mislead any man, or any society of men, there appeared no necessity for bringing it before the public uncalled for.

Lastly, before we take our final leave of the British and Foreign Bible Society's French translation of the Bible, we have one observa tion to make upon the result of the present controversy. Does it not prove the wisdom and propriety of the advice to the Society," to look well to the revision and correction of their foreign versions of the Scriptures?" We are willing to admit, with our Oxford correspondent, M. that the Bible Society pursues its object with zeal and activity, in every quarter of the globe. We have no doubt that Mr. Owen has given a correct account of the dili. gence and learning with which the Society's proceedings are carried on. But what is the effect of all these valuable qualities in the case immediately before us? It is not probable, that any two members of the Bible Society are more intimately acquainted with its proceedings, or more capable of vindicating it against objections, than the two gentlemen who have done us the honour to Botice the letter from Caen. Yet, one of them was totally ignorant of the history of the French translations of the Bible, until he had read our letter of the 7th of January, 1822: and the other, in his first communication to the Remembrancer (vol. iii. p. 725,) speaks of Ostervald's version as if he supposed that it was an original work. Again, it is confessed, that after long and mature deliberation, the Bible Society selected a very incorrect edition as the standard from which they were to print, and were not aware of the heretical bias of the only French theologian whom they consulted on the occasion. Now, if there is so much difficulty, ignorance, and error, in a work of such comparative facility as the French translation of the Bible, we

ask, What security the Bible Society has to give, that in other cases, where there must necessarily be greater difficulties and more ignorance, there shall not also be more numerous and more important errors? If the Committee are so much perplexed by the most familiar of all foreign languages, may they not be much more misled when they advance into Asia, Africa, and America? Without impeaching their zeal, their motives, their talents, or their industry, may we not fairly say, that they have undertaken a task which they are unable to perform? M. admits, that the Icelandic version of 1807 was altered and improved by the corrector of the press, to the great discomfiture of the natives. We are assured from various respectable quarters, that similar circumstances occur daily in the East, and the very nature of the undertaking renders it impossible to prevent them. The evil admits but of one remedycontract the sphere of the Society's operations; sacrifice a little magnificence and a great deal of declamation, to practical and permanent utility; publish a few correct translations;-and those who disapprove of the constitution of the Bible Society, will still be ready to admit that some benefits may result from its operations. Pursue the present system of universalism, and, in spite of the flourishing condition of the institution, we hesitate not to declare our conscientious and settled belief, that Secretaries and Committees will have corresponded and laboured, editors will have collated, revised, and corrected, and what is more to the purpose, the Church of England will have been divided and endangered-for nothing.

The following letter from Dr. Luscombe has arrived since these remarks were drawn up. He has so good a claim to be heard in his own defence, that we cannot hesi tate about inserting his communi

Sir,

IN the Evening Mail of the 31st of last month, is a copy of a letter, addressed to " one of the Episcopal Patrons of the British and Foreign Bible Society," by the Rev. John Owen, of Fulham, in consequence of a letter (signed L. Caen,) which appeared in the Christian Remembrancer of October last, and of which I beg leave to acknowledge myself to be the author.

I have read Mr. Owen's letter with attention, and I request a few pages of your publication, for some observations which I wish to make upon it, and upon the subject which occasioned my former letter, and that gentleman's reply.

1. Mr. Owen observes that "the ground of accusation against the Bible Society, is laid on an assumption that the French translation printed by them is either a version originally vicious, or that they have so corrupted it by their revisions and corrections,' 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 which he has seen," &c.

I reply that "my ground of accusation" rests on these assumptions. The Bible Society have printed and circulated a translation not according to our authorized version, and

and described, in the title-page, to be "translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised." Am I to understand that the University of Oxford is not as substantially responsible for this assertion, as if their edition had been immediately translated from the originals, or that the above words are merely a title of form and common usage?

The Bible Society's French Bible may be correctly printed from Ostervald's, but this has nothing to do with my argument. The Bible Society boast (I repeat the word) of their circulating only the authorized version of the Bible. I maintain that this boast, of which Mr. Owen tells me that the Bible Society cannot be deprived, is not founded in fact. Our authorized version gives the passage most literally and correctly from the Greek; the Bible Society's translation Mr. Owen himself is " far from approving," and is rendered with " a paraphrastic liberty" taken, Mr. Owen tells us, by Ostervald.

