Globe. But, to instruct all classes of men, the Society must take great care to select in all languages the purest light of the Gospel, and not to dim its rays by re-publishing obsolete and inexact versions, the daily food of superstition and incredulity. Having been specially invited to subscribe to the KENSINGTON AUXILIARY SOCIETY, I declined that honour from motives which I explained in a letter to its Patron, His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, dated Aug. 20, 1814; which letter His R. H. condescended to answer, Aug. 23, 1814. Now, in declining to join an Institution so distinguished by its progress and riches, which "ranks amongst its Patrons the greater part of the Illus trious Members of the Royal Family; which is supported by a considerable number of the Nobility of the land, and the Dignitaries of the Church; which unites in one body a no small proportion of the Ministers of State, and of the Judges and Senators of the Realm;" I feel, as a Clergyman, the necessity of publishing the motives of my refusal, and for that purpose, I request you will insert in your Magazine the following letter, facts, and observations. "To His Royal Highness the DUKE of KENT, Patron of the British and Foreign Bible Sociely. May it please your Royal Highness; "Sir, Having received letters, inviting me to become a Member of the Kensington Auxiliary Bible Society to the British and Foreign Bible Society, of which your Royal Highness is Patron; I beg leave to return my most respectful, acknowledgments for the high honour of such invitation, to jom a Society of which I cannot help admiring the ardent zeal, the amazing progress, the most pious and laudable intentions. Being only an humble Alien, I am the more earnestly disposed to cherish such admirable British Institutions, grounded on the doctrine that mankind is but one family, and on the religion which teaches that all men are brothers. However, I humbly submit to your Royal Highness's consideration my motives for not joining the British and Foreign Bible Society. "Ist. Because the British and Foreign Bible Society published in 1811 French Bible, under the title of a "2. Because, to the question made by the Rev. J. B. Bristowe, in the Monthly Magazine for December 1813," Whether by distributing a translation so defective, as their" (the Conductors of the British and Foreign Bible Society)" present French one is proved to be, they will not, in a great measure, defeat their own object?" my answer would be positive. In proof of the inadequacy even of the authorized English version, I would claim the very valuable authority of one of the Auxiliary Bible Society's Vice-Presidents, namely, the Rev. Richard Ormerod, A. M. Vicar of Kensington, such as it is given in Abp. Newcome's Historical View of the English Biblical Translations, &c. 8vo. 1792.-In fact it is a duty incumbent on any new Editor of the Bible, to peruse this most excellent work, "3. Because I am humbly of opinion that the way to render real service to religion would be the publication of improved versions of the Bible; since by publishing defective ones, such as the French stereotype, without contributing to the prevention of crime or the instruction of ignorance, the Society encourages the sneers and scoffings of the Freethinkers at he Sacred Records, and furnishes a new ground to the objections of the Theists, who stick at the supposed sacrifice e of Jephthah's daughter, Judg. xi. at King David's (a man after God's own heart) supposed cruel treatment of the Ammonites, 2 Samuel xii., 1 Chron. xx.: and at other assages of the same kind, such as are to be found in the Society's Bibles, while the sense is wise and admirable in the original Hebrew, and the Geneva Bible of of 1805. The British and Foreign Bible Society renders useless, as far as is in its power, the learned researches and labours of the celebrated Divines of Great Britain, and other Counries, who have rendered so many essential services to religion, and so much promoted the progress of sacred criticism, since the first publication of the versions of the Bible, which are now re-printed by the Society, without correction, note, or comment. 4. Because the propagation of Christian Knowledge must precede, in natural order, the distribution of the Bible: Moses and the Prophets, Christ and the Apostles, taught, before they wrote and published their writings. "The Society FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE ought there fore to have the precedency,especially if Christian Knowledge is promoted according to the plan of a systematical and complete course of religious instructions to Adults, such as bas been used with the most happy effect on public morality and happiness in the Church of Geneva ever since the year 1737. I humbly hope that your Royal Highness will approve the above motives for not joining the Kensington Auxiliary Society to the British and Foreign Bible Society. 