« PreviousContinue »
REMOVING CHILDREN FROM ONE CLASS TO
ANOTHER. DEAR SIR,-If this subject be not closed, may I be allowed to offer a few remark on it, if you think them worthy of insertion in the “Teacher's Visitor ?"
I would refer your readers to the October number, in which is contained some correspondence from S. Minton.
I would say, first, that although your correspondent's motive may be very good, still, from an experience of many years, I cannot agree with the system of scholars remaining with Teachers, as long as they attend the school; for it is clear that scholars gradually make improvement, and when one class may be full, another may be very thinly attended ; I mean to say, that out of a class of twelve boys, in six or twelve months, three or four of the boys may have left the school, then there are but eight or nine left; whereas, in a lower class, there may be the same number of boys, and instead of the boys falling off in number, they may increase three or four; therefore, while there be eight or nine in one, there may be fifteen or sixteen in another class; and I think it important to have about the same number of children to each Teacher. Again, I said that scholars gradually make improvement, therefore it is obvious there would be fresh Teachers continually wanted, for, as the lower classes of scholars improve, they would get, by degrees, from the ABC class, to the Testament class, and the Teacher advance with them. Well, what is the result? Why in six or eight months there are half a dozen boys for the last class. Where is the Teacher ? There is not one! therefore another Teacher is to be had. Let not any one think I mean there is an evil in having so many Teachers,-no; but I mean it is very difficult to obtain them. Again, some boys don't like to remain in a class longer than they can help; they seem to have a desire to stand in the first class; and I have known parents to take away their children (in some cases at the child's request,) from the school to which I am attached, simply because they, the children, cannot be advanced. Lastly, I know it is very painful indeed to lose children to whom you are strongly attached, still, there will come a time, “when we must part with them.” I doubt not but that we should receive, out of another class, children as interesting as they.
SABBATH-SCHOOL TEACHER. Burton-on-Trent, Nov. 19, 1845.
WHEN OUGHT THE DOOR TO BE CLOSED ? REV. SIR.-In your valuable little work, the “ Teacher's Visitor," (I think of June last,) in an article under the head, “When ought the door to be closed ?" I thought two very important queries were put. First, the impression likely to be made in the mind, particularly in children, by making a difference as to the admission of the children, during the different parts of the worship, which usually commences the duties of a Sunday-school. Secondly, the effects likely to be produced on the general character and habits of the young, by the sanction thus given to idleness and irregularity.
The article has been noticed, but not, I think, answered. One correspondent talks of the clocks being too slow, and the children stopping to play, and have a bit of chat on their way to school habits to be corrected, I think, by every possible means.
I simply name this subject, in the hope that a more able pen than mine (should you honour these brief remarks with a place in the “ Teacher's Visitor,'') may enter fully on the subject. It is not a question as to the love which should subsist between children and Teachers, or the management of an individual class, as some of your correspondents have assumed, but one involving the whole school and that part of the opening worship. With much respect and esteem, I am, Rev. Sir, yours,
A CONSTANT READER. Plymouth, Dec. 30, 1845.
ON TEACHERS LEAVING BEFORE PRAYERS. Rev. SIR,-I am a Teacher in a Sunday-school, in which, I grieve to say, several of the Teachers make a point of quitting the school immediately on giving up their classes, thereby conveying to the minds of the children an idea that prayer and praise are but mere juvenile exercises, of which the Teachers have no need.
It strikes me that each Teacher should have her eye upon bor class from their entrance into school until their dismission therefrom.
Having observed the injurious tendency of the above sad practice, since your useful “Teacher's Visitor" is read in the school, may I ask the favour of a few words on this subject?
For myself, I always make a point of standing opposite my class during the closing exercises. I am, Rev. Sir,
A SUNDAY-SCHOOL TEACHER.
SCRIPTURAL DIFFICULTIES. DEAB SIR,-If the following solution of the difficulty proposed by your last month's correspondent “ R. F. S.” be deemed worthy of insertion, and satisfactory in reconciling the contradicting passages quoted, it may do truth, and those seeking it, benefit by publicity.
The verses read thus-Acts ix. 7.4" (The men) stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." Acts xxi. 9.–“ (They, the men,) saw indeed the light, but heard not the voice of him that spoke to me."
The former verse states that they heard a voice; the latter that they heard not the voice.
The shortest and best solution is that which renders the word understanding rather than hearing, in the latter verse. And this liberty is sufficiently warranted by other parts of sacred Scripture. Notice the following passages-Gen. xi. 7.—“Let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." Deut. xxvii. 49.-"The Lord shall bring a nation against thee, whose tongue thou shalt not understand." 2 Kingsx viï. 26.—“Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it.” And 1 Cor. xiv. 2.-—“For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God : for no man understandeth him."
