« AnteriorContinuar »
tolls, viz. every traveller was to pay for every karbow half a gilder, for a cow four two-penny pieces, and for every load two two-penny pieces, with the exception of the districts of Soengie Trap, Soerocasso and Padang Ganting, who enjoyed the privilege of being free from toll, as they were considered the pillars of the state. One of these tolls was established at Soempoe Koedoes, appertaining to the first princely house of Roema die Roedam, and one at Boewa, appertaining to the second princely house, or Roema die Tenga, and one at Pager Roeyong, appertaining to the third princely house or Roema die Boeket. Besides they had the revenue or tribute of the states of Siac, Djambie, Botangharie, Indragirie and Palembang, from which places they received every two and a half years one chest of opium, or its value in cash or gold. The incomes which those princes, by contract with the E. I. Company enjoyed every three years from Padang to the amount of 1,000 reals (2,000 gilders) were ceded to the districts of Soengie Trap and Soeracasso. The explanation of the laws, the nature of crimes, and the application of punishments among the inlanders of this coast, takes place according to the different ideas of the chiefs, and the particular institutions of each society, tried by the Hadats according to the tradition and the prescribed rules of the koran, which they name Hadat bersander shera, and shera bersander Hadat, which means, the customs support the laws, and the laws support the customs. The degeneration which those customs however experienced after a lapse of so many centuries; the evading of the laws, which was so easy, and the too little power of the chiefs, had so great an influence on the moral state of the people, that they soon, and especially during the last fifty years, fell to the lowest grade, so that a provision became necessary for restoring them. This provision was made ; it originated from peculiar circumstances, but received a wrong direction and became the source of uproar and distresses, which have existed for more than thirty years, and the end of which cannot be seen. Force and oppression first, instead of mild reasoning was employed, and to this may be ascribed the origin of that sect which have made themselves so famous under the name of Padries, that a short deviation on their origin will not be out of place. A certain Naw Mentje of Agam, residing at Boekiet kamang, having obtained a higher degree of civilization than his compatriots, lamented the state of morals in his country, and being desirous of improving them, he ordered his people strictly to attend to religion with prayer and other prescribed rules of the Muhammadan faith, forbidding at the same time gambling, cock-fighting, the chewing of opium, drunkenness and the use of tobacco; which was much exercised by the inlanders even to excess. The Agamers were also at that time immersed in the greatest barbarity (now more than 30 years ago), even so far that they could not distinguish between prepared and unprepared spices, theft was much in vogue, murder and stealing and selling human fiesh were mere pastimes among them. The appointment of Toeankoe Nau Renje (the last word signifies learned or elever, he died in 1832 at Mejang, belonging to the Laras Boekiet) was first accepted in his own village and further powerfully carried, so strong even that he, to give a good example, deprived his own mother of her life, because she had privately made use of tobacco, and acted contrary to his prohibition. This unheard-of cruelty frightened the inhabitants of the neighbouring villages, who in consequence embraced the new faith, and those who did not wish to submit willingly, were forced by arms. Soon after the whole
i of Agam obeyed the new institutions after much bloodshed; a priestly instead of a patriarchal form of government was then introduced into this country, and in every village a Padrie (divine) was appointed to each village, who exercised the supreme voice in the government. To distinguish these people from the unconverted it was ordered that all of them be clothed in White.
At the same time appeared a certain inhabitant of Lintovo, Siedoe Moerrien who had studied divinity in Passaman, situated on the coast near Padang, and Passaman. He joined with the second prince of Pagger Roejong or Manangkabow, Yang die Pertoean Nan Bagoemae or surnamed Yang Tahat, he made him observe the defects in the morals and customs of the people of Tana Datar and solicited the consent of government to amend them strictly after the institutions of the Muhamma. dan faith. This prince not only accepted these propositions with readiness, but insisted also that both the other princes, who were with him at the head of government, should embrace them; and at the same time ordered the entire population of Tana Datar to submit themselves to the new rules, and to clothe themselves the same as the Agamers.
