tuns, fbrtis, nloies,'' etc to " pnecepta aas." Tk last two commandments (aocordiiig to the Bdmb i viskm) are, however, in the sameCateclii8B,cqi in one, thus : ** Hon concnpisces doman iraniti; nee desiderabis nxorem ejoM, non swim, ass ad lam, non bovem, non aainom, nee omnia qu sunt. In his dnobus prgceptia," etc It hai^^ ed in the same form in EngUnd to Maabsffi d bishop HOsey's Prmen, 1584 and 1588.
Those who follow this division have bea see ed to give the Decalogue veiy generally in sadsMpI form : thus the first commandment in the Lite Shorter Catechism b simply "Tbon shakhsnudk' er gods but me;" the second, " Hum shihsKik the name of thy God to rahi;" the third,"TkiiM sanctify the Sabbath-day" (/Vygrtcy). A nil tice is followed by the Roman Catboho, akkn^ they, as well as the Lnthenns, in their LtfgvC* chisms(aa the Douay) give them at fUlkagO. % practioe has given rise to the cfaaige asde t those denominations of leaving out the sseoid oa mandment, whereas It would have been wan tam to say that they had mutilated the fint, or St kHtAi the form in which they give It has the cfiMt of » cealing a most important part of it ttom tmkutif had access to their Shorter Cateddsma.
(2.) The last division is the metmi Mam^^t that of Deuteronomy, sometimes called the Ai||a«» ian. This division differs fhm the temer aaphi placing the precept " Thon shah not covet ftjB^ bor's wifb" before **Thoa shah not arrftHtrv^ bor's house,** etc; and for this tzanspositiaaKbtftk authority of Deutv,2L The antbodty of (kla» ites cannot, however, be of snfBdent fane t»Hp«>* the eariler traditions of PhUo and Josephsk
This division was that approved by AigoliBtih thus expresses himself on tiie snb^: Foflpniff *what he had said (ui mp, p. 588), he obserrei, ^Mt melt seems jnore congruous to divide them tetlH and seven, inasmuch aa to those who ^Saq^^ toto the matter, those whidh appertam tsGediMti inemuate the Trinity. And^ mdeed, the tma^L * Thou shah have no other gods hot me,*ii ■«)» fectly explained when images are fiirfasddeitobcw shipped. Besides, the sm of coveting saoikr b^ wife diflf<srs so much Arom coveting his hoaie,^^ii house was Jotoed his field, his servant, Us Bttlks« hisass,hbcatUe,andaUthatlshis. Batiie*" divide the ^coveting of the house from the cvn^^ the wife when each begins thus: ^T^Uadksfts^*^ thy neighbor's wife, <*OK sftolr iiol ami^vi^ house,* to which it then begins to add the R^ ^ when he had said ' Thou shalt not covet thyaei^ wife,' he did not add the rest to this, ssTOgsab house, nor his field, nor his servant, etc bet tkii *■ plainly to be united, which appear to be eostaw*' one precept, and distinct from that wheraa 4ti** named. But when it is said* Thou shshhBfc««^ er gods but me,' there appears a more dlligtttfi^ tog up of this in what is subjoined. Fcr to ^*l* tains, *Thou shalt not make an idol, nor »J**T: thou shalt not adore nor serve tiiees,* aobii to <* which had been said, *Thou shalt have vm *» gods but roc' " The division of Ang^tist »■ ■" lowed by Bede and Peter Lombard.
The learned Sonntag has entirely foDoved h^ ttoe's view of this subject, and has writtecs^^ tion to vtodication of this division to the IW^ StaSm m^ KriHken (Hamb. 1836-7), to widc^ t^ was areply to the same miscellany ftoo ZADig.'^ dication of what he terms the GMmdk *^*** that ofOrigen,whichisfbUowedbyaRiasatf°** Sonntag. Sonntag is so convmced of tbe m««^' that order of the words, accordtog to whid» ^ P cept against covettog the wife precedes (si is D^ onomy) that against covettog tbe house, ctt.tti'* puto down the order of the words to Exote •» ■
DECAPOLK
721
DECHANT
gilt. The order in the Septoagint version in U8 agrees -vrith that in Deuteronomy. The Greek ih foll<rvr8 this order. Sonntag conceives that [o0aic division of the Decalogue was h)et in the 1 between the exile and the birth of Christ— , s. V. See Heince, De raHone pntapta Decalogi "ondi tHxria et vera (Viteb. 1790); Pflttcke, De logo CDresden, 1788); Thornton, Ledftree oh the xandmetUs (Lond. 1842). For a list of expositions, >n8, eUu on the Decalogue, see Darling, Cydopa^ libfiogropJKcti, iii, 222 sq. See Law.
