with his authentic work. If the edition of 1744 contains the erroneous version, Mr. Owen may refer to Ostervald's authority in its defence. If that edition, which is not to be found in the principal libraries in London, agrees with the earlier texts of Geneva and Amsterdam, Ostervald decidedly sanctions the opposite side. Hitherto therefore nothing has been positively proved. The modern text of Ostervald's Bible is in favour of Mr. Owen, the earlier is against him; and it is not only possible, but probable, that the alteration introduced into the former, may have been made since the death of Ostervald, for in a London edition of Martin's Bible, by Durand, the biographer of Ostervald, the very passage under consideration has been wantonly altered, without the slightest notice or explanation. Should it turn out that Ostervald, professing to reprint the old version, "revised and corrected by the original," he is guilty of the converse of the Bible Society's error, who professed "to revise and correct," and then contented themselves with superintending the Press. But there will be this to say in his defence, that he was eighty years old, and within a few months of his death, and that his Bible was published with a very excusable degree of haste. Whether as good an excuse exists on the part of Mr. Owen and the Society, it is for the Prelate whom he addresses and for the Public to decide. THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN Jan. 2, 1822. To the Editor of the New Times. Fulham, Jan. 21, 1822. SIR, I RELY upon your candour for permitting me to offer, through the medium of your Journal, a few remarks on a letter signed "The Editor of the Christian Remembrancer," which appeared in your Paper of the 5th instant, and to which I have been hitherto prevented, by a variety of intervening occupations, from paying the requisite attention. In defending the British and Foreign Bible Society against the charge of having printed a French Bible, which, from the translation given of a particular passage, was suspected to have been corrupted in order to favour the tenets of Socinianism, I asserted, that the version thus printed was not the Bible Society's, but Oster vald's version; and that the translation of the passage complained of was to be found in every edition of Ostervald's Bible which I had seen, from the year 1716 (misprinted in my letter, 1816), when the first edition of that Bible was published, down to the year 1818, when the last edition of it was printed at Basle. In making this assertion I was substantially correct; for the version adopted by the Bible Society in this case was that which is currently ascribed to Ostervald; of which, as such, repeated editions have been printed during the last half century; and in all of them (so far as my knowledge extends) the translation of the passage objected to is invariably found. The uniformity with which I had been accustomed to hear this version spoken of in Switzerland, in France, and in England, as Ostervald's version, left not a suspicion on my mind, that there could be any error in making Ostervald accountable for what was attributed to him by common consent. In the confidence of this persuasion, and with little means of historical research, and still less time to bestow upon it, I was inadvertently betrayed into some inaccuracies in point of fact, which, though they do not affect the credit of the main position on which the justification of the Bible Society rests, I consider it my duty, after this account of the origin of them, to acknowledge and correct. From a knowledge of Ostervald's arguments, &c, to the Bible having been printed in London in 1716, I was led to mistake this for the date of the first edition of what is generally called Ostervald's Bible; the editor of the C. R. has, however, convinced me of my error: that Bible, as he truly says, was not printed till 1724. Hav`ing had an opportunity of consulting it, since it was thus pointed out to my notice, I have verified the statement of that gentleman, that the text employed in this first edition was the received Geneva version, in which the passage under consideration is (to use his own language) "correctly rendered." But it appears, that in the year 1726, the Pastors and Professors of Geneva published a revised edition of this version, (which, in the preface to their Bible of 1805, is said to have been réimprimée pour la dernière fois, avec quelques corrections, en 1712) and among the alterations introduced on that occasion into the text, is that which has given rise to the present discussion. Now the only question that remains is, whether in the editions of Ostervald's Bible, posterior to the year 1726, and antecedent to that of his death, (which, if the Biographical Dictionary is to be credited, did not hap pen till 1747), this alteration of the passage was adopted. To me, I confess, it seems probable at least, that such was the case: for as in the first edition of his Bible, Ostervald used the received version of Geneva, it is fair to presume that he would continue to do so in subsequent impressions, and that he would accordingly avail himself of the improvement which this version must have been considered to have derived from a revision on the part of those authorities to which he seems to have deferred. This probability applies very strongly to the edition of 1744; for by that time at least, the text of 1712 would be likely to have been generally superseded by that of 1726. Should this reasoning be confirmed by the testimony of the edition of 1744, (and in the impossibility of procuring a sight of it, nothing certain can be determined), then not" within a few months of his death," but