« PreviousContinue »
described in the Prologue to the Greck, not less than the Latin in." Gospels, was to collate the Latin pugned itself by the variety of the copies, and when “a variety in the copies. The defect in the translaexpression impugned" the correct. tion, was of course repaired by an ness of a passage, as “ that could application of the former canon, and not be true which varied,” to apply the old reading of the Latin, as pre. an emendation,
served in the greater number of In proceeding to verify these prin- copies, having been accordingly reciples, in the remains of the old tained, nothing is stated respecting Latin version; as the translation of a correction. Had a sophisticator the Catholic Epistles is not extant, taken the work in hand, be would the only idea which can be attained have boldly appealed to the Greek; of that part of the old Italic is in for, it is absurd to suppose, that some of the early translations. In this was a length to wbich he who an early French version, which was would fabricate the Prologue and apparently made by the Waldenses, passage dared not proceed; as and which corresponds, in the text St. Jerome has well observed, on a of the Heavenly Witnesses, with like occasion, “ qui hoc ausus est their Confession of Faith, we con- facere, quid aliud non audeat ?" sequently discover all that is neces. The silence of the Prologue on this sary for bringing those principles to point, while it conveys a further the test. As this version substitutes proof of the identity of the real and “ the Son” for “the Word,” and reputed author, adds the strongest omits the final clause of the eighth confirmation to the hypothesis, verse, if we suppose, that some which asserts the defalcation of the copies having these readings, and Greek, in Eusebius's edition. some corresponding with those of the But we are further informed, by modern Vulgate (as attested in the the Prologue to the Gospels, that Prologue,) were before St. Jerome, in St. Jerome's mode of correcting nothing can more appositely illus. the Latin, another test of the true trate the declaration of the Prologue, reading was implied. While the cor. relative to the variations of the ruption of the Greek is acknow. Latin version; "neither would they ledged, in premising the possibility have created ambiguity to the reader, of detecting it, by “ the translations nor would the variety of the expres- made of the Scriptures into the lan. sion have impugned itself.” As the guages of different nations," that substitution of the term “ Son,” and preface“ promises only the four Gosomission of the clausule are impor. pels, amended by a collation with the tant variations, which directly affect Greek.” Though in this declaration, the unity of the Trinity, they are ob- St. Jerome implicitly avows, that viously calculated, as impeaching the the Greek alone was accessible to integrity of the text, to awaken the him, at the time of revising the Gosdoubts of the reader, respecting the pels, the means of inquiry into a doctrine.
subject in which he was not incuri. - When a variety occurred in the ous, were considerably extended at translation, St. Jerome's plan of the time of composing the Prologue correcting, as described in the Pro- to the Epistles. After some years logue to the Gospels, was " to seek residence among the Syrians, after the true reading in the greater num- a long and intimate acquaintance ber of Latin copies," or, “ reverting with the Egyptian monks, he could to the Greek, to correct the trans- not have been ignorant of their verlation by the original." But here, sions of the Scriptures. He who if I am right in my notion of Euse- was so well versed in the Chaldee, bius's edition, the latter canon could not have been unacquainted failed in its application; as the with the Syriac; be has, indeed,
given some proofs of his skill in this mination of the order of the Catholic language, and is addressed, as a pro- Epistles arose from his common ficient in it, by Marcus Celedensis. custom of prefixing a Prologue, this His familiarity with Greek opened being the object with which his prethe means of communicating with faces were usually written; his menthe Nitrian monks whom he visited tion of the text of the Heavenly in person, and who had been occu- Witnesses naturally springs from his pied, since the period of Eusebius's desire to preserve the principle, on revisal of the Greek, in translating which that order bad been deterthe Scriptures, into the Sahidic and mined. The digestion of the subCoptic, which declare their descent ject mainly consisted in retaining froni his edition by retaining his sec- St. John, at the close of the Epistles, tions. The result of the informa- as well as of the Gospels; that tion, which may be los conceived Apostle having written, with the withio St. Jerome's reach, is accord. view of supplying what was defective ingly communicated in the disputed in his inspired predecessors, and Prologue; " in which epistle," the having consequently delivered his author subjoins, “I find also, sublime theology, by a progressive that a great error is committed, disclosure, closing with the reveagainst the true faith, by unfaithful lation of the highest mystery. To translators, who set down the names omit the verse, in which this mysonly of three, that is, the Water, the tery was most fully disclosed, was Spirit, and the blood, and omit the to frustrate the object of that ditestimony of the Father, the Word, gested order, which