« ПретходнаНастави »
A letter regretting his absence was read from Bro. Capt. Smith.
Bro. Amphlett stated that a public meeting would be held at Faversham in the middle of October, to which he had been invited.
The next monthly meeting was fixed to be at our office, 24, Bedford Street, Strand, W.C., on Wednesday, September 14. Tea at half-past five.
Bro. Amphlett closed the meeting with prayer at 8.45 p.m.
Sheffield, and the expression of your kind interest in our work elicited the warmest gratitude.
“ By the direction of the brethren then assembled, we write to assure you of our sincere appreciation of your affection, and that it is most cordially reciprocated.
“We rejoice to know that the same precious truths which are believed and prized by us, are also your consolation and stay; and though there may be varieties of expression, the same vital love to
common Saviour animates all our hearts.
We return our sincere thanks for your kind assurance that any brother removing from us to your colony would be warmly welcomed by you, and we may certainly say that any brother visiting what you are pleased to say some of you still call your • Home,' would be most cordially received by us, and we would do our best to make his visit as pleasant as possible.
Again assuring you of our affection and regard on behalf of the members of the Wesleyan Methodist Local Preachers' Mutual-Aid Association, “We are, yours affectionately,
S. M. Johnson, President.
GEORGE Sims, Secretary.” The monthly statement showed 50 new members, 5 members and 2 wives dead, 102 sick, and 166 annuitants. Income for the month £612 3s. 7d., payments £458 13s. 11d. Income since annual audit £831 5s. 7d., payments to branches £728 12s. 8d., various accounts £97 16s. 11d.
The Trustees were requested to sign the necessary authority for the Treasurer to receive the dividends by post.
A letter from Bro. Johnson, the President, regretting his absence, but he stated that he had started a new branch at Rotherham.
DEATHS. July 4, 1881. Henry Potter, Crom. ford Branch, aged 81 years. He passed away to his reward in peace. No claim.
July 11, 1881. Theophilus Jelbert, St. Just Branch, aged 54 years. He bore a severe illness with great patience, and died resting alone on the Crucified One. Claim £6.
July 13, 1881. William Hulbert, Kingswood Branch, aged 62 years. No particulars. Claim £6.
July 16, 1881. William Jelbert, St. Just Branch, aged 85 years.
His end was peace. He had been an annoitant 91 weeks, and received £22 lös. Claim £4.
July 19, 1881. Rhoda Cutting, Diss Branch, aged 64 years. Calmly resting on Jesus her Saviour. Claim £2.
July 20, 1881. Joseph Halden, Stafford Branch, aged 69 years. His death was very sudden, but he had a full assurance of “an abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Claim £8.
Aug. 1, 1881. Lydia Lee, Thornley Branch, aged 59 years.
It is said, “She died as she had lived, and she lived unto the Lord.” Claim £4.
Aug. 5, 1881. Robert Ward, Holt Branch, aged 66 years. He had suffered much and long, yet his death was sudden. Happy in soul, he exclaimed, "I am going to be with Christ.“ Claim £5.
CASH RECEIVED BY THE GENERAL TREASURER TO AUG. 15TH, 1881.
Free Sub- Benefit scriptions. Members
£ 8. d. £ Newport Pagnell
1 6 6 Wednesbury
Berry, qly. 38; Mr. R. S. Dunn, hm. qly. 5s 3d ; Mr. A.
qly. 5s 3d ; Miss Wildish, A Thank Offering, £1 is
Oldham, qly. 38; Mr. H. D. Simpson, qly. 38...
Sims, hm. £3; Mrs. Wass, hm. £l; Mr. R. Wildgoose,
Fielding, hc, 128
Bennett, jun., hm. qly. 5s 3d ; Mr. J. Flatman, hm. qly.
0 18 0 1 17 0 2 11 0 1 10 0 0 120
1 6 0
2 17 9
8 4 1 0 0
1 7 0
3 0 0 1 13 0 1 7 0 0 15 0 2 13 0 2 16 6 2 5 0 13 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 6 1 1 0 1 10 0 2 17 0 0 3 0 7 5 0 4 12 6 2
0 5 3
Benefit Members. £ s. d.
1 19 0 2 10 0 0 15 2 19 6 1 1 0 1 15 6 1 9 6 0 6 0
2 17 0 1 1 0 0 15 0 1 7 0 090 0 12 0
2 8 0 0 18 0
£ s. d. Bradwell—Collection at Bradwell, £1 88 4d; Ditto at Castleton, £1 10s 60 ; Ditto at Tideswell, £1 6s 5d
4 5 3 St. Just-Public Collection, £? 6s 7d
3 6 7
0 3 0
99 7 Alton • Garstang Widnes Huddersfield 1st-Mr. T. Armitage, ls
0 1 0 Ledbury City Road-Mrs. Hambelton, hm. £1 1s ; Mr. J. Taylor, hm. £1 ls...
2 2 0 Bolton (Farnworth)—Mr. T. Walker, hm. £l ls...
2 0 6
0 2 0
3 3 0
0 10 9 Keighley-Mr. W. Anderton, hm. £5; Mr. J. Heap, hc.
10s 6d ; Mr. E. Myers, hc. 10s; Bro. J. F. Thorpe, hm. £1 ls
7 1 6 South Shields--Mr. Giles, hm. £1 ls; Mr. G. Snaith,2 qrs. 10s 1 11 0 Exeter—Mr. E. V. Hawkins, hm. £1 ls; Mr. Knapman, 5s;
Mr. Moore, 5s ; Mr. T. Rowe, hc. (2 years) £1 ls; Mr.
