besides the authors of our scriptures, who have not used the term ἀσώματος. But if any one should cite the Doctrina Petri in which it occurs, we must first reply that this is not one of the ecclesiastical books; and we must show that neither Peter, nor any one else who was inspired by the Spirit of God, was the author of it. Quod etiam si ipsum concederetur, non idem sensus ex isto sermone àσμaros indicatur qui Græcis vel Gentilibus auctoribus ostenditur, &c.' Hence Mr. Cureton infers that Origen was either unacquainted with the epistle, or deemed it so palpably spurious as to be unworthy of notice, (C. I. 335.) But there was no reason why he should notice it, or anticipate that an objection would be drawn from it; since all that he had affirmed was that the word dowμaros did not occur in the canonical books, to which class some might be disposed to refer the apocryphal Doctrina Petri, but among which the epistles of Ignatius had never been reckoned. For though Ignatius asserts that he had on some occasions received supernatural communications, no one would on that account place his epistles in the canon of Scripture, any more than those of S. Cyprian on account of the visions with which he was favoured. (Ep. 7, 11, 40.) Origen does not censure the apocryphal book, nor raise any question as to the truth of the account contained in it; he even thinks it worth while to distinguish between the sense in which its writer used the word in question, and that which it bore among the heathen philosophers. It is not improbable that this narrative of our Lord's address to St Peter-whether it be, as Vedelius supposed, an inaccurate citation of Luke xxiv. 36-40, or whether, as Pearson thought, it rests upon an unwritten tradition-may have been copied from Ignatius by the writers of the apocryphal books in which it was afterwards found; and that the epistle to the Smyrnæans, far from being unknown to Origen, suggested certain expressions in the former part of this prologue, as well as the discussion on the term dowaтos, though it did not fall in with his plan to refer by name to any writer who had not been reckoned canonical.* Mr. Cureton further discovers in this epistle a denial of the resurrection of the body, which would doubtless be inconceivable in a disciple of St. John. To answer this it is only necessary to make rather a longer quotation than he has done in his note. (C. I. 335.) Ignatius is condemning the Docete who denied the reality of the body of our Saviour. They say that He suffered only 6 *The former part of the epistle, like that of the preface, is of the nature of a creed. Ignatius says: Vere passus est, ut et vere resuscitavit seipsum: non, quemadmodum infideles quidam dicunt, secundum videri ipsum passum esse.' With which compare, "Natus et passus est in veritate, et non per imaginem, communem hanc mortem ; vere mortuus est, vere enim a mortuis resurrexit.'—Præf. in lib. Princ. in pretence, they themselves being only in pretence (T SOXETY OVTES-qui ipsi vere sunt opinio, Armen.); and as they think, so shall it also happen to them, being bodiless and dæmoniac.' The passage is ironical throughout, and the latter clause no more denies the resurrection of the body than the former does its present existence the sense appears to be that, as they assert an unreal redemption, they shall only receive an unreal salvation, i.e. shall be excluded from salvation. These appear to be the only objections that it is needful to notice. Such as are merely of a general character, founded on the use of compound words which are met with abundantly in the New Testament, can have no weight; and the assertion that the Syriac version presents to us a collection of epistles attributed to Ignatius, in which none of those passages occur that have tended to throw such strong doubts and suspicions upon the other bodies of Letters which had previously borne his name' (C. F. Intr. lxiv.), is at once refuted by a comparison of Daille's work with the Syriac text.* The latter will be perceived to retain many of the passages on which Bochart, Daillé, and other critics. of that age grounded their objections. The conclusions which we have to state are these:- 1. The received Greek text contains nothing which might not have been written by Ignatius, no allusions to persons or events later than his time, no contradiction of any fact respecting him which has been well attested. 2. It agrees with the citations made by Fathers of the first three centuries no less than by those of the fourth, fifth, and sixth,. as accurately as we have a right to expect; as accurately, e.g. as their quotations of Scripture agree with the text. 3. The Syriac version on the contrary, though containing the few short quotations made by Fathers of the first three centuries, fails to give those of the following centuries-i.e. ceases to correspond with patristic testimony as soon as it became the custom to make large quotations. 4. Many passages of the received text, omitted by the Syriac,. are evidently referred to by writers of that early age in which it was not customary to make long and numerous quotations from uninspired authors. 5. There was at an early period a Syriac version corresponding to the received Greek text (except that it also contained the epistle to the Philippians) from which (a) the Armenian version * Vid. Dall. de Script. Dionys. et Ignat., pp. 313, 316, 342, 369, 372. It is to be observed that the greater part of Daille's arguments apply only to the longer Greek. VOL. LXXXVIII. NO. CLXXV. is H is stated by tradition, and proved by internal evidence, to have been made; (b) the short abridgment composed of passages from the epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, Magnesians, Smyrnæans, and to Hero (Corp. Ign. 201, 2), was compiled; (c) certain extracts from all the epistles, except that to the Romans, prefixed to Renaudot's ancient collection of canons (Corp. Ign. 197-201) were taken; as also (d) three extracts from the epistle to the Romans (C. I. 296), of which only two are found in the Syriac text. In the latter three cases, when the same passages occur both in the text and in the extracts, the translation, though with some very slight transpositions, is almost identical whereas, if we compare the Syriac text with the extracts made by Severus and Timotheus, we find the same Greek words variously rendered. 6. We have instances of the early abridgment of Christian writings in the East, sufficient to make it probable that the Syriac text is such. 7. The Syriac is in some places unintelligible, and presents a mutilated appearance for want of words which the Greek received text supplies. 