3Cap^olis (4 AeicaVoXiC} Mark v, 20, bat with- he art. in Matt iv, 25, Mark vii, 3; L e. oi Uku tc» the ten dtiety as in Josepbus, Z«/e, 65), a dis- (fience in Pliny, v, 16, 17, Decapolkana regio), or x certain ten cUiet (including their adjacent vil- I or suburbB, Josephus, Z(/e, 9), which resembled other in being inhabited mostly by Gentiles htfoot, Opp. ii, 417), and in their dvic histitutions privileges (Josephus, Lffe, 74). They were situ- in the neighborhood of the Sea of Gennesareth rk vii, 81 ; comp. Joseph. War, iii, 9, 7), near the 3m side of the Jordan, and in what was called the uin province of Syria (Josephus, J^fe, 65). The e Decapolis does not occur in the Apocrypha, and, trding to Mannert, it is only (bund in writers of the century ; in later times there is scarcely an allu- to it (JStogrqphie der Griechen tmd RSmer, VI, i, ). Immediately after the conquest of Syria by the uans (B.C. 65), ten cities appear to have been re- It, partly colonized, and endowed with peculiar rileges (Josephus, AfU. xv, 7, 3 ; xvii, 11, 4) ; the ntiy around them was hence called DeaysoUs. The its of the territory were not ver^ clearly defined, 1 probably in the course of time other neighboring £8 received similar privileges. This may account the &ct that ancient geographers speak so indefi- ely of the province, and do not even agree as to the nes of the cities themselves. PMny (Hitt. Nat, v, I, while admitting that tiiere was some variation in I list, enumerates them as foUows : Damatau, PhU- tlpkia, Rcg^hana^ SctfthopoUs, Gadara, Hippos, Dion, Ua, Gdaea (? Gerasa), and Canaiha ; he adds (v, ), " The tetrarchies Ue betwem and around these dt- I . . . . namely, Trachonids, Panias, Abila,** etc. lese cities are scattered over a very wide region. If ipbana be, as many suppose, the same as Baphansea Jo8«phus, it lay near Hamath (Joseph. War, vii, 5, gnd from thence to Philadelphia on the south is ove 200 miles, and twm Scythqwlis on tiie west to inatha on the east is about 60. Josephus does not amerate the cities of Decapolis ; but it would seem it he excludes Damascus from the number, since he lis Scythopolis the largest of them (War, iii, 9, 7). i also incidentally includes most of the other cities med : e, g. Phfladelphia (War, ii, 18, 1), Gadara and ippos (Life, 66, 74) ; while Epiphanius (Ear. i, 80, 2) mes Pella as belonging to this district, and in Sto- len of Byzantium Gerasa appears in the same gen- al comiection. Cellarius thinks Cadsarea-Philippi id Gergasa ought to be substituted in PUny's list fbr amascus and Riq>hana (NotiL ii, 680). Pliny is un- )al)tedly the only author who extends Decapolis so r north. Ptolemy appears to include Decapolis in le southern part of Ccsle-Syria (Geoffr, v, 15) ; be also :, 17) makes CapikiUae one (tf the ten ; and an old almyrene inscription quoted by Reland (PaloBti. p. 25) includes AhUa, a town whi<i, according to Euse- «M (Owm, 8. V. AbiU), was 12 Boman miles east of •adara. Lightfoot (For. JSTeftr. p. 568 sq.) enumerates rom Tahnudical sources (Jerus. Tabn. Demai, fol. 22, ), as belonging to Decapolis, besides Scythopolis, Ga- ara, Hippo, and PeUa, the following less-known towns ina villages, which, like Scythopolis (q. v.), were gen- ially esteemed as heathen and under Gentile rule: „^.,„^ ,^„ ^_^