for the Society at Copenhagen, under Mr. Henderson's own superintendance, and it is fair to suppose, that those emendations which he and the natives disapproved, were rejected. We know, at least, that they manifested the utmost desire of obtaining copies of it, and a poet of their own, who may be pronounced a more competent judge of the merits of the edition, than any foreigner, has conveyed the thanks of his country for "the healing balm of sacred love," in a poem, in which he thus addresses the Society.

Society of Christ! most dear
To heaven, to virtue, and to me!
For ever lives thy memory here:
While Iceland is; thy fame shall be.

Thus Thule, and her sons employ
Their harps, to pour the grateful song;
And long thy gifts may we enjoy,
And pour this grateful tribute long.

one of the Episcopal Patrons of the British

and Foreign Bible Society, and was inLordship, and of those to whom he might tended for the private satisfaction of his think proper to communicate it: but as the charge which it was meant to refute (and which has since been revived, with additional matter of accusation equally unfounded) is said to be producing an impression unfavourable to the character of the Society, I have found myself compelled most reluctantly to adopt the

I am, Sir,

only expedient by which it appeared to me that the injurious consequences of such an impression could be generally and ef fectually counteracted.

I HALL feel obliged to you, if you will give insertion to the following letter. It was addressed, as you will perceive, to

I am, Sir, your humble servant, JOHN OWENn.

"YOUR Lordship having obligingly drawn my attention to an article in the Christian Remembrancer for October last, in which the conduct of the British and Foreign Bible Society, in a particular instance, has been gravely impugned, I lose no time in laying before your Lordship such observations as will, I trust, make it appear, that the Society has been wrongfully accused, and that the reproach attempted to be fastened upon it is altogether unde served.

"In the article referred to by your Lordship, a writer, who signs himself C. L., and dates his letter from Caen, distinctly charges the British and Foreign Bible Society with having sent forth to the world, under its authority, a corrupted translation of the Bible,' into nuates, that this has been done to favour French, and in no very covert way insi the cause of 'Socinianism.' The circumstance on which the writer professes to found both the accusation and the inference, is, that having been led to consult the French translation published by the Bible Society,' for the purpose of quoting texts in proof of the Divine nature of Jesus Christ,' he was greatly surprised, on meeting with a passage of the utmost importance to his purpose, to find it rendered in a way which corresponded neither with the original, nor with the English authorised version. The passage referred to is contained in the 18th and 19th verses of 2 Cor. chap. v. ; and it appeared, that the words which in the original are, Ως ότι Θεος ην εν Χριστῳ κόσμον καταλλάσσων avra, and in the authorised English version are translated, that God was in Christ

reconciling the world unto himself,' are rendered in the Bible Society's French translation, thus: Car Dieu a réconcilié le monde avec soi-même, par Christ.'' Now, observes the writer, the Bible Society's translation is said to be printed from the Paris edition of 1805, and was doubtless selected by the Society in preference to other editions, notwithstanding it is well known that the French Protestants consider the best French version of the Bible to be that of Martin,' in which the words, • Ως ὅτι Θεος ην εν Χριστῷ, &c. Τo wit, That God was in Christ,' &c. are literally translated- Car Dieu étoit en Christ réconciliant le monde avec lui-meme.'

"Such, my Lord, is the substance of the charge itself. The writer who brings it forward, describes it as a' circumstance which appears to him to demand explanation on the part of the British and Foreign Bible Society; and that explanation, not as their official organ, but as their voluntary advocate, I shall now make it my endeavour to give.'

"I. In the first place, the ground of the accusation against the Bible Society, is laid in an assumption, that the French translation printed by them is either a version originally vicious, or that they have so corrupted it by their revision and correction,' as to have made it substantially and responsibly their own; whereas, it is, in fact, the version of Ostervald, and the rendering complained of is to be found in every edition of Ostervald's Bible which I have seen, from the year 1816, when the first edition of that Bible appeared, down to the year 1818, when the latest was printed at Basle. The words carefully revised and corrected according to the Hebrew and Greek texts' (revue et corrigée avec soin d'après les textes Hebreu et Grec,) which are placed on the titlepage, and by which it seems probable the writer was misled, were adopted on the principle of general usage, and meant to be understood in the sense in which they are known to be customarily employed. The Editors of the Basle impression abovementioned have in their title-page " et corrigée sur le texte originel,' though they did not profess to alter, but simply to correct the version which they printed: and the same was the case in the editions of the French Bible printed by the Bible Society. The revision and correction so described were made by a collation of the edition printed at Paris in 1805, with the original, and with several former editions; not with the design or the profession, of making alterations in the version itself, but of rectifying the errors, and re

revue

moving the blemishes by which it had been rendered, in not a few places, embarrassed or obscure.

