Replies to Minor Queries.

The Ten Commandments (Vol. iii., p. 166.).—The controversy on the division of the Ten Commandments between the Romanists and Lutherans on the one side, and the Reformers or Calvinists on the other, has been discussed in the following works—1. Goth (Cardinalis), Vera Ecclesia, &c., Venet., 1750 (Art. xvi. § 7.); 2. Chamieri Panstratia (tom i. l. xxi. c. viii.); 3. Riveti Opera (tom. i. p. 1227., and tom. iii. Apologeticus pro vera Pace Ecclesiastica contra H. Grotii Votum.); 4. Bohlii Vera divisio Decalogi ex infallibili principio accentuationis; 5. Hackspanii Notæ Philologicæ in varia loca S. Scripturæ; 6. Pfeifferi Opera (Cent. i. Loc. 96.); 7. Ussher's Answer to a Jesuit's Challenge (of Images) and his Serm. at Westminster before the House of Commons, out of Deuteronomy, chap. iv. ver. 15, 16., and Romans, chap. i. ver. 23.; 8. Stillingfleet's Controversies with Godden, Author of "Catholics no Idolaters," and

with Gother, Author of "The Papist Misrepresented," &c.

The earliest notices of the division of the Decalogue, are those of Josephus, lib. iii. c. 5. s. 5.; Philo-Judæus de Decem Oraculis; and the Chaldaic Paraphrase of Jonathan. According to these, the third verse of Exod. xx. contains the first commandment; the fourth, fifth, and sixth, the second. The same distinction was adopted by the following early writers:—Origen (Homil. viii. in Exod.), Greg. Nazienzen (Carmina Mosis Decalogus), Irenæus (lib. iii. c. 42.), Athanasius (in Synopsi S. Scripturæ), Ambrose (in Ep. ad Ephes. c. vi.).

It was first abandoned by Augustine, who was instigated to introduce this innovation by the unwarranted representation of the doctrine of the Trinity by the First Tablet containing three commandments. The schoolmen followed his example, and accommodated the words of God to the legislative requirements of their new divinity, progressive development, which terminated in the Church of Rome, in compelling them to command what He strictly prohibits (See Ussher's Answer.)

"Hath God himself any where declared this to be only an explication of the first commandment? Have the prophets or Christ and His apostles ever done it? How then can any man's conscience be safe in this matter? For it is not a trifling controversy whether it be a distinct commandment or an explication of the first; but the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the worship of images depends very much upon it, for if it be only an explication of the first, then, unless one takes images to be gods, their worship is lawful, and so the heathens were excused in it, who were not such idiots; but if it be a new and distinct precept, then the worshipping any image or similitude becomes a grievous sin, and exposes men to the wrath of God in that severe manner mentioned in the end of it. And it is a great confirmation that this is the true meaning of it, because all the primitive writers[^[20]] of the Christian Church not only thought it a sin against this commandment, but insisted upon the force of it against those heathens who denied that they took their images for gods; and, therefore, this is a very insufficient account of leaving out the second commandment (that the people are in no danger of superstition or idolatry by it.)."—Stillingfleet's Doctrines of the Church of Rome, 25. Of the Second Commandment.

"If God allow the worship of the represented by the representation, he would never have forbidden that worship absolutely, which is unlawful only in a certain respect."—Ibid. Answer to the Conclusion.

With your permission I shall return to this subject, not of Images, but of the Second Commandment, in reply to Mr. Gatty's Queries on the division at present adopted by the Jews, &c.

T. Jones.

Chetham's Library, Manchester.

Footnote 20:[(return)]

Thus St. Augustine himself: "In the first commandment, any similitude of God in the figments of men is forbidden to be worshipped, not because God hath not an image, but because no image of Him ought to be worshipped, but that which is the same thing that He is, nor yet that for Him but with Him."—See what is further cited from Augustine by Ussher in his Answer.

Mounds, Munts, Mount (Vol. iii., p. 187.).—If R. W. B. will refer to Mr. Lower's paper on the "Iron Works of the County of Sussex" in the second volume of the Sussex Archælogical Collections, he will find that iron works were carried on in the parish of Maresfield in 1724, and probably much later. It is therefore probable that the lands which he mentions have derived their names from the pit-mounts round the mouths of the pits through which the iron ore was raised to the surface. In Staffordshire and Shropshire the term munt is used to denote fire-clay of an inferior kind, which makes a large part of every coal-pit mount in those counties. If the same kind of fire-clay was found in the iron mines of Sussex, it is not necessary to suggest the derivation of the word munt.

I take this opportunity of suggesting to Mr. Albert Way that the utensil figured in page 179. of the above-mentioned work is not an ancient mustard-mill, but the upper part of an iron mould in which cannon-shot were cast. The iron tongs, of which a drawing is given in page 179., were probably useful for the purpose of drawing along a floor recently cast shot while they were too hot to be handled.

V. X. Y.

San Graal (Vol. iii., pp 224. 281.).—Roquefort's article of nine columns in his Glos. de la L. Rom., is decisive of the word being derived from Sancta Cratera; of Graal, Gréal, always having meant a vessel or dish and of all the old romancers having understood the expression in the same meaning, namely, Sancta Cratera, le Saint Graal, the Holy Cup or Vessel, because, according to the legend, Christ used it at the Paschal Supper; and Joseph of Arimathea afterwards employed it to catch the blood flowing from his wounds. Many cities formerly claimed the honour of possessing this fabulous relic. Of course, as Price shows, it was an old Oriental magic-dish legend, imitated in the West.

George Stephens.

Stockholm.

Epitaph on the Countess of Pembroke (Vol. iii., pp 262. 307.).—It has been asserted that the second part of this epitaph was written by Lady Pembroke's son; among whose poems, which were published in 1660, the whole piece was included. (Park's Walpole, ii. 203. note; Gifford's Ben Jonson, viii. 337.) But it is notorious, that no confidence whatever can be placed in that volume (see this shown in detail in Mr. Hannah's edit. of Poems by Wotton and Raleigh, pp. 61. 63.); nor have we any right to distribute the two parts between different authors. There are at least four

old copies of the whole; two in MSS. which are referred to by Mr. Hannah; the one in Pembroke's Poems; and the one in that Lansdowne MS., where it is ascribed to William Browne. Brydges assigned it to Browne, when he published his Original Poems from that MS. at the Lee Priory Press in 1815, p. 5. Upon the whole, there seems to be more direct evidence for Browne than any other person.