Now mark, in each of these places, the same word (akovw) as is used in the two passages in question, is rendered understand, though the same word means, and that generally, to hear, as translated in the verse for the 9th of Acts. Hence, without wresting Scripture at all, I would reconcile the opposite statements, by reading the latter verse thus, “They saw indeed the light, but understood not the voice of him that spoke to me.”
Your correspondent's object is good; and I hope for the general benefit of Sunday-school Teachers, that other difficulties will be proposed as they may arise, and answers elicited.
Still, I question whether the very existence of such contradictions as we have just noticed, goes not further to prove the divinity of the Bible than the most learned exegesis which may be employed to harmonize them.
With a prayer for the Lord's blessing on your useful work through the year, I remain
Yours truly, Islington, Jan. 7, 1846.
REV. SIR,—The question which appeared in the last number of the “Teacher's Visitor," with regard to the apparent contradiction between Acts ix. 7, and Acts xxii. 9, was put by me before some children on Sunday evening. We found out the following solutions to the difficulty:
1. A person might be in the other room while I was speaking to them, who would hear my voice, but would not hear, as they could, the articulate sound so as to make any meaning of it.
2. I asked one of the children a question in Latin, which he understood, but the others did not: all alike heard the voice, but to only one did it convey any meaning.
3. I spake in a language which all could understand, but on a subject which one of them had been privately taught by me. He understood; the others did not; yet all alike heard the voice.
Will this serve at all as an illustration of the question ?
There is a case exactly in point : “ Then came a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people therefore that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered : others said, An angel spake to him.” (John xii. 28, 29.) Here all heard the voice : Jesus only “heard the voice of Him that spake unto him.”
I find this short and simple note in Scott, on Acts xxii. 9: “The persons attending the apostle heard a sound, but did not distinguish that articulate voice in which the Lord Jesus addressed Saul by name.”
R. H. C.
DEAR SIR,-May I offer to “R. F. S.” the following explanation of his difficulty ?
From a comparison of the different accounts in Acts ix., xxii., and Xxvi., it appears that both Saul and those who were with him heard the voice speaking, (nkovoav ang pwvns,) but Saul only heard what the voice said, (nkovoav tnv pwynv). The reason is plain. The voice spoke “in the Hebrew tongue," (xxvi. 14,) and the Roman soldiers could hear the sound of it, but could not understand it. Again, it appears that they all saw the bright light which shone round about them, but Saul only saw the brighter form of Jesus, which, I suppose, no unassisted mortal eye could bear to see.
It was fitting that, on the one hand, by the seeing and hearing of the soldiers, should be shewn the reality of Paul's vision, that it was not the fancy of a diseased brain ; and that, on the other hand, God's “chosen” one alone should “see that Just One, and hear words from his mouth” that he might be his witness unto all men
of what he had seen and heard." (xxii. 14, 15.) This was agreeable to what had taken place at the beginning, when God “raised up Jesus, and shewed him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before God." (x. 40, 41.)
1 Do not myself see much difficulty in the question, but I am glad it has been put, as it will encourage other Sunday-school Teachers to apply to the “Visitor" whenever they want information.
Acts ix. 7. The men heard a voice, but saw no man; and yet, in Acts xxii. 9, it is said, that they heard not the voice, but saw the light; that is, they heard a sound-the sound of some one speaking --but they did not hear or distinguish the words: they saw also the light, but not the Divine Speaker, or “that Just One," nor heard so as to know, as Paul did, the voice of his mouth.
John xii. 28, 29, seems a similar case, where, when a voice came from heaven unto Jesus, “the people that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered : others said, an angel spake to him."
Damiel - 7, 8, is a good parallel passage to the whole. L.
[Several answers have been kindly sent to the question of "R. F. S.;" but as they are all very much of the same effect, it is not necessary to give more than we have done.]
SUMMARY OF PASSING EVENTS. “There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel
of the Lord that shall stand.” BEFORE this paper is brought before the notice of our readers, the Session of Parliament will, in all probability, have again commenced. The events during the interim have been peculiar, and strikingly indicative of the difficulty of the questions which are being brought before the public, and we may look forward to much political disturbance during the session itself. It is not our intention to discuss purely political measures, either at this or another time, further than they may have a bearing on our moral or religious interests, as a people or as individuals; we shall therefore let this matter pass, hoping that God's blessing may rest on our legislators, and teach them “grace, wisdom, and understanding."-The interest of the Protestant community in Ireland has of late been strongly excited by a question which has been raised, with regard to the validity of the claim of Roman Catholics to be admitted to the emolumenes and honours of scholarships, in Trinity College, Dublin. Mr.