On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
as the fullest standard of faith , by in * - terpolating them with new interpretations borrowed from the Jews } n To this he answers , that by hi 3 interpretation he never intended to supersede or censure the Seventy translators : Audiant canes mei , says he , idcirco me in hoc volumine laborasse ,
non ut interpretationem antiquam reprehenderem , &c . In another place he says , Periculosum opus certe et obtrectatorum meorum latratibus patens , qui me asserunt in LXX . imerpretum suggillationem nova pro vete-Tibus cudere . Quid igitnr ,
damnamus veteres ? Mihime , sed post prk > - Turn studra , quod possum us in domo Domini laboratnus . Augustine was Jerome ' s intimate friend , yet he strongly disapproved of his labours , and as it appears from letters X . and XIX . addressed to Jerome himself , he forbade Jerome ' s version to be used
in liis diocese . Now , reader , compare with these facts the following- declaration made in the prologue to Eustochium : "But whilst thou , O Virgin of Christ , demandest of me the truth of Scrioture . mandest of me the truth of Scripture
, thou in a manner exposest my old age to the rancorous teeth of those malicious men , who hold me forth as a falsifier and corrupter of the Holy Scriptures / ' Observe farther , in this place , an important information that
is accidentally dropped , namely , the period of life when Jerome restored the disputed verse and revised the Canonical Epistles . It was when he had sense and magnanimity to defy clamour , as fast sinking under the weight of years to that rest , where the sting of envy is no longer felt , and the voice of slander is silent for ever .
Let me here add , that the author was , from the beginning , aware of the calumnies that awaited him , when he should restore the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses ; and he thus as
it were anticipates what he should be called upon to say in his prologue to the Canonical Epistles . Cogor per singulos Scripture Divinse libros adversariorum respondere raaledictis . Preface to Job .
3 . With regard to the prologue itself , a variety of circumstances beyond the reach of forgery in a future age , and peculiar to the situation of the author , caneur in establish ing its genuineness . Damasus engaged » him
Untitled Article
to revise the Latin Version > and th « author of the prologue alludes to his revision as in part accomplished . Sicut Evangelistas dudum ad veritatis Hueam correximus ; ita has proprio
ordini , Deo nos juvante , reddidimus * He tells his fair patroness , that at aU hazard he would restore the genuine text ; and we find it actually restored in the very translation which came from his hands . The prologue is ascribed , and we find it come down to
posterity among Jerome ' s works , though some copies are allowed to be without it . Walafrid Strabo commented upon it , in the ninth century , as the production of Jerome : and
neither he nor any other of that age appears to have had any suspicion of its being a forgery . But hear Mr . Porson : " If this prologue had been universally acknowledged for Jerome ' s * how could Bede overlook it ? Bede ' s
silence , both with respect to the disputed verse and the prologue , is a complete proof that he knew nothing of the prologue , and a probable argument that it was not even extant in his life . The only appeals to it are made by Walafrid Str&bo in the ninth , and the Sorbonne Correetorium
in the tenth century . " P . 296 . The reader will smile to see Bede ' s silence respecting the disputed verse cited as a complete proof that he knew nothing of the prologue . This argument is not worthy of the Greek Professor , but quite worthy of his
cause . 4 . The Professor , page 297 , adds , <( But if there were no other objection to this prologue , the style alone would determine it not to be
Jerome ' s . Whatever be his subject his language is always spirited and perspicuous , while the prologue is written in a barbarous and uncouth jargon . Let us consider the reasoning and connexion : ' as we formerly
corrected the Evangelists to the line of truth , so we have , by God ' s assistance , restored these ( Epistles ) to their proper order . ' The real Jerome would never have indulged himself in so silly a parallel , when he might have said ,
and ought to have said , ita et has , Deo juvante , Graecse fidei reddidimus . This would Lave been a proper subject for his joy and piety , instead of childishly commending himself for such a trifle ^ s restoring the order of
Untitled Article
216 Ben Duvid on 1 John v . 7 «
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1826, page 216, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2547/page/28/
-