Toeankoe Passaman afterwards departed to his birth-place IAntnw with the full consent and power of government, to introduce there and in other subordinate places the rules of the new doctrine. But here it was not so readily accepted; wherefore, to establish a good example, he killed with his own hands a Pangkoeloe whom he had already met three times with a fighting cock under his arm, and suffered him not to be buried. This measure made a frightful impression on the refractory people, who immediately submitted themselves to him, with the exception of the district of Tandjong Baroeloe; this district pertinaciously resisted his doctrine, and induced him to make war with it, and bring it to obedience by force. After this he solicited a meeting of all the princes and grandees of Tana Datar at Kotla Tonga, and having collected them he caused to be put to death jang die pertoean Raja Narro, jung die pertoean Raja Tallang, brother to the present banished regent of Manangkabote, and the son of the ancient prince of Munwngkabow, Raja Moening, declaring them to be heretics, who had sinned against religion, because the first had made war with him at Tandjong Baroeloe, and the other two had assisted in it. A great dispute then arose in the assembly; they began fighting and several of the nobles of Pagger Roegong were wounded; the retired prince Raja Moening, who could not be hurt according to general opinion, and the uncle of the present removed regent, RajaGoempieta, also named Toeankoe Patta, escaped, but have since died. After this followed a war between the Padries and the Princes of Tuna Datar, in consequence of which the princes were necessitated to quit the land and to save themselves by flight. At this time Toeankoe Passaman must have made himself master of a daughter of Toeankoe Moening; whom he probably married. Raja Moening went to Loeboe Djambie, whilst the princes of both the other seats died shortly before. The regent Bagagar Alani, son of the princes of the third scat, who is now removed to Batavia went to Padang. and his uncle, who was already elevated by the people to the third throne, went to Oeiakhan. Now the government of Tana Datar became entirely priestly ; every village obtained a priest (Padrie) as head, who however soon after commenced to misuse the power which was entrusted them, as well at Taua Datar and Agam, and under the cloak of religion made the most arbitrary laws, whereby the people were prohibited the wearing of ornaments, the chewing of betel-nuts and similar other things, in consequence of which many more trespasses were committed, which by the paying of fines gave a largo field to covetousness and self-interest. (To be concluded in our next.)
VIII. Urdu Version of the New Testament. Reply to the
article of T. S. in the last number.
To the Editors of the Calcutta Christian Observer. Dear Sirs,
X. S-"s free and frank acknowledgment of his mistake in reference to the omission of John v. 4 is quite satisfactory, and his sincere and unrestrained apology readily accepted. His mistake has been admitted into the official correspondence of the Bombay Bible Society, but his acknowledgment and apology will set all right again. Errare hutnanttm est.
I sViould be under great obligation to T. S. if he had convinced me
that John viii. 1—12 is not spurious, for the omission of this passage will
considerably injure our version in the estimation of many. We have,
as far as I recollect, not rejected any passage which Dr. Griesbach has
admitted into his text except this which he has admitted with the
mark of .its being probably to be rejected. If we admit this passage,
we sball have Dr. Griesbach entirely on our side, and to stand and fall
with nim will always be honorable. As to MSS. the passage is
wanting in all the old ones, except D; for G, is according to Scholz
of the 10th, according to Griesbach of the 12th century; H. is of the
11th century, K. in which the celebrated passage constitutes a
distinct character, is according to Scholz and Hug of the 9th, and to
Simon of the 10th century; M. is of the 10th century. Now T. S.
allows that the MSS. of the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries
make nothing for the argument one way or other: vide page 18a
of the Observer. "D. is a very ancient and excellent codex, and
if it contained no other apocryphal addition I would say the passage
is doubtful, and we dare not omit doubtful portions of Scripture.
These additions are not so very short and not mere glosses."
I copy the remarkable addition of this Codex to Luke vi. 4 from Dr.
Olshausen's commentary, vol. I. p. 382 : Tj) aurjj hf-^pt BtaaAmv6s rwa Ipya
£6fitvof -rip <rajS&iT<f, (lw(i> atny, ii/Opaxt, tl fAv olSas rt iroitTs naxipios ef, tl Si fi.il alias, iviKardpaTot Km irapaj6(fT»js «f rov v6pov. In English thus: u On
that same day he saw a man working ou the Sabbath and said unto him, If thou knowest, man, what thou art doing, thou art blessed; but if thou dost not know it, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law." See on the meaning of this passage Kom. xiv. 5. Now this passage may be defended with nearly the same arguments with which T. S. and Dr. Bloomfield defend John viii. 1—12. It is not found in A. B. C. "but in estimating the value of their joint testimony, we ought to bear in mind that according to Dr. Scholz, &c. &c. (see the whole of T. S.'s remarkable paragraph in page 183 of the Observer J the passage was omitted by the Fathers because they feared that it would give countenance to Sabbath-breaking. "The fabricated stories fouud in the apocryphal gospel are quite of a different character, and are almost always founded on the most severe and ascetic views. And had this paragraph been of that character it would, I will venture to say, never have been omitted, or removed by any." "In short, all the arguments put together, founded on internal evidence against the authenticity of this paragraph, will not counterbalance One which may be adduced for it; namely, that while we can easily imagine why it should have been omitted, no tolerable reason can be assigned why the story should have been fabricated at all.
