more Gods in any sense, than one: Which implies therefore that worshipping of Images Gods does interpret as the making more Gods to our selves then one, or that it is a necessary Concomitant of making to our selves more Gods then one, as is too too apparent in the Religion of the Gentiles, nor can be enough lamented in degenerated Chri∣stendom. Which eagerness after Idol-Gods the true God most severely prohibits, and show's him∣self so much the more solicitous and zealous here against worshipping of Images, by reason of the great Proclivity of mankind to that more than to Polytheisme, or the not believing that there is onely one supreme God the Creatour and Gover∣nour of all things. But the great danger is, that acknowledging this, yet they may either defile his Worship with Images, and make those Images Gods by worshipping them, or Worship Doemon• and Saints in Images and Pictures, and so accord∣ding to the custom of the Heathens make more Gods than one, though but one supreme and others inferiour to him. There is such a pruriency and pre∣cipitant inclination in humane nature to these su∣perstitions, that to put a stop to it. God addes such a Page  208 rousing Commina•ion at the latter end of this se∣cond Commandment or the second part of the first, as my Adversary would have it. For I am a jealous God that visits the iniquities of the Fathers upon the Children to the third and fourth Generation of them that hate me▪ As if he declared them more particularly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 haters of God as well as hate∣full to him who will presume so hainously to af∣front him as to make Images to Worship them or any Object by them.

Which second Commandment therefore with this direfull Commination added to it, being so effectual a bar and so point blank against the Idola∣try practised in the Roman Church, my Adversary must give me leave to suspect, that it is not, as he says, left out to ease the memory of the Vulgar of so long a lesson, but to obliterate it out of their mind and memory, or rather to never let them have the sight of that which would certainly make their Consciences tremble when they saw the pra∣ctises of the Church which they are obliged to, so plainly contrary to the word of God. But that they have also left out the tenth and eleventh verses about the Sabbath, that may be for a better blind for this, and also that people may not be imbrued with an over religious regard to the Lords day, least they should find offence at the licentious∣ness of that day too, and note that many Saints days are more solemnly kept, then that wherein the Creation of the world and Redemption by God our great Saviour and Redeemer is celebra∣ted at once. But I have insisted on this Argument Page  209 longer than I intended. I hope long before this the discerning Reader perceives, That the crime lyes where it did, and that my charge in this point is no Calumny.