"II. The accusation further assumes, that the Society were influenced by a feeling of unjustifiable partiality in selecting the version printed in 1805: they are represented by the writer, as giving it the preference, notwithstanding it is well known that the French Protestants consider the best French version of the Bible to be that of Martin.' How little ground there is for the insinuation conveyed through the first part of this assumption, will be made sufficiently to appear from the following brief and uncommented statement of facts.

"At the close of the year 1805, the attention of the Bible Society having been seriously turned to the state of religious destitution of the numerous prisoners of war at that time in this country, it was determined to employ the most prompt and effectual measures for supplying them with the Holy Scriptures in the languages of their respective nations. In proceeding to take the necessary steps to print an edition of the Bible for the use of the French prisoners, amounting to 20,000, the Society experienced considerable embarrassment in fixing upon a copy from which their edition should be printed. Opinions on this subject were greatly divided, both abroad and at home. The war having prohibited all direct intercourse with France, the only means which the Society possessed, of obtaining information from that country, were those which were furnished through the medium of their correspondents in Switzerland. For this purpose, many letters were addressed to their friends at Basle; and similar applications were made to such individuals resident in London, as were thought competent to give an opinion on the subject. After a delay of nearly twelve months, during which these inquiries were incessantly pursuing, it was at length determined, on the recommendation of the late Rev. Mr. Mercier, (Minister of the French Church in London,) and Mr. Des Carrières (Author of the French Dictionary, &c.) that the version of Ostervald should be adopted; and accordingly a copy of the Paris reprint of it in 1805, was, after a collation of it by the Rev. Dr. Adam Clarke, with the edition printed at Bienne, in 1774, selected as that which should be used in executing the Society's impression. The very inaccurate manner in which it afterwards appeared the Paris edition of 1805 had been printed, added greatly to the labour of revision and correction requisite

to prepare it for the press; and this circumstance may be considered to have had some influence in occasioning the employment of that strong language in which, on the title-page of the work, the revision and correction are represented to have been made.

"To the unqualified assertion, that' the French Protestants consider the best French version of the Bible, to be that of Martin,' I must beg leave to oppose both the judgment and the practice of the French Protestants in Switzerland. Among them the version of Martin has been very partially, if at all received. Certain it is, that that of Ostervald is in general use; and when in the year 1816, the Bible Society made an offer of a very liberal grant to the three Bible Societies of Lausanne, Geneva, and Neufchatel, on condition of their printing an edition of 10,000 Bibles, according to the version of either Ostervald or Martin, leaving it to them to adopt whichever of the two they might prefer, they accepted the grant with the greatest thankfulness, and unanimously decided in favour of Ostervald. It is true that the Protestants in the South of France, of which Martin was a native, and those of Holland, in which he exercised his ministry, during the latter years of his life, use by preference the version which bears his name; and accordingly, on ascertaining the predominancy of this attachment in the former of those countries, the Bible Society will be found to have shown no backwardness to consult it, and no parsimony in providing for it the means of gratification. By their aid and encouragement, four editions of this version have already been executed at Toulouse, Montauban, and Paris, three of which consist of 26,000 copies, and the fourth is on stereotype, and therefore capable of being carried to an indefinite amount. It should at the same time be stated, that the Paris Bible Society (whose competency to judge of the disposition of the Protestants in France will not be dispated) are by no means inclined to sacrifice the version of Ostervald to that of Martin; they possess both, circulate both, and in the Catalogue of Bibles and Testaments on sale at their depository, editions of both in various forms are equally to be found.

"III. Though I am far from approving the terms in which the passage under consideration is translated, yet from the known character of the eminent theologian from whom the translation of which they form a part, proceeded, and on whose authority they were adopted by the Bible Society,