St. Jerome, and the Spirit.” While a line is after Eusebius, has ascribed to St. here distinctly drawn between the John as its author; this conseLatin and other translators; the ob- quently furnishes the grounds, on servation is fully verified, by a com- which he excepts against the nnparison of the French and Oriental faithful translators. The connexion versions ; as the latter insert only between the Prologue to the Gosthe earthly witnesses. And the pre- pels and the Epistles which inculcates sent view of this passage in the Pro- the same mode of arrangement is logue is confirmed by the opposition thus maintained by a secret link; marked by the terms “ interpreters" the subject which is barely suggestand “ translators ;" it being most ed in the former, being thus brought consonant to St. Jerome's practice, to its consummation in the latter. In in opposing these words, to apply this nice connexion of the subject, the former to a version made into a by marks, not obtrusively forced vernacular tongue, the latter to one upon the attention, but dicoverable made into an acquired language. only on a close observation, which While this information, relative to are not drawn from the formal those versions, corresponds with the avowal of the author, but deducible state of the case, and is recognized from his habits of acting and think. by the correspondent Prologue, as ing, the authentic work infallibly agreeing with the scope of St. Je- distinguishes itself from the counrome's inquiries; its recondite nature terfeit and surreptitious. at once identifies him as the author This observation admits of being of the production.
carried even to a greater length. But while St. Jerome's manner is The author of the Prologue, in vinthus identified by learned allusions dicating the true reading of the to subjects which were inaccessible contested verse, exhibits a desire to subsequent writers; his modes of not merely to maintaiu the order, thinking are at once recognized in but to assert the doctrine of the the remote consequences to which Epistles. He opens the subject, they are prosecuted. As the deter- with a declaration in favour of
" those Greeks who were sound in faith and the Canons of the Church, their opinion, and followed the right with the people committed to his faith ;" he closes it by an expres- charge, to the suppression of all sion of bis zeal for the maintenance novel doctrines.” As the heaviest of " the Catholic faith, and the doc- charge brought by St. Jerome himtrine of one substance of the Father, self against the Origenists convicts Son, and Holy Spirit.” These were them of degrading the son and subjects, not only predominant in St. Holy Ghost into the order of angels; Jerome's mind, at the time when the contested prologue, addressed to this prologue professes to be written, Eustochium, gives a direct reply to but were forced on his attention by the demands of her brother Pammathe object and tenour of the subject chius, and answers the claims of which it discusses. In accounting Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria. for the variety of the Latin copies, In vindicating the credit of the conin the earlier prologue to the Gos- tested verse, it opposes the strongest pels, he traces it to its source, and authority furnished by Scripture, to refers it to the edition of the Greek, the fundamental error of the Oriwhich was published by Hesychius, genists; and while it places the auand which was generally received in thor's opinion of the ecclesiastical Egypt. In this country, particu-, Canons and the Catholic faith above larly among the Nitrian monks, a de- every suspicion, sustains the part fection, from the Catholic faith to which St. Jerome took in that conthe errors of Origen, had prevailed troversy, with a degree of connot long previously to the period of sistency which challenges a compewriting this prologue; and St. Jerome tition with any other of his genuine had fallen in some measure, under the prologues. imputation of favouring their errors, But the structure of the language by the insinuations of Rufinus. This in which the prologue is expressed, subject had been brought home to as composed of the phraseology of his attention by his friend Panima. St. Jerome, gives rise to an addichius, who called upon him “ to tional train of evidence identifying confute what was contrary to the its author. This evidence will be Catholic rule, or had been unskil- placed in the most succinct and confully expressed by his opponent, to clusive form, by extracting from the purge the suspicions of men, and prologue its remarkable phrases, and convince his accusers, lest by dis- confronting them with others colsembling, he might seem to acqui- lected from the undisputed proesce." The Bishop of Alexandria, logues. With a view to facilitate by whom the Origenian heresy had that comparison, which will lead to been opposed, pressed him more the conviction that they have prourgently with “ the observance of ceeded from the same hand, I shall the ecclesiastical Canons ;" calling dispose them in parallel columns. upon him “ to participate in the re- The general tenour of the expression ward of his own exertions, by la- possesses a sufficient comment in the bouring to reclaim those who had similarity of the contrasted passages; been deceived ;” and stating the de- on some of the remarkable and chatermination which he himself pos- 'racteristic phrases, I shall particusessed, " to preserve the Catholic larly remark in the sequel.
