out, that
the tenth is divided into two commandments to make up the lack of
leaving out the second, and keep good the number ten, and that the
fourth commandment (called the third in their enumeration) is made to
enjoin the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath, and prescribe that the
day shall be spent in hearing mass devoutly, attending vespers, and
reading moral and pious books. Here are several variations from the
decalogue as found in the Bible. Which of them constitutes the change of
the law intended in the prophecy? or, are they all included in that
change? Let it be borne in mind that, according to the prophecy, he was
to _think_ to change times and laws. This plainly conveys the idea of
_intention_ and _design_, and makes these qualities essential to the
change in question. But respecting the omission of the second
commandment, Catholics argue that it is included in the first, and,
hence, should not be numbered as a separate commandment. And, on the
tenth, they claim that there is so plain a distinction of ideas as to
require two commandments. So they make the coveting of a neighbor's wife
the ninth commandment, and the coveting of his goods the tenth.

In all this they claim that they are giving the commandments exactly as
God intended to have them understood. So, while we may regard them as
errors in their interpretation of the commandments, we cannot set them
down as _intentional changes_. Not so, however, with the fourth
commandment. Respecting this commandment, they do not claim that their
version is like that given by God. They expressly claim a change here,
and also that the change has been made by the church. A few quotations
from standard Catholic works will make this matter plain. In a work
entitled, Treatise of Thirty Controversies, we find these words:--

"The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of
our Lord, and to be kept holy; you [Protestants], without any
precept of Scripture, change it to the first day of the week, only
authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose,
against this point, that the observation of the first day is
proved out of Scripture, where it is said, the first day of the
week. Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10. Have they not spun a
fair thread in quoting these places? If we should produce no better
for purgatory, and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints,
and the like, they might hav