I cannot but think they have been construed in a lower and less orthodox sense than that in which he employed them, and intended them to be understood. The name of Ostervald has long been held in high and deserved estimation; and his writings on the Holy Scriptures have been, for nearly a century past, and continue still to be, recommended and circulated by that venerable body, the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, which would certainly be among the last to sanction the opinions of a writer who could be capable of perverting any passage of the Bible, in order to favour the tenets of Socinianism. The fact, however, is that, in rendering the important passage in the manner complained of, Ostervald has gone little, if at all, beyond many of the most orthodox translators and interpreters of Scripture, in the paraphrastic liberty which he has allowed himself to use. Diodati, who has never been suspected of a leaning towards Socinianism, translates the passage thus'Conciosiacosuchè Iddio habbia riconciliato il mondo a se in Christo,' &c. Archbishop Martini has- Dappoichè Iddio era, che riconciliava con seco il mondo in Christo;' and Maitre de Sacy, of whose translation the Archbishop made considerable use in preparing his own, renders it as follows- Car c'est Dieu, qui a reconcilié le monde avec soi, en Christ.' It is true, the two latter were Catholics, though of a very enlightened class in that communion; but whatever may be thought of their opinions on certain dogmas of our holy faith, they will not be suspected of disaffection to that of the Divine nature of Christ,' nor, consequently, of an intention to weaken the scriptural proofs' by which it is supported. There is in Poole's Synopsis a criticism so fully to the purpose of my present remarks, that I hope to be excused if I add it to the foregoing quotations.

"Deus erat reconcilians sibi mundum, in Christo; h. e. per Christum. Hic commentarius congruit tum phrasi Paulinæ, tum præcedentibus et sequentibus.'-Pol. Syn. in Loco.

"Having thus, my Lord, considered the different particulars of which the charge against the British and Foreign Bible Society is composed, and done my best to furnish, in reference to each, the required explanation. I will not detain your Lordship, after having already drawn so largely upon your patience, by animadverting, as in justice I might do, on the tone in which the article which has occasioned these remarks, is written, and in which more espe

6

cially it concludes. If, as the writer affirms, the boast of the Bible Society has been, that they circulate the anthorized translation of the Bible,' I may venture to assure him, if he has not by this time discovered it, that this is a boast of which they cannot be deprived. He bids them look well to the revision and correction of their foreign versions;' on this point also I can give him the amplest satisfaction. No body of men can take more pains than they do, to procure suitable editors for such foreign versions as they have occasion to print, or look more closely into the principles and qualifications of those to whom the editing of them is entrusted. But, in fact, the Bible Society have outlived the state in which it was necessary for them to do that for foreigners, which foreigners are capable of doing so much better for themselves. Wherever kindred institutions have been established (and where have they not?) the clergy, as it became them, have undertaken the responsibility of directing the printing of the Scriptures for the members of those communions, and subjects of those countries to which they respectively belong. The revision and correction of the Society's foreign versions have thus in a great measure, happily changed hands; and what was formerly attempted on a narrow scale, and with scanty means, in the capital of Great Britain, is now performing on a scale of suitable grandeur, and with every advantage of local knowledge, and local superintendance in most of the capitals, and not a few of the principal cities, throughout the largest portion of the world.

"And now, my Lord, I have only, in conclusion to state, that nothing will be more acceptable to the officers of the Bible Society, and I am sure I may add, to all concerned in its management, than to be made acquainted with the circumstances in which it may be thought that their proceedings are liable to any just animadversion. We have, my Lord, no religious partialities to gratify; and if we had, the composition of our body would render the gratification of them impracticable. It is our wish and our endeavour to do right; but we are too conscious of the infirmity of our nature, and of the magnitude and difficulty of our work, to flatter ourselves that we shall always be successful. To those, therefore, who admonish us of our errors, whether real or imaginary, we shall ever be ready to pay a becoming attention; and if, from the tone in which they reprove us, we may not be

able to thank them as friends, we will at least take care, by profiting from their reproof, to use them as benefactors, "I have the honour to be, "My Lord,

"Your Lordship's faithful servant, "JOHN OWEN."

To the Editor of the New Times.
Sir,

As you have published the Rev. John Owen's defence of the Bible Society's French Translation of the Bible, and also have inserted a subsequent attack upon the Journal with which I am connected, I have to request that you will give a place to the following reply:

A letter appeared in The Christian Remembrancer for October last, dated Caen, and signed "L." (not "C. L." as Mr. Owen has inadvertently stated). The writer, a well-known and respected clergyman, whose continuance on the Continent puts it out of his power to address you on the subject, pointed ont a gross error in the Bible Society's translation of the 2 Corinthians, v. 19, a text, which in the original, and in the authorised English version, expressly asserts the Divinity of our Lord-but has no such sense in the Bible Society's French Edition. He added, that the translation, thus palpably faulty, purported to have been "carefully revised and corrected from the Hebrew and Greek texts," and that, without referring to those original sources, the true meaning of the verse might have been found in Martin's Bible, which the French Protestants were known to consider the best. He adverts also to the danger of such an alteration in these Socinian days, and recommends the Church Members of the Bible Society to look well to the revision of their foreign translations.