three years before that event, Ostervald will be shown to have accredited that rendering, which, from 1764 downwards, seems uniformly to have constituted a part of the version which bears his name, and which is so discriminated from the version of Martin, and the modern Geneva version of 1805. If, however, no advantage were taken of this assumed probability, and the authority of Ostervald for the disputed translation were left wholly out of the account, there would still remain, besides the authorities mentioned in my former letter (to which the intelligent and accurate defender of the Society, in the Christian Remembrancer, adds, "Calmet, the Zurich version, and others,") that of the Pastors and Professors of Geneva, as above quoted; not in the period of their doctrinal degeneracy, but in the most orthodox era of their religious history; when their chair of Theology was filled successively by a Turretini, a Pictet, and a Maurice; and the supreme divinity of Christ was authoritatively required to be sustained in their schools of disputation, as an essential article of the Christian faith. Now, as it would be manifestly unjust, to charge such a body of men with having admitted into their Bible what they deemed to be favourable to the tenets of Socinianism, it were certainly not less so to insinuate such an accusation against the Bible Society, which, if it has erred at all, has been seduced into this error by following implicitly these orthodox guides, and printing a version of the Scriptures which had received the sanction of their authority. If any thing further were required to satisfy those who have questioned the propriety of the Society's conduct, I would refer them to the difficulty—a difficulty which no one can conceive, who has not turned his attention to the subject-of fixing upon any edition of a French Protestant Bible which can be thoroughly depended upon. Scarcely any two editions of the same version, when carefully collated, are found to agree. The fact is, that from the want of a competent authority to fix the standard of the text, individuals as well as religious bodies have taken the liberty of making discretionary alterations either in the sentiment or the language, almost as often as new editions have been printed. The Editor of the Christian Remembrancer has mentioned a London edition of Martin, by Durand, in which the rendering complained of is introduced; and I have now before me a much earlier edition of that version, that of Hamburg and Leipsic, in 1727, in which also the same rendering appears. Whether this be the case in any of the earlier editions printed during the life time of Martin, I am not qualified to say; but I may be permitted to observe, that if the Bible Society had been recommended to print Martin rather than Ostervald, and had adopted for that purpose (as they might very innocently have done) the text of either the London edition by Durand, or the Hamburg and Leipsic of 1727, they would, with as little consciousness of doing wrong, have done precisely that which they have done in following the presumed guidance of Ostervald, and subjected themselves to the same condemnation. After all, however, that has been adduced in vindication of the Society's conduct, and of the objected construction of the passage itself, I retain unaltered the preference I expressed in my former letter, of the literal rendering, as at once the safest and the best. In this preference the committee of the Bible Society entirely concur; and as it has been proved to their satisfaction that this was the translation employed in his first edition by Ostervald, whose authority they professed and intended to follow, they have given directions that it shall be adopted accordingly in all future editions of that version which may be printed under their direction. But what will the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer say, when I inform him (for of course he could not have known it before he wrote his letter) that, in the only copies of the French Testament now issuing by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, one of which, printed in 1808, and bearing on its cover the stamp of that Society, is at this moment before me, the passage of which so much has been said, is not rendered "car Dieu étoit en Christ reconciliant le monde," &c. but car c'est Dieu qui a reconcilié le monde avec soi en Jesus Christ. Nor will he find this to be the gravest deviation which that edition exhibits. For in 1 John v. 20, which in the Greek is Ovτoç tσrivò aλnDivos Osos nai in Cwn alvos; in our authorised English version, "This is the true God and eternal life;" and in the Bible Society's Version, "C'est lui qui est le vrai Dieu et la vie eternelle;" is, in that of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, C'est lui qui est la vie eternelle. How important this passage is, as a proof of the Divinity of Christ, I need scarcely say. Martin (whose text has thus been corrupted) has, on the passage as it stands in one of the editions antecedent to this alteration, the following note, "Ces mots ne se peuvent rapporter selon la nature de la construction des termes, qu'à Jesus Christ; et sont une preuve formelle de la verité de sa nature divine," &c. These words, according to the natural construction of the terms, can only be referred to Jesus Christ; and are a formal proof of the truth of his Divine nature. And here, Sir, I would gladly take leave of the subject; but as certain particulars in my former letter have been referred to in a manner which shows that I have not been correctly understood, I must request the indulgence of yourself and your readers, while I offer a brief explanation. แ 