3 13 0
ham), 14s; Cherry Street Hill, £2 14s 4d ; Greenside, £i 88 8d; New Whittington, £1 ls; Oxford Street,
£3 Os 2d; Wales, £1 4s; Wentworth (Wath), £1 18 2d 11 3 4 Office List-Mr. J. Beauchamp, hm. £l ìs ; Mr. J. S. Budgett, hm. £5 ; Mr. T. Clarke, hm. £1
7 1 0 Bayswater- Mr. M. L. Clapham, hm, £1 1s
1 1 0 Great Queen Street-Mr. B. Ball, hm. £1 1s; Mr. G. Har
rison, hm. £2 2s; Mrs. Heffer, hm. £l 1s; Mr. J. Smith, hm. £1 ls; Mr. B. Williams, hc. 10s 6d
5 15 6 Bristol-Mrs. Sarginson, 6s
0 6 0 Hinde Street – Mr. Bousfield, 28 6d ; Mr. G. T. Cox, hc. 10s 6d ; Mr. F. Squire, hc. 10s 6d
1 3 6 Doncaster-Nether Hall Mission Room, £1 10s ...
1 4 0 2 8 0 0 18 0 2 5 0 0 18 0 1 1 0 4 4 0 2 90
5 13 9 1 16 0 3 90 1 7
6 06 4 1 0
1 16 0 9 10 0
£ 100 101 187 14 9
THE REVISED VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Of all the literary undertakings of the present century-vast and varied as some of them were – there is not one of them of equal importance with the Revision of the Holy Scriptures, part of which is still in hand, and part now completed. Some time will elapse before the Old Testament Company will have completed its labours; but the work of the New Testament Company is done, after ten and a half years of assiduous mental toil, and the result is given to the world by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, under whose initiatory guidance it was begun.
The project for revision, when first entertained, was regarded with jealous anxiety by many religious persons, who dreaded the consequences that might follow any unsettling of the Authorised Version.
We never participated in such feelings in the slightest degree. We placed before the readers of this Magazine unanswerable reasons for revision (see vol. 21, pp. 45), and we rejoiced in the prospect of English readers being put in possession of a more accurate expression of the mind of God in their own tongue, as given in the Hebrew and Greek languages by men inspired by the Holy Ghost to write in those languages.
It was no light undertaking for a company of learned men to revise & composite volume that had stood at the summit of universal literature for two and three-quarter centuries, and was regarded with reverence by millions of people, and acknowledged by scholars to be the best version of the Bible in any living tongue. A multitude of ancient manuscripts had to be read and compared ; the quotations of early Christian writers had to be considered, the various senses in which a word was used by different writers, and sometimes by the same writer, had to be regarded; the mistakes made by some transcribers had to be tested by the apparent accuracy of others; diversity of idiom had to be compared and reconciled; words and modes of speech in our own tongue had to be exchanged for other words and forms of expression now current ; innumerable difficulties had to be overcome by patient, cautious, persevering labour.
The sanction and commendation of the work and the workers, by all parties, was not to be expected. Many readers of the Scriptures who have long been familiar with the Authorised Version, and in whose mental fabric its language is interwoven as the pattern of the web wrought in a weaver's loom, will dislike many of the changes made by the revisers. Those who have some acquaintance with the original Scriptures will most appreciate the Revised Version ; and next to them will be those whose acquaintance with general literature is beyond the common range, and whose literary taste is more correct and refined than can by possibility be the taste of those whose opportunities have been very limited.
Criticism is the inevitable lot of all human productions. The Revised OCTOBER, 1881.
Version has been already criticised in anything but a generous spirit. Men can easily depreciate what others have done, and what they are themselves unable to do. The Revisers have been charged with vanity, and accused of unworthy motives. We confess that we are disgusted with the vulgarity and bitterness of some of those who say all they can to depreciate the work and defame the workers. Is their ire aroused by the unwelcome discovery that a prop is struck from some favourite dogma or opinion by the altered structure of a text or a phrase on which they have been accustomed to rely? Whatever the motives, the style of attack is reprehensible.
The new Version will, no doubt, pass through an ordeal of severe criticism from the pens of competent scholars. They will not concur in approval of all the changes made. Men who have been trained in different schools of theology, and under diverse influences, will naturally look upon words and things from their own distinctive standpoints. This difference has affected the Company of Revisers themselves, as inevitably it must, during the progress of their work. Its members were selected from different churches : Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregational, Wesleyan, Baptist, and some other; men of the highest repate for Biblical scholarship in their several denominations. The co-operation of American scholars of similar reputation was invited, and rendered. In the nature of things they would differ as to the rendering of some words and clauses. Conference, correspondence, and argument, would bring them in some cases to unanimity of judgment. When that could not be effected, the only way of settling a disputed or doubtful point was by vote. One effect of this mode of carrying on the work would be to increase individual modesty and caution, diminishing self-confidence, and checking speculativeness, if there was any tendency thereto. And certainly the combination of such a body of learned men, drawn from so many ecclesiastical schools, was no small security against the misrendering of terms and texts by a biassed individual mind.
Some readers of the Revised Version will, no doubt, be somewhat shocked by the omission of words, clauses, and even sentences, with which the Authorised Version has familiarised them. But whoever has studied any English commentary will be prepared for these omissions, as well as for many other changes in words and grammatical forms. The version of our Lord's form of prayer, as given in Luke xi. 2-4, is more bald than we expected to find it, or like to see it; but the notes at the foot of the page give several additions that are found in some manuscripts, and that are ascribed to “many ancient authorities." We are disappointed, too, by the retention of the harsh-sounding relative pronoun “ which," in positions where, according to the teaching of nearly all modern English grammarians, who ought to have taken its place. The late Dean Alford's vindication of the almost obsolete application of the word “which” to persons, may have induced the Revising Company to