2. "The accusation," Mr. Owen continues, "farther assumes, that the Society were influenced by a feeling of unjustifiable partiality, in selecting the version printed in 1805; they are represented by me 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.”

Mr. Owen explains in what manner the version of Ostervald received this preference, and, by his own account, it is proved that the Bible Society adopted it, not hastily or unguardedly, but after deliberate consultation, and " after a delay of twelve months."

To my assertion that "the French Protestants consider the best French version to be that of Martin," Mr. Owen opposes the "judgment and • practice of the French Protestants in Switzerland." Has Mr. Owen never heard that Socinianism has taken deep root at Geneva and in other parts of Switzerland?

Mr. Owen allows that "the Protestants in the south of France, of which Martin was a native, and those of Holland, in which he exereised his ministry in the latter years of his life, use, by preference, the version which bears his name;" (a strange reason, by the way, for a preference on so important a subject,)" and, accordingly," (I pray you, mark what follows)" and, accordingly, on ascertaining the predominancy of this attachment in the former of these countries, the Bible Society will be found to have shewn 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 been executed at Toulouse, Montauban, and Paris; three of which consist of 26,000 copies, and the fourth in stereotype, and therefore capable of being carried to an indefinite amount." The Paris Bible Society, also, Mr. Owen tells us, circulate both the editions of Ostervald and Martin.

To this I beg leave to add the authority of the President of the French Protestant Consistory in this Department, a gentleman of extensive knowledge and information, who assures me, that Martin's edition alone is universally preferred REMEMBRANCER, No. 38.

and circulated by the numerous French Protestants throughout the whole of Normandy; and I am convinced of this fact from additional proof, if any can be required after such respectable authority; knowing that Socinianism has not made its way into my friend's congregations.

Am I not, then, justified in asserting that Martin's edition is preferred by the French Protestants? Mr. Owen acknowledges that it is preferred" in the south of France," where the Protestants are considered to be very orthodox, and where the most numerous congregations are found; that the Paris Bible Society have already published a very large number of copies of this edition, and have made preparations for "indefinite numbers."

To

The British and Foreign Bible Society unites, it appears from Mr. Owen's letter, in the liberal practice of the Paris Bible Society. Oster: vald's "paraphrastic liberties," and Martin's more correct translation, are indiscriminately circulated by both these liberal institutions. whichever edition a preference is given, "the means of gratification are provided." Is it an unwarrantable inference to draw from this kind consideration of particular preference, that the British and Foreign Bible Society may hereafter have claims upon it for further " paraphrastic liberties," from among the heterogeneous and discordant sects of which it is composed?

Mr. Owen is compelled to confess that he is "far from approving the terms in which the passage under consideration is translated" in the Bible Society's French Bible, though he thinks, "from the high character of Ostervald," that "they have been construed in a lower and less orthodox sense than that in which he employed them, or intended to be understood."

The words speak for themselves, and I repeat that they are not a correct translation of the Greek O

passage, nor according to our. authorized version.

After the admission of Mr. Owen, that he is "far from approving the terms in which the passage is translated" in the Bible Society's French Bible, it may be unnecessary to dwell longer on its incorrectness; but, since I read Mr. Owen's letter in the Evening Mail, I have found the following authorities to prove it. The Geneva Bible of 1560 gives the passage (2 Cor. v. 18, 19.) thus: "Et tout est de Dieu, qui nous a reconciliez a soy par Jesus Christ, &c. Car Dieu estoit en Christ, se reconciliant le monde," &c.

The Elzevir edition of Amsterdam, fol. 1679, has "Car Dieu estoit en Christ, réconciliant le monde à soi."

The Latin Vulgate-" Quoniam quidem Deus erat in Christo, mundum reconcilians sibi."

The edition of Gordon, Paris, 1532, fol. has the same words.

Expositio literalis:-" Quoniam quidem Deus erat in Christo, mundum reconcilians." Arab." Qui est indesinenter Deus, per Christum reconciliavit; i. e. Deus qui non desinit esse Deus in Christo.""Erat enim Deus et homo in uno supposito: et sic Deus hanc reconciliationem fecit per humanitatem, tanquam per instrumentum sibi conjunctum: quod nulli alteri convenit: et hoc est quod dicit; quoniam quidem Deus erat in Christo, non solum per essentiam, præsentiam, et potestatem, sicut est in aliis, sed per humanitatis assumptionem.". Lyrannus.