1. I had stated that Ostervald's version was adopted on the recommendation of the late Rev. Mr. Mercier and Mr. Des Carriéres; the propriety of this step is questioned, because the former was a Socinian," and the latter "neither a clergyman nor a scholar." Now it is to be observed, that these individuals were not consulted till the Society had accumulated much information on the subject, by long and extensive inquiries; their business was only to determine between two versions, deemed equally orthodox, but differing in style and expression, and they decided in favour of Ostervald. In doubting which of these versions was most likely to be acceptable to the French Protestants, it was both natural and decorous to defer to the Pastor of the French Church in Lon don; to have been "a clever and respectable French teacher," he must, therefore, be presumed to have understood grámmatically the idiom and structure of his language; and as it was in reference to these points, and not to matters of Biblical criticism, his opinion was required, it will scarcely be denied that, though "neither a clergyman nor a scholar," he was a proper person to be consulted on such an occasion. 2. I thought I had said enough to show, that in notifying on the title page that the Bible had been revised and corrected with care, according to the Hebrew and Greek texts, the Bible Society did not mean to take credit for more than had really been done. It seems, however, that I was not explicit enough to escape a somewhat unceremonious reproof. I would state then yet further, that in a language so phraseological as the French, it is extremely difficult to discriminate, in a translation of the Bible, the words which correspond to the sacred text, from those which are supplied for the purpose merely of completing the sense. The confusion which exists of roman for italick, and italick for roman characters, in many of the best printed editions of the French Bible, are notorious to all who have had occasion to examine the subject. To adjust, among other things, these important distinctions, the diligent and conscientious Editor of the Society's French Bible collated every part of the translation with the Hebrew and Greek originals; and as the labour of this collation was greatly increased by the incorrectness of the copy, which in the scarcity of French Bibles at the time, was perhaps excusable, but certainly, as it turned out, most unfortunately chosen, and to which reference was made in the title-page (reimprimée sur l'edition de Paris de l'annee, 1805), there was nothing asserted concerning the revision and correction, but what was substantially true, and conformable to the practice usually adopted in similar cases. 3. As I had stated that the Foreign Clergy had now for the most part undertaken the responsibility of directing the printing of the Scriptures for the members of their respective communions, it is therefore inferred, that" on Mr. Owen's principles, the Geneva version of 1805 ought to have been adopted for the use of the Genevese, because it was published by the pastors and professors of the academy of Geneva." Now the answer to this is, that, although the Bible Society, on a principle which has ever governed its conduct, in all its transactions both abroad and at home (and which the Editor of The Christian Remembrancer would certainly not wish to discountenance), defers generally to the authorities in Church and State, as to the versions of the Scriptures in the circulation of which it assists, yet it does not pledge itself to carry this principle so far as not to reserve to itself the privilege of a discretionary exception. In the case of Geneva this exception was made; and though it has not been possible altogether to prevent the circulation of the edition of 1803, not a little has been done to check and discourage it. When a new impression of it was projected in the year 1806, and the Bible Society was applied to for pecuniary assistance, that assistance was peremptorily refused; the project was accordingly renounced, and the Geneva Bible Society, very much to its credit, consented, in lieu of it, to co-operate with the Lausanne and Neufchatel Bible Societies in the edition of 10,000 copies of Ostervald's version, as specified in my former letter. I might adduce other instances of a similar discrimination exercised by the Bible Society, in their dealings with other Protestant States, where the spirit of neology and rationalism had been at work in corrupting, by spurious refinements, the sober test of their forefathers. In all these cases encouragement has been withheld and grants of money refused, till, by a better judgment on the part of the proper authorities, a sufficient security had been given, that nothing should be done but what was consistent with the acknowledged dogmas of orthodox Christianity. 