44 "I have, &c. THEOPH, ABAUZIT. Kensington, Aug. 20, 1814." Besides his Royal Highness's answer, I was honoured from two most respectable Members of the Society, with an expression of their regret that I should have any ground for not joining this noble Institution. As the motives which keep me separate may easily be removed, I hope to enter into the views of the Right Reverend President, in making them public, with the following facts and observations: But they have not removed my second and third objections against the publication of defective versions, in printing the stereotype French Bible sur l'Edition de Paris, as will already be clear even by the examina tion of its title only, which runs thus: LA SAINTE BIBLE, QUICONTIENT LE VIEUX ET LE NOUVEAU TESTAMENT, REVU ET CORRIGE SUR LE TEXTE ORIGINAL, PAR LES PASTEURS ET PROFESSEURS DE L'EGLISE DE GENEVE. A PARIS, DE L'IMPRIMERIE DE LA RUE DE L'ECHIQUIER, No. 18. AN XIII. M,DCCCV. We seldom meet with so many faults in so small a number of words. REVUET CORRIGE. The word Bible being a substantive feminine, the adjective ought to be in the same gender. The London stereotype Bible has rightly, imprimée revue et corrigée. SUR LE TEXTE ORIGINAL. What is this original text? Is it that book of the Law written by the hand of Moses, which was found by Hilkiah the Priest? 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14.Is there but one antient MS. of the Bible-Was it written by one man only, and only in one language?— The London Stereotype Bible has "LES TEXTES Hebreu et Grec." AN XIII. (DE LA REPUBLIQUE FRAN COISE.) This is truly a curious contrast, to date an edition of the book which contains the origin of every thing; the book which has passed through so many any centuries as containing the Laws of the Everlasting Supreme Being-to date an editiou of that book from an epoch of a State, which in the course of a very few years, has been a Republick, an Empire, a Kingdom, an Empire again; The Conductors of the BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY have, in some degree, answered my first objection, by changing the title of their stereotype French Bible, omitting the words PAR LES PASTEURS ET PROFESSEURS DE L'EGLISE DE GENEVE. It now runs thus: and very few people, I presume, will LA SAINTE BIBLE QUI CONTIENT LE be bold enough to say what it will VIEUX ET LE NOUVEAU TESTAMENT; be in another twelvemonth! IMPRIMEE SUR L'EDITION DE PARIS DE L'ANNEE 1805. EDITION STEREO REVUE ET CORRIGEE AVEC PAR LES PASTEURS ET PROFESSEURS DE L'EGLISE DE GENEVE.— The letters printed in the Gentleman's and and Monthly Magazines, in which I proved, by the illustration of many passages, the superiority of the Geneva Bible of 1805 to the French Stereotype Bible of 1811, which is a copy of the Paris Bible of 1805,prove, of course, that this Edition also is spurious; and that it is NOT par les Pasteurs et Professeurs de Genève *. is not a translation from the Hebrew and Greek texts. It is only a copy but of what Bible? The Rev. Messrs. Monod, Boissard, and Goepp, call it Osterwald's Bible.-J. F. Osterwald was certainly a celebrated Protestant Minister. He was born at Neufchatel in 1663. He published an Edition of the French Bible of Geneva, with a preface, reflections, and arguments, in folio. The first Edition is now rather scarce in London. I could not procure a sight of it. Many Booksellers, for speculation sake, have printed it again and again, in folio, in 4to, and 8vo; and, without making proper corrections, have, very likely, increased the defects of the obsolete language of the first Edition. Libra?riorum INCURIE peccata (says John I appeal to the candour of every man of sense, whether the title alone of the edition which the Conductors of the British and Foreign Bible Society have chosen for the pattern of their London Stereotype French Bible, does not perfectly justify Geneva Clergymen informed of this fact, in hesitating to join the said Society? The next question is, Who are the Editors of this Paris Edition Not, certainly, the Pastors of Geneva. It would be absurd to suppose that in the year 1805, while they were publishing a much-improved version of the Bible in