To the type of answers here in view, belongs an answer given by a boy whose father was a strong teetotaler, and upon whom it would appear home influence had made a stronger impression than school lessons. “Do you know the meaning of syntax?” he was asked. “Yes,” he answered; “sin-tax is the dooty upon spirits.” An inspector, who had been explaining to a class that the land of the world was not continuous, said to the boy who happened to be standing nearest to him: “Now, could your father walk round the world?” “No, sir,” was promptly answered. “Why not?” “Because he’s dead,” was the unlooked-for response. As little anticipated, probably, was the answer made to another inspector, who asked, “What is a hovel?” and was met with the reply: “What you live in.”
A prettily humorous examination story is that of the little Scotch boy at the Presbytery examination. He was asked: “What is the meaning of regeneration?” “To be born again,” he answered. “Quite right! Would you not like to be born again?” He hesitated, but being pressed, said that he would not, and asked why not, replied: “For fear I might be born a lassie.” Alike astonishing and amusing was an answer given by an adult examinee, who was “sitting” for a certificate as acting teacher. In the examination to test general knowledge, he was asked, “What is the age of reason?” and answered: “As many years as have elapsed since the birth of the person so named.” It was also a certificate candidate, who, in reading, rendered two lines from Goldsmith’s “Edwin and Angelina” thus:—
The wicket opening with a latch
Received the armless pair.
—All the Year Round.
TALK ABOUT BOOKS.
The “Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospel of Matthew,”[C] now given to American readers with an admirable preface by Dr. Crooks, is just what the title asserts, a critical exegesis of the text. The author was a thorough linguist, and especially familiar with the language in which Matthew wrote. His expositions, which are accurately grammatical, give evidence of much philological research, and a strict, attention to the usus loquendi of both classic and New Testament Greek. As an exegete he ranks with the best; albeit, the exegesis itself is, at times, clearer than the English used to state it. Some sentences are burdened with adjuncts, and there is not always the most felicitous arrangement of the explanatory clauses. One familiar with good writing will occasionally feel an impulse to recast and improve what does not quite suit him. For professional men, and especially young ministers, the Hand-book has great value, and is worthy of their careful study.