given some proofs of his skill in this mination of the order of the Catholie 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 men, the Nitrian monks whom he visited tion of the text of the Heavenly in person, and who had been occit. 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 had been deterthe Scriptures, into the Sahidic and mined. The digestion of the subCoptic, which declare their descent ject mainly consisted in retaining from bis 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 lion, which may be thus conceived Apostle - having written, with the within 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 baving 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 mys. only 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 di. testimony 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 Jobn 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 mosted in the former, being thus brought consonant to St. Jerome's practice, to its cousummation 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 coun. rome'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 maintain 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 his 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 tbe 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 columps. 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 emendalineam correximus, ita has proprio ordini,

ram, et juxta LXX. interpretes....cursim

correxeram (d), linguæ lineas servare (e) Deo nos juvante reddidimus. Est enim

nos mensuræ metri versibusque reddidiprima earum úna Jacobi, Petri dua, Jo- mus, præterea ordinem visionum ad prishannis tres, et Judæ una. Ab interpreti

tinam fidem correximus (f) juvante

Christo (8) adjuvante Domino (h). Scripbus fideliter in Latinum verterentur elo

sit ad Romanos unam, ad Corinthios duas, quium... ab infidelibus translatoribus mul ad Ephesios unam, ad Philippenses unam, tum erratum esse a fidei veritate comperi

etc.(i). Post Septuaginta translatores,....

Judæos veteris legis interpretes (k)...in mus....nec sermonum sese varietas impeg nostrum vertit eloquium (1)....multum a naret. In prina Johannis epistola positum veritate discordet (m)... fidei tollerent veri....trium tantum vocabula in sua 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....boa di. ponam de Vet. Testamento (ro)...ejus editio vinitatis substantia comprobatur .... Lec

pon multum distat ab Hebraico (s). Quæ

ad nostram fidem pertineant roborandam(t) toris prudentiæ derelinquo. Sed tu virgo ..., maledicorum testimonio comprobaChristi Eustochium, a me impensius Scrip- tur (u). Relectoris arbitrio judicium deretüræ veritatem inquiris, nieam senectatem

linquens (w). Cogis me virgo Christi

Eustochium ( 20 )....semper invidis responinvidorum dentibus corrodendam exponis, demus (y)...qui canino dente me rodunt íz) qui me falsarium, corruptoremque Sacra- ...corrector vitiorum falsarius dicor (aa). rum Scripturaruin pronunciant. Necæmu

Exordia æmulorum maledicta confutant(bb)

... nec vituperationes expaviscemus...minas lorum invidentiam pertimesco, nec Sanctæ

hominum penitus uon timemus (cc)...hos Scripturæ veritatem poscentibus denegabu. libros Eustochio virgini Cbristi negare non

potui (du).

(a) Præf. in Joel. (0) Com. iu Is. Ixv. p. 184. (c) Præf. in IV Evan. (d) Præf. in Psalt. (e) Præf. in Dan. (f) Præf. iu Hierein. (8) 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. lxv, ad Ham. et Oc. (0) Præf. in Paralivom. (p) Præf. in Esdr. (9) Præf. in Paralipom. (r) Adv. Pelag. J. iv. ($) Præf. in Ezek, 0 ED. xxiv, ad Marcel. (u) Præf. in IV Evang. (w) Præf. in Dan. (x) Præf. in Is. (y) Præf. in Micah. (z) Præf. in Paralipom. (aa) Præf. iu Job (66) Præf. in Micab. (cc) Præf. in Esth. (dd) Præf. in Jos.

