« PreviousContinue »
The difficulty being thus set in a upon the separate testimony of the tangible shape, if we now trace back Greek or Latin, to be prepared for the effect to its cause, and pass the common fate attendant on those from the real or imaginary corrup- who choose to stand on ground too tion of the Latin Vulgate to the narrow to sustain them in any posipower necessary to produce it, the tion: to him who builds upon the simplest solution, it will hardly be comparative testimony of both, every denied, is supplied by the supposi. thing remains firm and secure, until tion, that the disputed prologue, both are proved to be corrupted. and the passage which it defends, And should it be further objected, have proceeded from the hand that he stands in most need of the which produced the translation. caution who throws the weight of Admitting the verse to be spurious, the question upon a contested prono man in the Latin Church had logue of Jerome; my reply is, that equal power with St.Jerome to obtain I do it for the sake of bringing a it a favourable reception, when it principle to the test, which if adwas inserted in the Canon. It was, , mitted, would endanger the whole besides, his custom to prefix pro- credit of the Canon ; as I am told, logues to the different parts of that though the spuriousness of a Scripture, and that in dispute has passage may be proved, it is not taken undisturbed possession of the possible to prove its authenticity. place in which some such prologue I appeal, in the first place, to the ought to have existed. Nor can I general subject of the prologue, its perceive the reason or justice of ac- dedication to Eustochium, and the quitting him of the act, in order to topics wbich it handles, in deterlay it, with an accumulation of guilt, mining the order of the Epistles, on the head of Victor, Vigilius, or and in replying to the objections of any other prelate of the Latin impugners, for the first proof, that Church who is singled out at the it has proceeded from the hand of caprice or good pleasure of the sug- St. Jerome. gestor. For, bowever improbable The common tenour of St. Jethe supposition, there was at least a rome's writings would lead even an possibility that Jerome might be observant inquirer into the order of deceived in his estimate of the pas. his works, to suppose that the Casage ; but no man could be uncon- tholic Epistles had been given to the scious of guilt, in assuming his au- world long previously to the period thority, to fabricate the prologue. when he was accustomed to dedi.. The forgery of such a document be- cate his works to Eustocbium. As sides involves a complication of that period is determined by the fraud practised against St. Jerome, death of Paula, her mother, who and of sacrilege committed against bore an equal share in that honour, St. John, which eventually im. the completion of the revisal of the peaches the credit of the whole Latin version, is antedated that Church, which gave it effect by its event by St. Jerome himself, in criminal acquiescence.
stating ihe order of his writings. The question is thus fairly ba- He informs us, in one of the most lanced between the Eastern and the interesting and popular of his works, Western Churches; neither can there that “ he had restored the New be a stroke levelled against the one, Testament to the fidelity of the which will not recoil against the Greek, and bad translated the Old other. Nor let it be objected, to according to the Hebrew : but of borrow a phrase from Mr. Burke, the Epistles to Paula and Eustothat “this is putting things in the chium, as they were written daily, posture of an ugly alternative.” It the number was uncertain." Yet, behoves those indeed who build had the course been followed which .
was thus obviously pointed out to remember to have promised to thy the sophisticater, and had the work most erudite brother, Pammachius," been inscribed either jointly to &c. them, or with the more imposing To the general tenour of the proDames of “the venerable Pope" logues of Ezechiel, which succeeded Damasus, or of “ the most erudite the date of the epistle to Lucinius, Pammachius," it would have led to I now appeal in the next place, as an anachronism which would have confirming the authenticity of that detected the imposture.
in dispute, by informing us of the It may be collected from the whole subjects which predominated in St. tenour of St. Jerome's writings, that Jerome's mind, at the period to though his revisal of the version was which it refers itself, by the dedicacompleted, and the corrected text tion to Eustochium. One or two employed in the commentaries which extracts will show how far the subhe was daily compiling, no part of jects of which it treats, in deterit but the Gospels, elicited from mining the order of the Epistles, and him by Pope Damasus, had been in replying to detractors, identify the published, until a late period. So hand from which it has proceeded. far was he from having taken that In the prologue to the fifth part step, that he ever manifests a dis. of the Comment on Ezechiel, he deposition to withhold bis critical clares, “ lest the number of the works, entreats of those whom he books should be confounded, and, furnished with parts of them not to through a long space of time, the give away copies, and lays this in- order of the volumes be vitiated, I junction expressly on Paula, Eusto- have prefixed short prefaces to each; chium, and Marcella. How long that from the front of the title the his papers lay by bim without pub- reader should at once acknowledge lication, may be seen in the preface which book was to be read,” &c. to Obadiah; but an epistle address- To cite instances of Jerome's comed to Lucinius (Epist. xxviii. p. 82.) plaints of the severity of his opputs the case of the New Testament pugners, would be superfluous. out of dispute. From this docu- The prologue to the second book ment it appears, that even those of Micah, as a general assertion of friends who furnished him with no- the fact may not be inappositely, taries, to provide themselves with cited: “We have always to reply to his works, were so far from having the invidious, (for envy never ceases,). a copy of this, which was the most and the exordiums of our book's important, that they remained to be confute the calumnies of rivals, who, apprised of its existence. As that commonly boast, that, in a sterile epistle speaks of the Commentary and jejune style, we publish some on Isaiah, as already finished, every trifles, and when we know not how, prologue to that work, and to the to speak, cannot be silent.” Commentary on Ezekiel, which im- I shall offer but another remark mediately followed it, brings con- on the general characteristics which firmation to that which is in dispute, authenticate this prologue, as St. as they are collectively inscribed to Jerome's work, in order to set aside Eustochium. Let an example be the short-sighted objection, which taken from the first, “ Having fi- adjudges it to a later band and penished twenty books on the twelve riod as not written with his usual Prophets, and the Commentaries on spirit. As nothing would have been Daniel, thou compellest me, Eusto- more easy than to imitate the florid chium, virgin of Christ, to pass to and rhetorical parts of his style, we Isaiah, and, what I had promised at least learn from this objection, thy holy mother, while she lived, to how far the prologue would have perform to thee; which I indeed, been rendered worthy of its reputed