their own City, they would also publish at Paris, in the very same year, another so defective-Not the Pastors of the Protestant Churches at Paris. The Rev. Mr. Monod, one of their number, disapproves much of that defective edition; and the Rev. Messrs. Boissard and Goepp, Pastors of the Church of the Confession of Augsbourg, give a decided preference to the genuine Edition of Geneva, in their Precis de la Doctrine Chrétienne, exposée par le Texte de l'Ecriture Sainte, 1815. —Nor were the Catholics of Paris the Editors; for I under stand they published, in 1808, the New Testament of M. Sacy; and their Catholic Bibles (one by M. de Saci, another by M, Le Gros, and a third, their Bible of 1750), and their New Testament de de Mons, are, particularly in point of language, much su perior to the Edition of 1805. 2 am Who then are the Editors? afraid, I shall not be credited when 1 repeat what I was told at Paris, viz. that its Editors were "DEPU TIES OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY"! Again, this Paris Bible confessedly * See the Gentleman's Magazine 1811, vol. LXXXI. Part II. p. 542; 1812, vol. LXXXII. Part I. p. 537; Part II. p. 324; 1814, vol. LXXXIV. Part II. p. 209. In the Monthly Magazine 1811, p. 215; 1813, vol. XXXVI. p. 128, p. 484; &c. &c. Le Clerc, who was a good judge in these matters) tot et tanta sunt ut difficillimum sit sibi ab ea (Incuria) cavere....Eorum IMPERITIA quoque... monstra etiam mendorum peperit.(Vide BArt. Crit. p. 3. c. 1. § 1.) the English Editors of the French Stereotype Bible, 1811, say that they have "carefully revised and corrected" their Edition, upon the Hebrew and Greek Texts. Let us fairly examine those careful revisions and corrections. There occurs this passage in the Paris Bible, 1805, Exodus xii. 34. "Le peuple donc prit sa páte, avant qu'elle fut levée, ayant leurs mains liées avec leurs vêtemens sur les épaules." The people then took his dough before it was leavened, having their hands bound up, with their cloaths upon the shoulders. The French Stereotype Bible of London, 1811, copies exactly this passage. How, having their hands bound up upon their shoulders, was it possible for the Israelites, to take their dough, or indeed to take hold of any thing? There is neither note, comment, or errata, in either of those Bibles, to explain the difficulty. I take the liberty to ask for whom the Bible Society printed those Edi tions of the French Bible at Paris in 1805, and at London in 1811 ? It is not for the English Reader. The authorised version in the above passage is clear, and gives an unob jectionable sense." And the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading-traughs being bound up up in their cloaths upon their should ers. "" It is not for the serious Christians in France. The Geneva Bible is more faithful, more literal, and more elegant. "Les Israelites prirent donc leur pâte sans levain, et portèrent leurs huches à péirir liées avec leurs hardes sur leurs épaules." It is not for those who are prejudiced in favour of old versions. That of Ovietan, published in 1535, is in the old style, but contains no absurdity. "Le peuple donc print sa paste devant qu'on y eust mis le levain, et avoient les dittes pastes liées en leurs vestemens dessus leurs épaules." It is not for the Catholics; their version, published at Cologne in 1753, is in better language, and more correct. "Le peuple prit donc la pâte qu'il avoit paitrie, et qui n'étoit point levée; et ayant lié cette provision dans des manteaux [il la chargea] sur ses épaules." Can it be for the entertainment of the free-thinkers and scoffers ? Then indeed the Clergy ought to keep separate from this Bible Society. -No, we have too much candour to suppose the Editors of those French Bibles had any such intention. We intend only to show that such defective versions will not do for all denominations of Christians, and of course, that the Society defeat their own end by such publications. How imprudent to undertake editions of a book III. Deut. xxviii. 5. “ Et ta MAYE." IV. Deut. xxviii. 