In proceeding to verify these principles, in the remains of the old Latin version; as the translation of the Catholic Epistles is not extant, the only idea which can be attained of that part of the old Italic is in some of the early translations. In an early French version, which was apparently made by the Waldenses, and which corresponds, in the text of the Heavenly Witnesses, with their Confession of Faith, we consequently discover all that is necessary for bringing those principles to the test. As this version substitutes "the Son" for "the Word," and omits the final clause of the eighth verse, if we suppose, that some copies having these readings, and some corresponding with those of the modern Vulgate (as attested in the Prologue,) were before St. Jerome, nothing can more appositely illus trate the declaration of the Prologue, relative to the variations of the Latin version; "neither would they have created ambiguity to the reader, nor would the variety of the expression have impugned itself." As the substitution of the term " Son," and omission of the clausule are important variations, which directly affect the unity of the Trinity, they are obviously calculated, as impeaching the integrity of the text, to awaken the doubts of the reader, respecting the doctrine.

. When a variety occurred in the translation, St. Jerome's plan of correcting, as described in the Prologue to the Gospels, was "to seek the true reading in the greater number of Latin copies," or, "reverting to the Greek, to correct the translation by the original." But here, if I am right in my notion of Eusebius's edition, the latter canon failed in its application; as the

Greck, not less than the Latin impugned itself by the variety of the copies. The defect in the transla tion, was of course repaired by an application of the former canon, and the old reading of the Latin, as preserved in the greater number of copies, having been accordingly retained, nothing is stated respecting a correction. Had a sophisticator taken the work in hand, he would have boldly appealed to the Greek; for, it is absurd to suppose, that this was a length to which he who would fabricate the Prologue and passage dared not proceed; as St. Jerome has well observed, on a like occasion, qui hoc ausus est facere, quid aliud non audeat ?" The silence of the Prologue on this point, while it conveys a further proof of the identity of the real and reputed author, adds the strongest confirmation to the hypothesis, which asserts the defalcation of the Greek, in Eusebius's edition.

66

But we are further informed, by the Prologue to the Gospels, that in St. Jerome's mode of correcting the Latin, another test of the true reading was implied. While the corruption of the Greek is acknowledged, in premising the possibility of detecting it, by the translations made of the Scriptures into the languages of different nations," that preface "promises only the four Gospels, amended by a collation with the Greek." Though in this declaration, St. Jerome implicitly avows, that the Greek alone was accessible to him, at the time of revising the Gospels, the means of inquiry into a subject in which he was not incurious, were considerably extended at the time of composing the Prologue to the Epistles. After some years residence among the Syrians, after a long and intimate acquaintance with the Egyptian monks, he could not have been ignorant of their versions of the Scriptures. He who was so well versed in the Chaldee, could not have been unacquainted with the Syriac; he has, indeed,

given some proofs of his skill in this language, and is addressed, as a proficient in it, by Marcus Celedensis. His familiarity with Greek opened the means of communicating with the Nitrian monks whom he visited in person, and who had been occupied, since the period of Eusebius's revisal of the Greek, in translating the Scriptures, into the Sahidic and Coptic, which declare their descent from his edition by retaining his sections. The result of the information, which may be thus conceived within St. Jerome's reach, is accordingly communicated in the disputed Prologue; "in which epistle," the author subjoins, "I find also, that a great error is committed, against the true faith, by unfaithful translators, who set down the names only of three, that is, the Water, the Spirit, and the blood, and omit the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit." While a line is here distinctly drawn between the Latin and other translators; the observation is fully verified, by a comparison of the French and Oriental versions; as the latter insert only the earthly witnesses. And the present view of this passage in the Prologue is confirmed by the opposition marked by the terms "interpreters" and translators;" it being most consonant to St. Jerome's practice, in opposing these words, to apply the former to a version made into a vernacular tongue, the latter to one made into an acquired language. While this information, relative to those versions, corresponds with the state of the case, and is recognized by the correspondent Prologue, as agreeing with the scope of St. Jerome's inquiries; its recondite nature at once identifies him as the author of the production.

66

But while St. Jerome's manner is thus identified by learned allusions to subjects which were inaccessible to subsequent writers; his modes of thinking are at once recognized in the remote consequences to which they are prosecuted. As the deter

2

mination of the order of the Catholic Epistles arose from his common custom of prefixing a Prologue, this being the object with which his prefaces were usually written; his mention of the text of the Heavenly Witnesses naturally springs from his desire to preserve the principle, on which that order had been determined. The digestion of the subject mainly consisted in retaining St. John, at the close of the Epistles, as well as of the Gospels; that Apostle having written, with the view of supplying what was defective in his inspired predecessors, and having consequently delivered his sublime theology, by a progressive disclosure, closing with the revelation of the highest mystery. To omit the verse, in which this mystery was most fully disclosed, was to frustrate the object of that digested order, which St. Jerome, after Eusebius, has ascribed to St. John as its author; this consequently furnishes the grounds, on which he excepts against the nnfaithful translators. The connexion between the Prologue to the Gospels and the Epistles which inculcates the same mode of arrangement is thus maintained by a secret link; the subject which is barely suggested in the former, being thus brought to its consummation in the latter. In this nice connexion of the subject, by marks, not obtrusively forced upon the attention, but dicoverable only on a close observation, which are not drawn from the formal avowal of the author, but deducible from his habits of acting and think. ing, the authentic work infallibly distinguishes itself from the counterfeit and surreptitious.