8. It is incredible that the epistles which were collected by Polycarp-who lived till the middle of the second century-should have been unknown to his disciple Irenæus-who wrote about the end of that century; or that Örigen, the contemporary in some measure of Irenæus, should have been imposed upon by a forger; or that Eusebius, who had seen many of the disciples of Origen, should have had a different set of epistles. It is not necessary that we should frame a theory to account for the omission of each particular passage-many motives might influence a compiler. Before the third century was ended the Christian world had seen bishops who degenerated greatly from the primitive model; and although the sacerdotal powers accompany the office, not the character, the epitomizer may have felt that it was hard to apply the language of Ignatius to those who resembled Paul of Samosata. If he was infected with any of the more subtle heresies of the East, he may have omitted such * Ussher, Fell, and other scholars perseveringly sought for a Syriac version: 'ut exemplar Græcum Florentinum,' says Dr. Smith (Life of Huntington), 'illustrari et in paucissimis quidem emendari possit.' In their desire to obtain such a version Mr. Cureton finds a strong argument for the particular Syriac text which he has edited. But Ussher wrote to Hartlib in 1640, 'If I might get either a Syriac, or an Arabic, or an Armenian, or a Persian translation of them, it would serve me to exceeding good purpose.' (Works, xvi. 64.) Are we therefore to conclude that the discovery of the ancient Armenian version-anticipated by Ussher-establishes the genuineness of the thirteen epistles? doctrinal doctrinal passages as seemed less easily reconcilable with these, while he would have no such disposition to omit a general affirmation of the Divinity of our Lord. Something he may have omitted to avoid repetition; something as having lost its interest in his time; something through negligence and not observing its importance. Moreover, an author is not always perfectly judicious in his expressions and arrangement, nor even consistent in his views and in adherence to his plan; and if some authors are chargeable with these faults, a compiler is not exempt from them. The value of these three Syriac MSS. is in their confirming-not invalidating the Greek recension; in their forming part of the evidence that this recension was current in the East, as well as received in the Greek and Latin branches of the Church; in giving especially a very early testimony to the existence of that epistle which was rejected by critics who admitted the other six. They are valuable as enabling us to correct in some cases the text of the Greek MS. It would be very strange if a MS., written centuries after the time of the author, were altogether free from corruptions; and, when but one MS. of an author is extant, ancient versions have a peculiar importance-but their value is according to the way in which they are used. Little advance is made if one version be looked upon as immaculate, and all other authorities reduced to its standard: but much is done towards the restoration of the text, when they fall into the hands of editors who can consider the probabilities in every case, and estimate the witnesses according to acknowledged critical laws. The great service for which we are indebted to Mr. Cureton is that his zeal and industry have rendered MSS.-which might otherwise have lain for years unheededaccessible to editors who are capable of so employing them: it is no disparagement to his rare knowledge of Oriental languages that he is not equally qualified in some other respects to raise upon them a theory—at least such a theory as to disturb the conclusions of Pearson and Bull. ART. IV.-1. Reports on the Finance and Commerce of the Island of Ceylon and Correspondence relative thereto. 1848. 2. Papers relative to the Affairs of Ceylon. February, 1849.Second Report from the Select Committee on Ceylon and British Guiana: ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 27th July, 1849.-Third Report from the Select Committee with the Proceedings of the Committee: ordered to be printed 31st July, 1849. 3. First Report of the Select Committee on Ceylon. 19th February, 1850.-Second Report. 4th March.-Third Report together with the Proceedings of the Committee. 24th July. 4. Recent Disturbances and Military Executions in Ceylon. By T. Forbes, late Lieut.-Colonel 78th Highlanders. Edinburgh, 1850. THE HE Fabian dexterity of Whig officials having contrived that the Report of the Parliamentary Committee, during two years occupied in investigating the bloodless Cingalese 'rebellion' of 1848, and the bloody rigour resorted to by Lord Torrington, should appear and vanish amidst the confusion and weariness incidental to the last week of a protracted sessionwe conceive that we shall be discharging a duty to the interests of humanity, of justice, and of common sense, if we present our readers with a brief sketch of the events which led to that smothered inquiry-of its disgraceful progress-and of its still more disgraceful termination. Ceylon, placed at the western entrance of the Bay of Bengal, is separated by a narrow strait from the mainland of Hindostan. It is nearly as large as Ireland. The population, composed of various tribes of native Cingalese, of Malabars, Mahometans, Coolies, Portuguese, Dutch, and English, and of their mongrel descendants, is computed at little less than a million and a half of souls; Colombo, its capital, contains 40,000 inhabitants. The government of this colony is administered by a Governor, assisted by a council entirely consisting of European civil and military servants, who are described by M'Culloch as being, from their tenure of office, totally subservient to the will of the Governor' (No. 1, p. 146, par. 10; No. 6, qq. 5853, 5854). Its religion, as established by treaty, is that of Buddha, a creed which inculcates the purest code of morality ever engrafted on idolatry by misguiding or misguided man (No. 8, p. 41).* The ruins of ancient cities, tanks, aqueducts, canals, bridges, &c., with *The fifth clause of the treaty concluded on the 2nd of March, 1815, between the British Government and the native chiefs, is as follows:- The religion of Buddha, professed by the chiefs and inhabitants of these provinces, is declared inviolable; and its rites, ministers, and places of worship are to be maintained and protected.' |