VERSION OF BIBLE AND THEOLOGY OF WESTERN CHURCH. 145 



may I remind you of one or two charges brought against the 

 Vulgate, of which it is innocent ? There was a popular super- 

 stition that the Church of Borne in uneasiness at the open 

 contradiction between the Second Commandment and her own 

 worship of images, had actually removed the Second Command- 

 ment from the decalogue. There is this amount of truth in it, that 

 the Second Commandment in the Roman Catholic enumeration 

 is the prohibition against taking Jehovah's name in vain; but 

 this is simply due to a difference of arrangement, whereby our 

 First and Second Commandments are made into one by both 

 Eoman Catholics and Lutherans, and the number Ten obtained 

 by splitting the last Commandment into two. 



Another instance where I think a charge has been brought 

 against the Vulgate wrongly, is that of the text I Corin- 

 thians vi, 20. This is a case of a false reading in the Vulgate, 

 but one which is clearly the result of a scribe's blunder ; it has 

 not been introduced to support a doctrine. St. Paul closes the 

 chapter with the exhortation, " Glorify God therefore in your 

 body " — So^daare Sj; top Sebv iv tco aoj/jbarc xjfjLwv. The 

 ho^daare Sij got somehow corrupted into So^daare apdye, and 

 this into So^daare apare ; this was quite naturally translated 

 by " Glorificate et portate " — " Glorify God and carry Him 

 about in your bodies." The best MSS. of the Old Latin do not 

 have it, nor does Irenseus so quote it, nor Jerome (when he 

 refers to the passage in his other works) ; but a large number 

 of Latin Fathers — Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine (as 

 a rule) — quote it in the longer form, and it is the undoubted 

 Vulgate reading. I have heard it said that this additional 

 clause, " et portate," was claimed by the Eoman Church as 

 referring to the Divine Presence received by the Christian in 

 the Eucharist ; but I have not yet come across any Latin 

 Father or any Eoman Catholic commentator who has employed 

 the text for that purpose ; and Dr. Stone, probably the most 

 learned divine we have on that subject, also informs me that he 

 has not come across any instance. We must therefore refrain, 

 from making a charge which we cannot prove. 



But I have also said that we must not be too severe upon the 

 Vulgate, for our own A.V. is not entirely guiltless in the matter. 

 I need only remind you of the numerous cases in which iirLarpe- 

 yjrcoac, i-mar pe^as k.t.X. were translated as passives, "be con- 

 verted," by the A.V. translators, as their rigid Calvinism would not 

 allow them to grant to the man himself any share in attaining his 

 own salvation (see Matthew xiii, 15 ; Mark iv, 12 ; Luke xxii, 

 32 ; John xii, 40 ; Acts iii, 19, xxviii, 27 ; in all these cases the 



L 