4. One more point remains to be considered, and that respects the character of the Paris Bible Society. Speaking of this Society, the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer says, that “no one will believe that Socinianism is excluded from it." Now, if by this assertion, be meant that Socinianism exercises a sensible influence in its councils, I must beg leave to appeal from such an insinuation to the matter of fact. The Paris Bible Society has been three years in existence, and during the whole of this period it has issued no copies of the Bible bat in the versions received and accredited by the orthodox French · Protestant Churches; and in its Second Report (many thousand copies of which have been circulated in different parts of the Continent), the doctrines oppugned by Socinianism are asserted with such distinetness of statement and such force of demonstration, as to evince, that, what ever may be the sentiments of private individuals, they in no degree affect the religio us principles of the Society, or inter fere with the correctness of its Biblical operations. Having thus acquitted myself of a task, which, however repugnant to my feelings and injurious to my convenience, I felt that I could not with propriety decline, I have only to express my hope, that nothing has escaped me in the course of performing it, which can be fairly construed as intemperate or disrespectful. In the pursuit of the same end, men equally wise and equally good, will differ in the choice of their means. In no case has this been more strikingly verified than in the controversy about the Bible Society; and it would have been well if it had been borne more distinctly in mind by the disputants on the one side and the other. For my own part, I desire, as I ought, to advocate the cause of the Bible Society (when called upon to do so), in the spirit which its object and its connexions prescribe; and I trust I shall never so far forget what is due to its character, when prosecuting its defence, as to afford just occasion of regret to its friends or of triumph to its enemies, I am, Sir, your humble servant, JOHN OWEN. OUR principal object in reprinting this Correspondence, is to circulate the defence of the Bible Society as widely as we had circulated a charge against it. And having enabled Mr. Owen to state his case to our readers in his own words, we subjoin a few remarks upon his second letter. him for the candour with which he In the first place, we have to thank admits that the translation under discussion is incorrect; and to congratulate him on the credit which the Bible Society must derive from the resolution which has been adopted by its committee. To correct an error as soon as it is pointed out, is the shortest and most satisfactory proof that it was unintentional. And this proof has been given in the case before us. Secondly, we have again to thank Mr. Owen for confessing his misapprehension with respect to Ostervald's Bible, and the inaccuracy into which he was betrayed, in saying that he had seen an edition of that work printed in 1716, or any other edition of an early date. Thirdly, we cannot help regretting the obscurity which still hangs over the words, "revised and corrected according to the Hebrew and Greek texts." In his first letter, Mr. Owen states explicitly that Dr. A. Clarke collated the Paris Bible of 1805, with the Bienne edition of 1774, before the Paris text was selected. He adds, that the text was afterwards found to be very incorrectly printed, and that the trouble thus occasioned " 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." He now states, that "the diligent and conscientious editor of the Society's French Bible collated every part of the translation with the Hebrew and Greek originals;" and that, consequently, "there was nothing asserted concerning the revision and correction but what was substantially true, and conformable to the practice usually adopted in similar cases." We have no disposition to doubt the truth of either of these statements; but the reader cannot fail to perceive, that they are not identical; that every part of a translation is an unsatis. factory phrase, and that no explanation is given respecting the time at which the incorrectness of the Paris text was discovered. The point is not without importance, since if Dr. A. Clarke collated the Paris edition either with the originals or with the Bienne edition, without perceiving the inaccuracies, his collation must have been very superficial. The fourth point to which we advert, is an error of our own, respecting the date of Ostervald's death; he died, as Mr. Owen states, in 1747, at the age of eighty-three, and, consequently, the first Neuf. chatel edition of the Bible was pub lished three years before its commentator's decease. Fifthly, the corruptions which have been introduced into the text of the French Testament distributed by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, were not unknown to us, when our letter was inserted in the newspaper, and the following circumstances will explain our reasons for taking no notice of the fact. We were sufficiently acquainted with the practice of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, to be certain that it did not publish the work in question. It is accustomed merely to select books of which it approves, purchase them of a bookseller, and distribute them at reduced prices. This is a matter of notoriety to its members and the public; and we presume that the errors which have been pointed out by Mr. Owen, got admittance through this channel. The version originally selected was that of Martin, and the Society's booksellers were directed to procure and circulate that book. The Testament now sent out by them purports to be that book. It is published, not by or for the Society, but by respectable private individuals*, and the title is, Le Nouveau Testament_de notre Seigneur Jesus Christ. Nouvelle Edition. Exactement revue, sur le Texte de M. Martin, par D. Durand, Min. de la Savoye. The truth therefore appears to be this, The Society, or rather its booksellers, have been misled by a deceit. ful title-page; and, intending to circulate Martin's text, have been trepanned into the use of a corrupted edition of it. The discussion in which we are now engaged, led to the discovery of the imposition; and as it evidently was an imposition, and such an imposition as might * F. Wingrave; J. Scatcherd and C, J. Letterman; C. Law; Longman, Hurst, Rees, and Orme; T. Boosey; and Dulau and Co. |