author, had the manufacture of it ing from a consideration of the gebeen committed to the hands of the neral subjects: selected for discusobjector. To those who behold the sion in the prologue, I shall now subject with St. Jerome's views, it observe how consistent it is with all presents a very different aspect. the circumstances under which it When he wrote the prologue to professes to be written. Had a Amos it appears his respect for such fabricator been employed in con. a style was on the decline ; and in structing it, he would have naturally the first of those prefixed to the made the prologue of the same era Commentary on Ezechiel, written at with the revisal of the Scriptures. the period to which the disputed But the prologue, ever true to the prologue must be referred, he ap- real state of things, while it menprizes Eastochium that she was “10 tions Eustochium as “ exposing to expect nothing from the rhetorical envy the old age” of the author, art, nothing from the composition merely states what really occurred and beauty of the language." But at the time, that “he restored the in that prefixed to the seventh part Epistles to their order," which bad of the same Commentary, he de- been long corrected. scribes the modes which he followed But as the forecited prologue in composing, which illustrate, in which disclaims all ambition of rhetothe most apposite manner, the feli- rical ornament, leads Eustochium to city of the objection. He there in expect every thing from“ the care of forms us, that every hour, nay mo- simple and perspicacious diligence," ment of his life, was occupied ; that it atfords a light to guide us, in he could steal but a very few to search of those peculiarities of exedictate by candle-light, vumberless cution and manner, which identify, persons flocking from the West, and
even in the smallest sketch, the hand claiming the hospitality of his mo- of a great and original master.” nastery; that the task of dictating There are writers of that indis. was become difficult, his eyes being tinct and general character ; dimned with age; that he could no of no mark or feature,” who exlonger see the Hebrew characters bibit neither prominence vor pecuby day-light, and was obliged to liarity, that is perceptible to the håve the Greek commentators read nicest discrimination. But among to him by the friars ; “ whence” he writers of this description there is declares, "iny daughter Eustochium, no room for classing St. Jerome, receive with indulgence, what is pro- His learning alone places a vast duced by the pen of my notaries, distance between bim and every and what I have scarcely time for member of the Latin Church, from correcting." And this statement re- the period at which he flourished, ceives the fullest confirmation from to the revival of letters. The fruits the Epistle to Lucinius, by which collected by his industry had expewe are enabled to determine the era rienced the ripening hand of time; of the disputed prologue; it adopts and much of the produce was of so the same language respecting the peculiar a growth, that there was difficulties which he experienced in but one soil in which it could have composing, and calls upon Lucinius, been gathered. His intercourse if impeded by oversights when read- with the Greeks, his travels in ing, - not to impute it to him, but to Egypt, his long residence in Syria, the want of skill in his notaries, who opened to him those stores of Greek write down, not what they find, but and Hebrew literature, which were what they understand, and while closed against every other inquirer tfiey endeavour to amend others of his age and language. A single errors exhibit their own."
observation which he has made, on In summing up the evidence aris the different classes of text existing
is bis times, had he left no other a single epithet; and the disposimemorial of his critical acumen, tion, followed in the old Italic, would prove his views to have been which ascribes the first place to Peprofound, accurate, and extensive; ter's Epistle is stated; the cause of ; for be there bequeathed to us the in- that arrangement being specified in valuable information, without which cidentally, “because he was the the classification of Greek manu- first Apostle." The course followscripts, at the present day, would ed in disposing the Gospels is next have been impracticable. In ene mentioned, and proposed as a moteriog upon subjects similar to those del, in reducing the Epistles to the touched upon in the disputed pro- right order; the seven Epistles are logue, he was drawn into a field, accordingly enumerated, and diswhich though limited, afforded some posed in the proper order; the reaopportunity for the exercise of his son of the arrangement being as. extraordinary powers. A criterion signed, in the declaration that they is thus offered, to prove how far were so digested by their au. that production is worthy of its re- thors." puted author; and that it may
How far the course thus adopted brought to the touchstone, under corresponds with the method of the most trying circumstances, I Jerome is directly apparent, on inshall apply the test, in comparison specting the prologue inscribed to with the sister prologne, prefixed Pope Damasus, to which we are to the Gospels by the undoubted here referred. In it, St. Jerome Jerome; that wbatever difference deserts the arrangement of the old exists between them, may be ren- Italic, disposing the Gospels after dered mote striking, by an imme- the manner which is thus pursued diate contrast. If the result of the with the Epistles; assigning to St. experiment prove that the author of John, in both prologues, the last both was not merely possessed of place, instead of the second, to the same learning and modes of which his apostolical rank bad enthinking, but that he displays in- titled him in that primitive version. formation which was wholly beyond But it is to the manner in which the reach of later writers, and which the subjects of both Epistles and bas escaped even the most learned Gospels “were digested," by this of his modern editors; it may be new arrangement that we are to look then easily judged, how far a coun- for the strong traits of resemblance terfeit hand could have transferred existing between the contrasted proto a copy, the inimitable lineaments logues, and for the striking marks of such an original.