In the phrases which are here col- no trivial evidence of the source lected from sources the most various from whence it has 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 approuch 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 Otoù

de dovlos, used on a like occasion, by the same source, as referable to the
Origen, from whose commentaries same babits 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 uva, Petri duæ, Johannis time, it is used in the same sense in
tres, Judæ una,” is, a literal trans- both passages. The phrase ós pec
Iation of Ιακώβε μία, Πέτρα δύο, Ιωάννα sermonum sese varietas impugnaret”
opeīs, Iúdo pía, 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, accord-
eth canon is, in compliment to the ing to the circumstances of its appli-
Latin 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 have either been “ ad lineam veritatis correximus"
adopted without any change, or if gives equal evidence of its true de-
altered, 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 ser-
context, by the translator, who thus vare” has been adduced, though it
ennuierates the Pauline Epistles, is given a differet torn, suitably to
“ ad Romanos, ad Corinthios prima the occasion of its introduction,
et secunda, ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, “me cogitis (ô Paula et Eusto-
ad 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 for-
to 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

of Theophrastus, Bibluxa tron bodoh. a clearer light;" in acquitting him. xsila inéa. The objection almost self of which profession, he is not to exclusively affects two clauses, in be denied the praise of having perwhich the embarrassment of the formed what he undertook, with structure bears internal marks of that accuracy, clearness, and spirit, having grown out of a correction; which will be in vain sought in any and seems to have originated in an other, of the disputants, by whom effort to give greater emphasis to the question has been agitated. the sense, as it occurs in two points, As a leading objection to the where the author is employed in prologue, it is observed, that as enforcing the main object which he “Jerome revised the Latin trans. undertakes to establish. Thus, if lation at the command of Pope Dawe suppose him, with this object in masus, if he replaced the three view, to have first declared, “ ut Heavenly Witnesses at this revisal, primæ sint Petri epistolæ in ordine why did he not then write his preface cæterarum,” but on perceiving the to inform the world of his recovered necessity of a qualification, to have reading ?” p. 289. Had the Preadded « quia Petrus primus est in face, in which St. Jerome records nuinero Apostolorum ;" the two pro- this request, and states his compli. positions, which are wholly unex- ance with it, been read with but ceptionable when taken apart, im- moderate attention, it would have plicated the construction, on being anticipated this objection by the combined in the phrase, “ ut quia short answer, “ hæc præsens Præ. Petrus primus est numero Aposto- fatiuncula pollicetur quatuor tanlorum, primæ sint etiam ejus epis. tum Evangelia.” From the correstolæ in ordine cæterarum." Again, pondence of Jerome (Vide Epp. cii. if we suppose“ proprio ordini red. ad Marcel, xxviii. ad Lucin. Ixxxviii. didimus' to have been connected ad Augustin) “written after Damasus with “ Jacobi una, Petri dua, Johan- was dead,” it appears that the first nes tres, Judæ una," but the inter- part of the work, containing merely jected phrase, “ est enim prima the Gospels, had been given to the earum,” to have been added, in world, and that the indifferent reorder to enforce the main purpose ception which it had met, had of the author, who assigns the pre- determined its author to withhold cedence to St. Jerome's Epistle; we the remainder. may form a just idea, how the But the request made by Eusto. structure has become embarrassed, cbium to Jerome, “ once more to in the phrase, “ Est enim prima revise the Catholic Epistles and earum una Jacobi, &c." I correct them froin the Greek,” is “a

Having taken so much pains to story that carries its own condemenable the oppugners of the disputed nation upon its forehead." p. 289. prologue to understand it, I am ex. As a sufficient cure for the sceptiempted from the weary task of en- cism of the objector on this point, tering with equal minuteness into it is merely necessary to prescribe, the objections, by which they have the exercise of reading the Preface laboured to pervert its object and to the Psalter, where he will find meaning. In proceeding to give the request' distinctly made; Paula them every consideration which they and “ Eustochium, after Pope Dacan be thought to merit, I shall take masus was dead," requiring him them, as collected and methodised “ once more to revise the translaby Mr. Porson. His professed ob. tion, and correct it from the Greek," ject, in entering on so beaten à as new errors had grown up, by the topic, was “ to collect what is scat- culpability of transcribers. It is tered through many works, to dis- almost needless to observe, that pose it in a better order, or set it in Enstochiuin, who is represented as

REMEMBRANCER, No. 42.

Y y