Phrases of the disputed Prologue.
Phrases of the undisputed Prologues. Non idem est ordo apud Græcos...epis
Non idem est ordo duodecim prophetatolarum septem, quæ Canonicæ nuncu- rum, apud LXX. qui in Hebraica veritate
continetur(a). .. in Canonica (Petri] epispantur, qui in Latinis codicibus invenitur. tola (6)...codices a Luciano nuncupatos (c). Sed sicut Evangelistas dudum ad veritatis Psalterium Romæ dudum positus emenda. lineam correximus, ita has proprio ordini, ram, et juxta LXX. interpretes....cursini
correxeram (a), linguæ lineas servare (e) Deo nos juvante reddidimus. Est enim
pos mensuræ metri versibusque reddidiprima earum uną Jacobi, Petri dua, Jo- mus, præterea ordinem visionam ad prishannis tres, et Judæ una. Ab interpreti
tinam fidem correximus (5) juvante bus fideliter in Latinum verterentur elo- sit ad Romanos unam, ad Corinthios uns,
Christo (g) adjuvante Domino (). Scripquium...ab infidelibus translatoribus mul- ad Ephesios unam, ad Philippenses unam, tum erratum esse a fidei veritale comperi- etc.(i). Post Septuaginta translatores.....
Judæos veteris legis interpretes (?)... in mus....nec sermonum sese varietas impug- postruin vertit eloquium (1)....multum a naret. In prinia Johannis epistola posilum veritate discordet (m)...fidei tollerent verią. ...trium tantam vocabula in sna editione tatem (n)... inter se trifaria varietate com
pugnat (o). Multa ponuntur de veteri ponentibus. Testimonium omittentibus,
textu (p)....non vocabula hominum (9).... in quo fides Catholica roboratur....ona di- ponam de Vet. Testamento (r)...ejus editio vinitatis substantia comprobatur .... Lec
non multum distat ab Hebraico (s). Quæ
ad nostram filem pertineant roborandam(1) toris prudentiæ derelinquo. Sed tu virgo
.maledicorum testimonio comprobaChristi Eustochium, a me impensius Scrip- tur (w). Relectoris arbitrio judicium dereturæ veritatem inquiris, nieam senectatem linquens (w). Cogis me virgo Christi inidorum dentibus corrodendam exponis, demus (y)....qui canino dente me rodunt íz)
Eustochium (x)....semper invidis responqni me falsarium, corruptoremque Sacra- ....corrector vitiorum falsarius dicor (na). rum Scripturarum pronunciant, Necamu
Exordia æmulorum maledicta confutant(bb) lorum invidentiam pertimesco, nec Sanctæ
... nec vituperationes expaviscemus...minas
hominum penitus non timemus (cc)...los Scripturæ veritatem poscentibus denegabı. libros Eustochio virgini Christi negare non
potui (dil). (a) Præf. in Joel. (0) Com. in 1s. Ixv. p. 184. (c) Præf. in IV Evan.
(e) Præf. () Præf. iu Hierem. (g) Præf in Esdr. (h) Præf. in Ezek. (i) Cat, Scrip. Eccl. (k) Præf. in Esdr. (1) Ep. lxxv. adv. Vigilant. (m) Præf. in Esdr. (n) Ep. Ixv. ad fam. el oc. (o) Præf. in Paralipom. (p) Præf. in Esdr. (9) Præf. in Paralipom. (0) Ep. lxxiv. ad Marcel. (u) Præf. in IV Evang. (w) Præf. in Dan. (x) Præf in 1s. (y) Pralia Micah. (2) Præf. in Paralipom. (an) Præf. in Job. (66) Præf. in Micah. (cc) Præf. in Esth. (dd) Præf. in Jos.
(d) Præf. in Psalt.
(r) Adv. Pelag, I. iv.
(8) Præf. in Ezek.