17. " "Etta MAYE. Both Editions are exactly alike in the above four passages. In the first passage, the word MAIS but, being an adversative conjunction, as the translation of 8, makes Such is the reacomplete nonsense. son, perhaps, why the Editors have thought proper to substitute in the second passage, a substantive for that conjunction, namely, MAIN, HAND, for MAIS, BUT.This second passage, however, is equally absurd. The word MAYE, which is in the third and fourth passages, is not the proper word, since it caunot be found in the Dictionnaire de l'Académie, nor in the French Encyclopedia, Le Dictionnaire des Arts et Metiers, Le Vocabulaire François, &c. &c.; in short, in none of the good modern dictionaries. However, in looking into a few antiquated French Bibles, I see the word up translated in the above quoted passages, MAY, MAYS. And, in searching for old dictionaries, I met with "A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues, compiled by Randle Cotgrave. London, anno 1632." In the Preface, the Editor says that be perused old books, pour trouver la signification de telz mots, qui possible ne seront jamais plus ouyz en ce monde. There I found, MAY, f. a kneading-trough, or tub, also a stacke, of such importance in any language or pile of wood, &c. &c. but that of the Country! It would be too tedious to detail the many blunders committed by the Editors of the French London and Paris Bibles, in the before-mentioned short verse of Exodus xii. 34. Only let us see how it is that they substitute the word MAIN, HAND, for HUCHE, KNEADING-TROUGH? It occurs both Editions, though not a single letter in one of these French words is to be found in the other. Main has been put purposely; it is not a fault of impression. in That the Editors may be their own Interpreters, it is proper to see how they translate elsewhere, the Hebrew words. Wherever it occurs in the Old Testament, we read in their Bibles: 1. Exodus viii. 3. " Dans tes MAIS." II. Exodus xii. 34. "Ayant leurs MAINS liées." In "Le Trésor des deux Langues, Espagnole et Françoise, de Cæsar Ov din, 1645," (where he warns his readers, that "les mots marqués d'une estoille sont anciens ou hors d'usage") I read * Une MAY, Arteza; and in the Spanish French, Arteza, une HUCHE. Therefore, both in the London Stereotype Bible and the Paris Bible of 1805, the Hebrew word gwo in Exodus xii, 34. is rendered MAIN for MAIS, MAIS for MAYE, MAYE for MAY, MAY for HUCHE; and presents in both the said Bibles, upon the same word, not only one fault, but a filiation of faults. Though every thing which belongs to the book containing the rules of faith is of the utmost importance, it would be too long, I am afraid, to examine the other blunders of this verse, or only to quote some others of of the hundreds and thousands of Nay, could I desist from a cour The Conductors of the Bible Society say, that" It has brought all parties together....It is a most cheering sight to see in the London Committee, Britons and Foreigners, Members of the Church of England and other Communions, brought together, and joined like Brethren dwelling together in unity." But truly, is it not deplorable to see Christians of the Church of England and other Communions, uniting to discredit, in fact, by spurious and defective Editions, the book of inestimable value to man, as containing the rules of his life, the consolations of his troubles, and the grounds of his hopes? The publication of such defective versions under the great authority of the Pastors and Professors of Geneva, or even that of the British and Foreign Bible Society, "supported by the Dignitaries of the Church," when better versions were at hand, requires, in my humble opinion, the serious animadversion of all enlightened Christians, as tending to retard the progress of reformation and the interests of true piety. However, it is a painful and disagreeable task for simple Individual to comment on the transactions of so respectable a Society. But the greater the disproportion is between its Conductors and myself, and the greater the superiority of their talents, knowledge, and credit, the stricter is the obligation not to shrink from, a duty v which I think essential to the propagation of true Christian knowledge upon earth. Such also, I should think, are the feelings and opinions of men at large. The Conductors of the British and Foreign Bible Society assert that all descriptions of Christians "are equally interested in promoting the design of the Society, because they all ground their belief on the Scriptures." -But all the sensible Christians I ever knew wanted to ground their belief upon reason also, and to defend it by sound arguments *. * In fact the publick in this Country are led into mistakes in ordering copies of the improved Version published at Geneva in 1805. In place of this, the Booksellers have been known to put in the hands of purchasers copies of the Society's Bibles, doubtless without intention, but misled by the insertion, in the title, of the Pastors and Professors of Geneva. Again, |