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 distin guish 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 Lintow, 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 Muhammadan faith. This prince not only accepted these propositions with readi ness, 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 Lintow 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 pertina. ciously 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 Kotta Tenga, 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 Manangkabow, and the son of the ancient prince of Manangkabow, 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 Roeyong were wounded; the retired prince Raja Moening, who could not be hurt according to general opinion, and the uncle of the present removed regent, Raja Goempieta, also named Toeankoe Patta, escaped, but have since died. After this followed a war between the Padries and the Princes of Tana 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 Alam, son of the princes of the third seat, 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 Oelakhan. 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 Tana 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 large 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,

T. 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 huma

num est.

I should 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 shall have Dr. Griesbach entirely on our side, and to stand and fall

with him 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 183 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 : Τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ θεασάμενός τινα έργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ, εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ἄνθρωπε, εἰ μὲν οἶδας τί ποιεῖς μακάριος εἶ, εἰ δὲ μὴ οἶδας, ἐπικατάρατος και παραβάτης εἶ τοῦ νόμου. In English thus : “ On that same day he saw a man working on 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 Rom. 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) the passage was omitted by the Fathers because they feared that it would give countenance to Sabbath-breaking. "The fabricated stories found 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 Staudlin (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 in 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 and 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 Ammonius, 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 in 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 Constitutiones Apostolicæ (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 in 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 state

ment 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.

is לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו I see in my Hebrew Concordance that the injunction

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 is also understood by the Jews to mean a calf. "Ita jam R. Isaac idem putasse, ” non significare hoedum, sed pullum ex omni animalium genere." As to meaning, Bochartus putat...Mosen autem Israelitis hac consuetudine interdixisse, 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 1 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? 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.

T. S. informs me that the former Editor of the Observer would have subjected us to another sort of treatment than he has done. He has accused us of error, of the corruption of Scripture, of the perpetration of an atrocity. I am at a loss to conceive how the former. Editor could have expressed himself in stronger terms of our offence of having translated the N. T. according to our own and not other men's consciences, and sold a first edition in a short time. We can put in the spurious passages whenever we like.

I am astonished to hear T. S. complain of being treated harshly by me, when he has deliberately thrown the first stone at us, and is so very valiant in giving blows. I suppose he will have to throw the last stone at us also.

The P. S. to my last letter I am prepared to defend ; it does not contain an unprovoked attack upon a body of Missionaries. I hope it will do a great deal of good in one way or other.

I am now heartily tired of the controversy because it is quite useless to discuss such matters in this country. We never intended to have done so; but as T. S. came forward with such warmth, I received him in the same cordial manner. I now propose that we give up the controversy for the present and separate as Christian scholars.

The first edition of our Romanized Testament is sold. So neither our publisher nor any body has lost by it. We would immediately sanction and publish and sell a greatly revised and corrected edition, if our esteemed colleague and beloved brother, Mr. Buyers were not obliged to go home. We have entrusted him with finally fixing the text for the version of our Mission*. He can in England confer with such men as Dr. P. Smith and Dr. Henderson and others. We are quite at ease about the final fate of our version. As long as we had the fixing of the text we acted according to our conscience and best knowledge. Have we deserved to be charged for the conscientious discharge of an important public duty with corruption of Scripture, with the perpetration of atrocities? If T. S. will consider the subject calmly he will agree with me. Does T. S. mean to say that we should have admitted passages which we consider spurious? or have left the translation of the Scriptures altogether alone? Or have left the fixing of the text to the Calcutta Auxiliary Bible Society? If we be entrusted with the performance of every ministerial duty, why not with the fixing of the text? If we be heterodox men let the London Society withdraw its confidence from us. I have always preferred principle to expediency, and

* We cannot avoid calling the attention of our readers to the remarkable position maintained by the Translator in this paper in reference to the determining of the text. The translator objects to the decisions of the Bible Society and yet he will submit the fixing of the text to the Rev. W. Buyers and Drs. Henderson and Pye Smith-so that the question resolves itself into this: In which party are the Church disposed to put the most confidence-the persons named, or the Bible Society; for that the text should be fixed is admitted by our correspondent, for if not, it is evident that should our Bible fall into the hands of Unitarians and infidels, it will soon become a very small volume. We should not have been tempted to append this note, had not the controversy ceased in our pages with this number.-ED.