This observation admits of being carried even to a greater length. The author of the Prologue, in vindicating the true reading of the contested verse, exhibits a desire not merely to maintain the order, but to assert the doctrine of the Epistles. He opens the subject, with a declaration in favour of

"those Greeks who were sound in their opinion, and followed the right faith;" he closes it by an expression of his zeal for the maintenance of " the Catholic faith, and the doctrine of one substance of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These were subjects, not only predominant in St. Jerome's mind, at the time when this prologue professes to be written, but were forced on his attention by the object and tenour of the subject which it discusses. In accounting for the variety of the Latin copies, in the earlier prologue to the Gospels, he traces it to its source, and refers it to the edition of the Greek, which was published by Hesychius, and which was generally received in Egypt. In this country, particuJarly among the Nitrian monks, a defection, from the Catholic faith to the errors of Origen, had prevailed not long previously to the period of writing this prologue; and St. Jerome had fallen in some measure, under the imputation of favouring their errors, by the insinuations of Rufinus. This subject had been brought home to his attention by his friend Pammachius, who called upon him "to confute what was contrary to the Catholic rule, or had been unskilfully expressed by his opponent, to purge the suspicions of meu, and convince his accusers, lest by dissembling, he might seem to acquiesce." The Bishop of Alexandria, by whom the Origenian heresy had been opposed, pressed him more urgently with the observance of the ecclesiastical Canons;" calling upon him "to participate in the reward of his own exertions, by labouring to reclaim those who had been deceived;" and stating the determination which he himself possessed, "to preserve the Catholic

faith and the Canons of the Church, with the people committed to his charge, to the suppression of all novel doctrines." As the heaviest charge brought by St. Jerome himself against the Origenists convicts them of degrading the Son and Holy Ghost into the order of angels; the contested prologue, addressed to Eustochium, gives a direct reply to the demands of her brother Pammachius, and answers the claims of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria. In vindicating the credit of the contested verse, it opposes the strongest authority furnished by Scripture, to the fundamental error of the Origenists; and while it places the author's opinion of the ecclesiastical Canons and the Catholic faith above every suspicion, sustains the part which St. Jerome took in that controversy, with a degree of consistency which challenges a competition with any other of his genuine prologues.

But the structure of the language in which the prologue is expressed, as composed of the phraseology of St. Jerome, gives rise to an additional train of evidence identifying its author. This evidence will be placed in the most succinct and conclusive form, by extracting from the prologue its remarkable phrases, and confronting them with others collected from the undisputed prologues. With a view to facilitate that comparison, which will lead to the conviction that they have proceeded from the same hand, I sha!l dispose them in parallel columns. The general tenour of the expression possesses a sufficient comment in the similarity of the contrasted passages; on some of the remarkable and characteristic phrases, I shall particularly remark in the sequel.

Phrases of the disputed Prologue. Nom idem est ordo apud Græcos...epistolarum septem, quæ Canonicæ nuncupantur, qui in Latinis codicibus invenitur, Sed sicut Evangelistas dudum ad veritatis lineam correximus, ita has proprio ordini, Deo nos juvante reddidimus. Est enim prima earum una Jacobi, Petri duæ, Jo

hannis tres, et Judæ una. Ab interpreti

Lec

bus fideliter in Latinum verterentur eloquium...ab infidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse a fidei veritate comperimus....nec sermonum sese varietas impugnaret. In prima Johannis epistola positum .....trium tantum vocabula in sua editione ponentibus. Testimonium omittentibus, in quo fides Catholica roboratur....una divinitatis substantia comprobatur toris prudentiæ derelinquo. Sed tu virgo Christi Eustochium, a me impensius Scripturæ veritatem inquiris, meam senectatem invidorum dentibus corrodendam exponis, qni me falsarium, corruptoremque Sacrarum Scripturarum pronunciant. Nec amulorum invidentiam pertimesco, nec Sanctæ Scripturæ veritatem poscentibus denegabo.