of St. Jerome's mode of thinking, In the opening of the disputed which identify the author. It is prologue, every particular relative obvious that both parts of the Canon to the subject of arrangement, is were disposed, by the new arrangecollected, and a greater variety of cu- ment, in a form which was better rious and learned allusions brought digested. By transferring St. John together, than is to be found, in the from the second to the last place in same space, in any of the genuine the Gospels, and St. Peter from the prefaces. We are first informed of first place to the second in the Episthe arrangement of the Epistles by tles, the history was more naturally the Greeks; of the order adopted disclosed, the doctrine more sysby those “who followed the right tematically unfolded. The Epistle faith,” as distinguished from that addressed to the ten tribes thus coradopted by those“ who were not responded, in place, with the Gos. sound in their opinion;" the autho- pel which was intended for the Jews; rity of the Epistles as acknowledged the moral exhortations of James as as's canonical” is then asserted in properly preceded the higher docREMEMBRÁNCER, No. 41.
trines of Peter, and the transition, lical soon wore out in the Greek in both Gospels and Epistles, was Chureh, and the civil code, from natural and progressive to the sub- the times of Theodosius and Jus. lime theology of St. John. The im- tinian, gave the whole compilation, portance annexed by St. Jerome to including the eighty-fifth Canon, such a disposition, he has not left that legal authority which was to be conjectured; as it is virtually equally binding on the Eastern and admitted in his prologue to the Epis- Western Church; a difficulty lies tle to the Galatians.
in accounting for the source from Nor is it only to the strong marks whence the fabricator of such a of St. Jerome's manner of thinking, prologue could have derived his inbut to the deep characters of his learn- formation which decides the contest. ing, that we are to look for the crite- That the disputed prologue conrions by which the question is to be veys St. Jerome's estimate of that decided. I insist not on the order as- compilation, he has himself left us signed in the disputed prologue, to at no loss to decide. If he does the Epistles in the old Italic, though not slight it in the Epistle to Luciso singularly confirmed by St. Augus- nius, of which so much use has been tine, in a treatise in which he recom. made ; he rejects the authority of mends that version : nor on that as. the eighty-fifth Canon, on the books signed to them in the Vulgate, which of Maccabees and the Epistles of is not less strikingly confirmed by St. Clement, and follows, on both, the Jèrome, in his Epistle to Paulinus. Council of Laodicea ; the members Neither shall I lay any particular of which he necessarily included stress on the confirmation which the among those “ Greeks who were prologue receives from the Council sound in their opinions." But of of Laodicea, which prescribed the the Apostolic Canons, the Latin order adopted in it, and suggested Church knew nothing more than the term canonical, which it uses. was contained in the translation For these particulars, though they made by Dionysius Exiguus, about escaped Cassiodorus, and what is the year five hundred ; and as the more extraordinary, eluded Mar- copy which he followed was ancient tianay, might have been within the and uninterpolated, doubtless from reach of * Latin writer, or have being long preserved in the West, been conjectured from a comparison it could give no information on the of the old and the new translation. Subject of the order of Scripture. The point on which I insist, as pal. In wanting the interpolated Canons, iary in the controversy, is that it necessarily takes no notice of the kuowledge which the prologue dis- eighty-fifth, which alone speaks of plays of the Apostolical Canons, in their arrangement. Had any inassigning “ St. Peter's Epistles the formation been attained on the sub. first place among the seven styled ject, after this period from the canonical;” and in the just estimate Greeks, it could be no longer rewhich it gives of that particular presented as confined to the heteCanon which commended this order, rodox; for the orthodox Council as refusing it the authority of those of the Trullus at Constantinople, “ Greeks who followed the right which was voted general by the sea faith, and were sound in their opi- cond Council of Nice, formally ranions.” As this was a piece of infor- tified the whole compilation, as premation which recent inquiry disco- served by Johannes Antiochenus, vers to have been sufficiently trite in afterwards Patriarch of ConstanSt. Jerome's days, it excites little sur-tinople. Nor was this decision prize to find it in a prologue of his ever disputed until the Reformation composition. But as this low opi- brought in greater freedom of innion of the Canons termed Aposto. quiry, and an exemption from the