III. Compare and distinguish in verse I and ¬ in

verse 3.

IV. Inflect through tense occurring in text, omitting

וַיִרְאֵהוּ וַתִּוּ נֶה; וַיְהִי :conversive

V. Analyze into component parts: insa; mab-by; insop? VI. Give complete synopsis (3rd pers. sing. only in Perf. and Imperf.) omitting conversive: POP! GRAMMAR :

VII

1. Methegh; definition and chief uses?

;

;

2. Daghesh-forte; how many kinds, and chief uses ?

3.

Some discussion of tone-shifting.

4. Number in nouns; how many kinds of? Illustrate formation of each in both Masc. and Fem.

5. Construct Case: What is it? Illustrate formation and use in both genders and in each number.

6. Translate into Hebrew:

(1) And the Lord said unto Moses.

(2) And he called upon the name of the Lord.

(3) And he arose and went into the house of the Lord.

II. Discuss: ἐκείνῳ, &c., κρατήσας, διὰ.

III. Decline: παισὶν, τοῦτο, γυναῖκα, Ηρώδης, Ηρωδιάδα.

IV. Syntax of: ἀκοὴν, γυναῖκα, ἔξεστι, σοι, ὡς.

V. Principal parts of: ἤκουσεν, ἔθετο, ἔχειν, ἀποκτεῖναι.

VI. Conjugate through tense occurring in text: évepyoûσi and edŋoev and explain the accent in each word, taking some one form for illustration.

VII. Etymology and meaning of Teтpáρxηs.

VIII. GRAMMAR :

I. How many declensions? An example of each?
How many conjugations? An example of each ?
Which is older?

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Difference in significance between: The 1st Aor. and
2nd Aor.? between the 1st Aor. and Imperf. ?
How many classes of contract verbs?

ample of each.

Difference between μǹ and oỷ.

Give one ex

How many ways of expressing purpose in Greek?
The forms of the conditional sentence?

8. Explain the syntax of the phrase: év Tậ tóde ideiv.

I may add that six hours' work on the examination brought papers which "passed" very creditably. There is nothing in the examination that need worry a man who has been a faithful student, it was not designed for that purpose; but I humbly submit that few readers will call it farcical. It is altogether likely that other Presbyteries are equally serious. SAMUEL M. SMITH.

Columbia, S. C.

II. "IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN."

BY WM. FROST BISHOP, D. D.

The dialect of the New Testament is not classic Greek. It is not the speeech of Thucydides or Plato, but a species known as "Hellenistic." By this we mean the Greek spoken by foreigners who learned it as a secondary tongue, specially around the Mediterranean coast. It is mixed with forms of Hebrew speech. There are departures from the grammatical tongue. Much of the synthetic terseness of the best Attic is lost to us in the Greek of the New Testament. However, we have really lost nothing. While a dialect may be less ideally perfect, it may be more available for specific purposes. St. Augustine is more forceful than Tully, and Tertullian more impassioned than Cicero, although their Latin is inferior as a language. The New Testament Greek had to convey new ideas. Fortunately it was plastic for the reception of new conceptions. As Canon Farrar has aptly said: "The seething ferment of the new wine could no longer be contained in the old bottles, however perfect their external finish."

Grateful as we are to Dale for his labors in this field, we need to be on our guard. Hellenistic Greek has a genius of its own. A thing may be possible in Matthew's syntax which is not possible in Attic. While the loftiest eloquence of the Apocalypse is not incompatible with a dialect proverbially uncouth, and even ungrammatical. The Greek of Inspiration has a genius of its own. It is deeply dyed with Hebrew words and idioms. It is a fuller tongue than the classic and must be interpreted by its own canons of speech.

We are well nigh shut up to a consideration of the New Testament dialect alone, with but little hope for extraneous aid. And as to our present discussion-the question of

the baptismal formula-it is unsafe to venture beyond the five historical books, the four Gospels and the Acts. There are theoretical liberties and metaphorical forms of speech in the Epistles, that render deductions doubtful. The Epistles contain what might be called the philosophical statement of Gospel principles in familiar and colloquial language, where allegorical phraseology is entirely admissible.

The formula of baptism belongs to and is imbedded in the historical books, and the meaning attached to the formula in the historical books establishes and limits the meaning of the formula in all other writings. We ought by this time surely to have learned something from the experience in debate of the familiar words: "Buried with him in baptism." We will not say this phrase has fallen among thieves, like the man that went down from Jerusalem to Jericho; but we will say that it has certainly suffered many things at the hands of both Priests and Levites.

Looking then solely within the lids of the Gospels and the Acts (historical books, strangely unimpassioned and without color of emotiom on the part of the authors) we find:

I. That, if the phrase (eis Tò ovoμa) in the baptismal formula is to be translated "into the name," it is the only place in Matthew's Gospel where such translation is possible. Everywhere else in his Gospel it must be translated "in the name," as for example, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matt. 18:20. He makes use of the phrase five times and in every case we can translate "in the name" and make

sense.

2. That Matthew's use of the phrase eis Tò ovoμa makes it the equivalent of eπì τ ovoμár, which can never mean "into the name" (compare Mat. 10:41 with Math. 18:5). In the other case it is: "He that receiveth a prophet in the name (eis тò ovoμa) of a prophet shall receive a prophet's

reward."

In the other case it is: "And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name (eì т óvóμaтi) receiveth me."

3. That the word "baptize" is not always joined with eis. Consult Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ." Here we have emì Tậ óvópar, which can never mean "into." Consult Acts 10:48, "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Here we have ev тậ óvóμati, which also can never mean "into." In the Book of Acts no special significance is attached to the preposition eis, even when conjoined with "baptize." If its author, St. Luke, is infallible, our opponents are wrong by insisting upon a shade of meaning which is peculiar to eis and which cannot be borne by the prepositions eπì and ev.

4. That the Revised Version itself does not always translate eis as "into," when conjoined with "baptize." Consult I Cor. 10:2, "I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, how that our fathers were all under the cloud, and passed through the sea, and we were all baptized unto Moses." The Victorian Version does not always translate eis by "into" when conjoined with "baptize."

5. The much vaunted Revised Version retains the old familiar formula, and does not hesitate to translate "baptize in the name." And, if so, why should we? Here are the exact words of the baptismal formula, so far as the disputed phrase is concerned, in the New Version: "Repent ye and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ," Acts 2:38. Again we read in the New Version, "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ," Acts 10:48. The phrase eis тò ovoμa occurs at John 10:12, and the Revised Version reads, "To them that believe in his name." Also at John 3:18, Heb. 10:10 and John 5:13 the New Version translates eis Tò ovoμa to mean "on the name" or "toward the name." In other words, the familiar words of the ancient formula are still found in the New Bible; why not, also, then in the new Directory?