T. S. says, " It is said by Staeudlin (quoted by Bloomfield) that the passage is found in most though not in all, of the most ancient MSS. of the most ancient versions. Such as the Ethiopic and Armenian." To this I oppose Dr. Tholuck's testimony. "As to versions, the paragraph is wanting in the oldest MSS. of the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian (in which it is put as an appendix to the gospel) and the Gothic." Dr. Tholuck is one of the most pious and able men of the present age. He was for several years Chaplain to the Prussian Embassy at Rome, where he had the best opportunity of inspecting ancient MSS. He has been twice in England. In short, Tholuck is acquainted with nearly all the MSS. in the best European Libraries, and with the languages iu which they are written. The American scholars have expressed a wish that Tholuck should write a book on the history of the doctrine of the Logos, because there is no other man living who has access to so many sources of information. I am personally acquainted with Tholuck, and it was chiefly through his recommendation aud that of Neander and Hengstenberg, that I became a Missionary of the London Society. I can never speak of these truly great men but with filial affection and reverence, and I am grieved when reproach is put upon their bright names, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of the persons who do it.
T. S. says, that "the passage is found in Tatian and Amraouius, both of the second century." See a detailed account of Tatian and his writings in Neander's Church History, vol. iii. 1131, &c. &c. and of Ammonius iu the same work, vol. iii. 1183. I never learnt that these writers have the paragraph, either from Griesbach, or Neander, or Tholuck or Olshausen. Dr. Tholuck says, *' We find the first traces of this paragraph in the Constitutioncs Apostolicee (towards the end of the third century) by Ambros. August. Hieron." T. S. says in his first article, " We wish we could afford space to present our readers with the convincing defence of the narrative by Dr. Bloomfield, &c." A more unsatifactory piece of criticism than that of Dr. Bloomfield on this passage I have never met with. Augustine De Adulterinis Conjugiis ii. 7, says, " I believe or suppose (credo) that many have removed it from their copies." This is merely the private opinion, perhaps polemical accusation, of Augustine ; but after this influential Father had, in the 4th century, publicly stated his apprehension, the paragraph is not removed from the copies. This is merely a conjecture and supposition of an individual; and if these shall have any weight iu critical investigation I will venture the opinion that the story was fabricated and afterwards defended by the Carpocratians ! Now Dr. Bloomfield gives the conjecture of Augustine as an Historical fact! So Augustine de Conjug.
Adul. ii. 7, says, " that many removed it from their copies." Is it
fair to state in a book, which professes to be a critical work, the belief or opinion of a man as an historical fact? I am sure the simple statement of this fact will fix the character of that article. A greater jumble of MSS. and versions and more arrogant decision I have never seen. If I had time I would write a criticism on a work in which the spurious passages are put in the text and proved in the notes to be false, which is well calculated to establish Christian Bráhmanism in the church. See Matthew xxvii. 35 ; Acts. ix. 5, 6; Heb. xii. 20, in that work. I can and will not enter upon the discussion of 1st John v. 7. The passage is now rejected by all critics of any name, and if we must wait till all agree, no reform in any department could be carried. This passage is no part of the oldest Protestant version, namely, Luther's excellent translation. He never translated it or admitted it as long as he lived. The last editition printed under Luther's superintendence was that of 1546, in the preface to which he requests that no person will make any alterations in it. But this great and good man had not been dead thirty years, when the passage was interpolated in his German translation. The Wittenberg edition remained true to Luther's text till 1607. See Horne's Introduction, vol. iv. p. 457. It remains only for me to set T. S. right on my quotation of scripture. I see in my Hebrew Concordance that the injunction \ps north oil on-so is repeated,three times in the Pentateuch, viz. Ex. xxxiii. 19; xxxiv. 26 and Deut. xiv. 21. The English authorized version has translated it “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk,” but no is also understood by the Jews to mean a calf. “Itajam R. Isaac idem putasse, to non significare hoedum, sed pullum ea omni animalium genere.” As to meaning, Bochartus putat... Mosen autem. Israelitis hac consuetudine interdirisse, quod crudele esset, si lac matris quod hoedo in nutrimentum datum est, adhibeatur ad carnis ipsius consumptionem.” Rosenmuller. I have quoted from memory; the Apostles have done so too; every Biblical scholar and almost every attentive reader of the Bible knows that more than one half of all the quotations in the N. T. are quotations from memory. See Horne's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 281. Paul uses scripture in the same allegorical way; for instance, see I Cor. ix. 9. For it is written in the law of Moses, “Thou shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn?” T. S. might ask, Are the ministers of the Gospel compared to oxen Is preaching compared to treading out the corn ? What does the muzzling of the mouth mean 2 Omne simile claudicat. If T. S. deeply regrets to see such a loose mode of quoting, and such a perversity in applying Scripture, by one who bears the honoured name of a translator of the word of God, he must also regret to see it done by the Apostles. I wished to convey to T. S. a serious admonition ; namely, not to run down great men in the Church to whom we are so much indebted, and who do not belong to any country, as Dr. Bloomfield has done in the preface to his edition of the N. T.-I like to see a man acknowledge that he is under great obligation to the great men whom the head of the Church raises up from time to time. I dare not apologize for having quoted Scripture from memory, lest blame might be brought upon the New Testament. If I have erred, my error is countenanced by the highest, that is by inspired authority.