Mr. Owen has answered this letter; but he has taken no notice of the defence of the Bible Society's translation, which was inserted in The Christian Remembrancer for December, although he had evidently seen it before he sent his letters to the newspapers, and it is as good and as short as his own. In the next place, Mr. O, admits that the notice in the title page of the Society's French Bible, revised and corrected from the Hebrew and Greek texts," is a mere PUFF-the only revision really made being that of the errors of the press, and the only standard consulted for that purpose being a former edition of the same French version.

He also informs us, that after incessant enquiries for nearly twelve months, "it was determined on the recommendation of the late M. Mercier, Minister of the French Church in London, and Mr. Des Carriéres, author of the French Dictionary, &c. that the version of Ostervald should be adopted -and accordingly a copy of the Paris reprint of it in 1805, was, after a collation of it by the Rev. Dr. A. Clarke, with the edition printed at Rienne in 1774-selected as that which should be used in executing the Society's impression." Afterwards it appeared that the Paris edition was very inaccurately printed (Dr. Clarke not having discovered this in the course of his collation), and the great trouble of correcting the press, "had some influence in occasioning" the Society to say, that the work was carefully revised from the Hebrew and Greek!!

He was

spective versions are designed. But the learned writer who defends the Society in The Christian Remembrancer for December assures us, that they refused to print the Geneva French Bible of 1805, because it was suspected of heresy; and yet this Bible is published "by the Pastors and Professors of the Church and Academy of Geneva." On Mr. Owen's principles, the version should have been adopted for the use of the Genevese; and we may remark by the way, that although it translates the 2 Cor. v. 19. incorrectly, it gives the true meaning in a note, and says that it is the literal version of the Greek.

But the circumstances principally relied on by Mr. Owen are, that the translation in dispute is Ostervald's, that Ostervald was a sound divine, and that his works are distributed by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. In reply to this it must be observed, that Ostervald's Arguments were published for the first time at Neufchatel, in the year 1720, and that Ostervald's Bible was published for the first time at Amsterdain, in 1724. The

NIAN.

but

M. Des Carriéres abridged Chambaud's French and English Dictionary, and had the skill to make his abridgment almost as large as the original. He was a clever and respectable French teacher-but neither a clergyman nor a scholar; and of course not fit for the office of selecting a translation of the Bible. Mr. Owen proceeds to prove that Ostervald's Bible is the one generally preferred by French Protestants; and he establishes the fact by showing that Geneva, Neufchatel, and Lausanne, are of that way of thinking. He admits that the Protestants of the South of France prefer Martin's Martin was their countryman, and therefore they are partial judges. The Dutch also have the same preference, and they are among the most orthodox of foreign Protestants. Yet because Geneva, whose Socinianisma is openly professed, recommends the Bible Society's Version-and because the Paris Bible Society, from which no one will believe that Socinianism is excluded, prints both Martin and Ostervald, the correspondent of The Christian Remembrancer is condenmed for supposing that a preference exists in favour of Martin, although he has learnt the circumstance from his own experience.

Mr. Owen says that the Society's translations are now entrusted to the Clergy of the various communions for which the reREMEMBRANCER, No. 38.

Bible, qui contient le vieux et le nouveau Testament, revue et corrigée sur le texte Hebreu et Grec, par les Pasteurs et les Professeurs de l'Eglise de Geneve, avec les Argumens et les Reflexions sur les Chapitres de l'Ecriture Sainte, et des Notes, par J. F. Ostervald, Pasteur de l'Eglise de Neufchatel."-The version therefore in this edition was the received Geneva version of 1720; in which the words of 2 Cor. v. 19. are correctly rendered, "Car Dieu etoit en Christ," and another edition retains the same reading. Mr. Owen is made to say, that the earliest edition which he had seen is that of 1816, but this is evidently a false print, and it is uncertain what date he intended to give. The life of Ostervald by Durand mentions an edition at Neufchatel in 1744, enriched with short notes and observations on the text, a copy of which it has not been in my power to consult. But I have seen the Neufchatel edition of 1764, the title-page of which corresponds exactly with that of Amsterdam in 1724, while the disputed text is translated after a different manner.

The facts therefore are these. Ostervald did not make a new version of the Bible, he merely republished the old one. The two first editions of his work gave the passage accurately-the rendering of the third is not ascertained; the fourth adopts the error complained of, but was published nineteen years after Ostervald's death, and may or may not correspond N