Mr. Owen, in concluding his letter, adds, "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

It

our body would render the gratification of them impracticable. 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 have always been 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."

The "having no partialities" is an evil arising from the composition of the Bible Society, and gives one proof more of its compromising tendency.

Mr. Owen, the "voluntary advocate" of this Society, acknowledges that he is far from approving a very important passage in the French Bible circulated by the Bible Society. He then has partialities, and partialities honourable to his judgment, as attaching him to the version authorized by the Church of which he is so well qualified to be a worthy and efficient minister; but the cause in which he is embarked divides his attention, and renders him more the zealous defender of a party, than the unbiassed maintainer of orthodox principles.

Mr. Owen thinks it unnecessary to animadvert on the tone in which my former letter is written. I have read it over, and I cannot discover any mark of an uncharitable or unchristian spirit; neither will I now shew it by recriminating on the haughtiness which defaces the pages of more than one writer in behalf of the Bible Society.

I will not take up the time of your readers by describing the feelings which dictated my former letter, notwithstanding its tone appears disagreeable to Mr. Owen'; but to give that gentleman another opportunity of" profiting by my reproof,"

and using me as a "benefactor," I will point out for his attention another" paraphrastic liberty," in the French version of the Bible Society, and when I can find leisure to go through that version, I may possibly add to the number.

The prophecy of Zechariah, (chap. xiii) points to the death of Christ, and the sufferings of his followers. In our authorized version of the Bible, the seventh verse stands as follows: "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts," &c.

Observe how this passage is rendered in the French version of the Bible Society:

"Epèe reveille-toi contre mon pasteur, et contre l'homme qui est de mon pays," &c.

Martin's version and the Geneva Bible of 1560, have-" qui est mon compagnon."

From the Biblia Maxima, I quote as follows:

Vulg." Framea, suscitare super (pastorem) meum, et super virum cobærentem mihi, dicit Dominus," &c. Pag." super socium meum.' Tig.66 super virum coæqualem

meum." Aquila. meum."

super contribulem

Theodot.-" super virum proximum ejus."

Cald." super socium ejus, qui est similis ei.”

Sym.-"super virum populi mei."
Syr.—“contra virum amicum

meum."

Calmet.-" super virum cohærentem mihi," i. e. contre Jes. Christ, qui est inseparable de son Père."

Gordon, ed. Paris, 1532.-" per virum cohærentem Deo patri (qui hic loquitur) intellige Christum."

Menoch.-" cohærentem mihi et æqualem, quatenus Deus est." Lyran." et super virum cohærentem mihi, quia humanitas Christi inseparabiliter juncta est divinitati," The man that is my fellow.'

·

In Hebrew nay, which word Parkhurst says, "is applied to human nature associated with the divine in the person of Christ, Zech. xiii. 7. where Vulg. ⚫ cohærentem mihi,' cohering with me."

"Zechariah xiii. 7. My fellow," or, as the word means, my equal. The original word, exclusively of this passage, is found only in the book of Leviticus. There it is often used, and always so as to signify a fellow citizen, or one upon the same level in society. It appears, therefore, with the greatest propriety, to be rendered in our Bible by the term fellow' in this place, where the Lord of Hosts, foretelling the suf ferings of the Redeemer, speaks of Him as equal to Himself."-Dr Eveleigh.

Bishop Hall thus paraphrases the passage: "O thou, my sword of affliction, awake, arise, and smite Him that is nearest and dearest unto me; even Him, that is my co-equal and co-eternal Son, the image of me the invisible God, saith the Lord of Hosts: smite thou this Great Shepherd of my Church; and his sheep, his disciples and followers shall be scattered, and shall both forsake Him, and be severed from each other; for even against those disciples also, as well as against their Master, will I stir up enmity and opposition in the world.”

Here begins a new prophecy, importing that the Messiah, the great Shepherd, as He is described in this prophecy, chap. xi. 4. and in Isaiah xl. 11. Ezekiel xxxiv. 23. though with respect to his divine nature, He be equal with God the Father,' Phil. xi. 6. yet shall he be delivered up to death, by God's determinate counsel and appointment; see Acts xi. 23. iv. 28."W. Lowth.

Although this, as well as my former letter, may give displeasure to Mr. Owen, and to other members of the Bible Society, I shall persevere in disclosing error wherever I find it. Retired most probably for ever,