Phrases of the undisputed Prologues. Non idem est ordo duodecim prophetarum, apud LXX. qui in Hebraica veritate continetur (a)...in Canonica [Petri] epistola (b)...codices a Luciano nuncupatos (c). Psalterium Romæ dudum positus emendaram, et juxta LXX. interpretes....cursim correxeram (d), linguæ lineas servare (e) nos mensuræ metri versibusque reddidimus, præterea ordinem visionum ad prisChristo (g) adjuvante Domino (h). Scriptinam fidem correximus (f) juvante sit ad Romanos unam, ad Corinthios dits, ad Ephesios unam, ad Philippenses unam, Judæos veteris legis interpretes (k).........in etc. (i). Post Septuaginta translatores,.... nostrum vertit eloquium (1)....multum a veritate discordet (m)...fidei tollerent veri, tatem (n)...ipter se trifaria varietate compugnat (o). Multa ponuntur de veteri textu (p)....non vocabula hominum (q).... ponam de Vet. Testamento (r)...ejus editio non multum distat ab Hebraico (s). Quæ ad nostram fidem pertineant roborandam(t) maledicorum testimonio comproba→ tur (u). Relectoris arbitrio judicium derelinquens (w). Cogis me virgo Christi Eustochium (x)....semper invidis respondemus (y)....qui canino dente me rodunt (z) ....corrector vitiorum falsarius dicor (aa). Exordia æmulorum maledicta confutant(bb) ...nec vituperationes expaviscemus...minas hominum penitus non timemus (cc)...hos libros Eustochio virgini Christi negare non potui (dd).

In the phrases which are here collected from sources the most various and remote, we recognize every dis. tinctive mark which characterises the diction of an author whose style is formed. The same thoughts are clothed in the same language, while some shades of difference distinguish each piece from a mere imi. tation, the whole colouring exhibits that similarity of tone which characterises the hand of the same master.

As much of the learning of the disputed Prologue is adopted from a language, the stores of which were inaccessible to any later writer among the Latins; it must convey

(bb) Præf. in Micah. (cc) Præf. in Esth.

no trivial evidence of the source from whence it has proceeded, that the expression of the Greek should. be copied with the information which it imparted; and it is not less curious than convincing, that some phrases extracted from the disputed prologue approach much nearer to the usage of that language, than those collected from the genuine Prefaces. Thus, in the short phrase "Deo juvante," while both terms are recognized, in the separate parts of "adjuvante Domino," and "juvante Christo," extracted from different sources; the disputed Prologue approaches nearest in the phrase which it employs, to ea

idolos, used on a like occasion, by Origen, from whose commentaries the expression has obviously passed into the Prologues of Jerome. The manner of enumerating the Catholic Epistles is besides purely Greek; the form of expression having been adopted with the order of the Epistles from the acts of the Council of Laodicea; for, the passage, "Jacobi uua, Petri duæ, Johannis tres, Judæ una," is a literal translation of Ιακώβε μία, Πέτρε δύο, Ιωάννα Tpeйs, Iúda μía, in the sixtieth Canon of that Council. And while this form of expression is corroborated by the usage of Jerome, who in as literal a translation of the same canon, adopts it, in his enumeration of the Pauline Epistles, it was obviously not to be acquired, through the medium of the Latin. In the translation of the acts of that Council, by Dionysius Exiguus, the sixtieth canon is, in compliment to the Latin Church, wholly omitted: and in that of Isidorus Mercatorius it is rendered, with an interpolation, "Petri duæ, prima et secunda, Johannis tres, prima, secunda et tertia," &c. Had this version been followed, it would have either been adopted without any change, or if altered, would have been abridged by rejecting the terms una, duæ, tres &c." as this alteration is suggested by the tenour of the sense, and is accordingly followed, in the context, by the translator, who thus ennumerates the Pauline Epistles, "ad Romanos, ad Corinthios prima et secunda, ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses, ad Thessalonisenses prima et secunda,

&c."

To proceed to examples which lead, by a different line of proof, to the same conclusion, it is again to be observed, that some general expressions of the disputed Prologue, when collated with correspondent phrases in the undisputed, acquire a just and determinate sense, by the comparison; each giving evidence of its descent from

the same source, as referable to the same habits of thinking. Thus in the phrase "Evangelistas dudum ad veritatis lineam correximus," the term "dudum" marks no definitive period; but its meaning is defined by a short clause in the correspondent phrase, “Psalterium Romæ dudum positus emendaram;" and as the revisal of both works was made at the same time, it is used in the same sense in both passages. The phrase "nec sermonum sese varietas impugnaret” conveys an indeterminate sense to the ordinary reader, but it is at once fixed by the correspondent phrase, "inter se trifaria varietate compugnat: and as both expressions have originated from an observation of the diversities of the classes, into which the sacred text is distributed by St. Jerome; both lay equal claim to originality, in using a verb which is differently compounded, according to the circumstances of its application; the former adapting the composition to the case where two texts were contrasted, but the latter to the case where three were com pared together. The short clause subjoined to the first-cited passage, "ad lineam veritatis correximus" gives equal evidence of its true descent, as it is derived from an image which was familiar to St. Jerome: and is accordingly introduced in the prologue, from which the correspondent phrase "linguæ lineas servare" has been adduced, though it is given a differet turn, suitably to the occasion of its introduction, "me cogitis (ô Paula et Eustochaium) ut veluti quodam novali, scissum jam arvum exerceam, et obliquis sulcis renascentes spinas eradicem."

Even in the embarrassment of the structure, from whence the most formidable objection has been raised to the disputed prologue, it seems not impossible to deduce some evidence of its authenticity; without making any allowances for the circumstances under which it was dictated by a person who might plead in the words