In the phrases which here col. no trivial evidence of the source lected from sources the most various from whence it bas proceeded, that and remote, we recognize every dis. the expression of the Greek should tinctive mark which characterises be copied with the information the diction of an author whose style which it imparted; and it is not less is formed. The same thoughts are curious than convincing, that some clothed in the same language, while phrases extracted from the disputed some shades of difference distin. prologue approach much nearer to guish each piece from a mere imi. the usage of that language, than tation, the whole colouring exhibits those collected from the genuine that similarity of tone which cha- Prefaces. Thus, in the short phrase racterises the hand of the same “ Deo juvante," while both terms master.
are recognized, in the separate parts As much of the learning of the of “adjuvante Domino," and "judisputed Prologue is adopted from vante Christo,” extracted from difa language, the stores of which were ferent sources; the disputed Proinaccessible to any later writer logue approaches nearest in the among the Latins; it must convey phrase which it employs, to Otor
odórlos, used on a like occasion, by the same source, as referable to the Origen, from whose commentaries same habits of thinking. Thus in the expression has obviously passed the phrase " Evangelistas dudum ad into the Prologues of Jerome. The veritatis lineam correximus,"the term manner of enumerating the Catholic “dudum" marks no definitive period; Epistles is besides purely Greek; but its meaning is defined by a short the form of expression having been clause in the correspondent phrase, adopted with the order of the “ Psalterium Romæ dudum posit us Epistles from the acts of the Coun- emendaram ;” and as the revisal of cil of Laodicea; for, the passage,
both works was made at the same “ Jacobi uua, Petri duæ, Johannis time, it is used in the same sense in tres, Judæ una," is a literal trans- both passages. The phrase lation of Ιακώβε μία, Πέτρα δύο, Ιωάννα sermonum sese varietas impugnaret" τρείς, Ιέδα μία, in the sixtieth conveys an indeterminate sense to Canon of that Council. And while the ordinary reader, but it is at this form of expression is corrobo- once fixed by the correspondent rated by the usage of Jerome, who phrase, “ inter se trifaria varietate in as literal a translation of the same compugnat : and as both expressions canon, adopts it, in his enumeration have originated from an observation of the Pauline Epistles, it was obvi- of the diversities of the classes, into ously not to be acquired, through which the sacred text is distributed the medium of the Latin. In the by St. Jerome; both lay equal claim translation of the acts of that Coun. to originality, in using a verb which cil, by Dionysius Exiguus, the sixti- is differently compounded, accordeth canon is, in compliment to the ing to the circumstances of its appliLatin Church, wholly omitted : and cation; the former adapting the in that of Isidorus Mercatorius it is composition to the case where two - rendered, with an interpolation,- texts were contrasted, but the latter “ Petri duæ, prima et secunda, to the case where three were com. Johannis tres, prima, secunda et pared together. The short clause tertia,” &c. Had this version been subjoined to the first-cited passage, followed, it would bave either been “ ad lineam veritatis correximus" adopted without any change, or if gives equal evidence of its true dealtered, would have been abridged scent, as it is derived from an image by rejecting the terms “ una, duæ, which was familiar to St. Jeronie: tres &c.” as this alteration is sug- and is accordingly introduced in the gested by the tenour of the sense, prologue, from which the corres. and is accordingly followed, in the pondent phrase “ linguæ lineas sercontext, by the translator, who thus vare” has been adduced, though it ennumerates the Pauline Epistles,- is given a differet turn, suitably to " ad Romanos, ad Corinthios prima the occasion of its introduction, et secunda, ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, me cogitis (Paula et Eustoad Philippenses, ad Colossenses, ad chaium) ut veluti quodam novali, Thessalonisenses prima et secunda, scissum jam arvum exerceam, et &c."
obliquis sulcis renascentes spinas To proceed to examples which eradicem.” lead, by a different line of proof, Even in the embarrassment of the to the same conclusion, it is again structure, from whence the most forto be observed, that some general midable objection has been raised to expressions of the disputed Pro- the disputed prologue, it seems not logue, when collated with corres- impossible to deduce some evidence pondent phrases in the undisputed, of its authenticity; without making acquire à just and determinate any allowances for the circumstances sense, by the comparison; each under which it was dictated by a giving evidence of its descent from person who might plead in the words