his whip gave a slight tap or two on the door, which was carefully opened, as if to avoid even the least degree of disturbance. The low mournful tone with which the young lady who admitted us, addressed the clergyman, sufficiently indicated that she was the sister of Rebecca. As soon as we had passed the threshold, I perceived at once, that we were in the house of mourning. The servants and workmen, leaning upon one arm against the mantlepiece, awaited in silence, any command to perform the little offices which, on so deeply an interesting occasion, are always necessary. The conversation, conducted chiefly in whispers, and the light tread of those who performed the services of this afAlicted family, all contributed to heighten in the mind, a feeling of deep and mournful solemnity. The affectionate mother came from the sick room to greet her reverend friend; but a bursting heart checked the salutation, and all she could do was to offer him her hand. Her sorrow was not of that clamorous kind which almost transforms the subject of it into a maniac. It was a current of grief, deep but noiseless-except when the recognition of some countenance familiar to herself and her dying child, would cause it to burst the channel in which resignation had confined it; and even then it was heard only in suppressed sobs. A word of consolation was dropped hy the clergyman, and we followed the mother to the sick chamber. All was silent; and the group who hung in breathless attention over the sick bed, appeared like so many marble statues, except as they slowly turn ed their heads at the slight interruption which our entrance occasioned. The ticking of the watch which the physician held in one hand, while the fingers of the other rested on the pulse of his patient, was as distinctly heard as at midnight. Two or three neighbouring females had come to tender their services and mingle their sympathies with the afflicted family; but without laying aside any of their garments, they gathered around the expiring Rebecca, and fixing their eyes on her countenance, stood mute and motionless. Beside the couch, in a low chair, sat the father, his head leaning on his right hand, which was supported by his knee; and he was attentively gazing on the face of his lovely daughter. The conflicting feelings of parental attachment and Christian resignation heaved his bosom, but not a word escaped his lips. His feelings were too deep for utterance. At the head of the bed stood a small table, on which lay a pocket Bible and psalm book-the constant companions of this young Christian in her sickness. The leaves of both were folded, to mark the passages of scripture and the hymns adapted to convey consolation to her mind. The most interesting object of all was Rebecca herself who slowly turned her head towards the aged minister, as she recognised his well known voice. It was evident from her appearance, that the vital flame was trembling, and that the soul was pluming her wings for immortality. Nature exhausted seemed to have yielded the conflict, and to have become passive under the final triumph of disease. The lineaments of a most interesting countenance, which had once bloomed with beauty, were indeed still to be seen; but their prominence and sallow paleness, had it not been for the heavenly expression that played around them, would have presented the appearance of nothing but the wreck of loveliness. Feebly raising a hand of pearly and almost transparent whiteness, and dropping it into that of her spiritual guide, she fixed her eyes on heaven and moved her lips in prayer. To his question -"Have you the rod and the staff of your Redeemer to comfort you?" a smile was her reply. While the soul was evidently freeing itself from its dissolving earthly tabernacle, the little company bent their knees, and following the low but earnest voice of the clergyman, poured out their feelings in prayer for her easy pas sage across the Jordan of death. When they rose, her fixed and glassy eye, and a sort of indescribable hollowness which seemed settling around her features, showed beyond a doubt that her last enemy had seized her. But the smile of triumph was still distinctly there. Nothing now broke our silence but an occasional sob. Her last breath was caught on the surface of a small mirror, when the physician pronounced, in a low whisper, "she is gone." Thus fell asleep in the arms of Je She seem sus this amiable female. ed, after the renewal of her moral nature, too lovely a flower to be long exposed to the cold and blighting winds of this ungenial world; and the same hand that made her bloom with the beauty of holiness, early transplanted her to a more kindly region, where, beneath the full radiance of the Sun of righteousness, she will live and flourish for ever.-Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like hers. W. J. B. Miscellaneous. FOR THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE. DISSERTATION ON THE STYLE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Few controversies have been agitated with greater warmth than that which regards the style of the New Testament. The controversy took its rise in the sixteenth century. The prime mover of it was Erasmus, who boldly dared to impugn the character of the apostolical writings, and pronounce them, in point of style, uncouth and barbarous. Not that he was absolutely the first who called in question the purity of the New Testament Greek, for Celsus had done this ages before, and Origen and Chrysostom admitted the charge; but it is from the days of Erasmus that the modern controversy to which we particularly allude, is to be dated. The dispute was kept up for more than a century, and was unhappily marked with great bitterness. At the outset, the line which separated the parties, seemed to be clearly enough drawn; at least, they appear to have thought so, the one affirming, and the other denying the classical purity of the New Testament Greek. But, like most other controversies which are continued for a long period, this seemed to shift its aspects from time to time, till at last, when the parties had clearly defined their terms, and understood each other's mutual con cessions, it would appear that they really differed but little, could they have been persuaded to think sc. But it is not surprising that they could not be thus persuaded. Such a fact has ceased to be matter of surprise for some thousand years. The controversy is at present extinct. The opinion of the classical character of the apostolical writings has long since been given up, and critics and divines are pretty universally agreed that the New Testament is written in what is termed Hebraic or Hellenistic Greek, in contradistinction from Hellenic or Attic. The grounds of this distinction will be stated in what follows. It may here be remarked, that those who undertook to vindicate the New Testament style from the charge of impurity, were unquestionably prompted by the very best motives; but they were motives which did more honour to their hearts than to their understandings. Honest men, they thought the vital interests of Christianity were at stake, and the purity of the heavenly doctrine itself involved in the question of the purity of the style in which it was delivered. We shall not be much surprised at this, if we recollect that about the time that this controversy arose, the Reformation had thrown all Christendom into a state of preternatural excitement a state salutary and bless ed in its results, though distinguished at the time by much that was earthly and extravagant in its nature. The sacred scriptures had just emerged into the day-they had begun to assert their divine authority and to produce their proper effects; and we can easily see that a charge affecting in any respect the character of this precious volume should have filled its friends with alarm. And it would require as deep a reformation in the principles of human nature as Luther was the means of effecting in the Church, to prevent well-meaning zeal from running, in such circumstances, to very wild extremes. And to such extremes it actually did go. The pious patrons of the classical character of the New Testament strenuously maintained that the contrary opinion was utterly derogatory to the Divine Author of the Scriptures, and went so far as to denounce their opponents as impious heretics, and even to declare them guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost! But, however strange it may appear to us that Christian writers should have held precisely this opinion and used this language, it ought not to appear strange that the enemies of Christianity should have held its opposite, and objected to Revelation on the ground of its peculiar style. We have already alluded to the charge of Celsus. The same language has been reiterated in modern times; and the following extract from a work of Conyers Middleton, may no doubt,with perfect fairness, be considered as conveying the sentiments of the whole tribe of free-thinkers on this point-that is, where they have happened to be men who understood Greek, and were capable of holding an opinion at all. "We should naturally expect," says he, "to find an inspired language to be such as is worthy of God; that is, pure, clear, noble, and affecting, even beyond the force of common speech; in short, the purity of Plato, and the eloquence of Cicero. Now, if we try the apostolic language by this rule, we shall be so far from as cribing it to God, that we shall scarce think it worthy of man; that is, of the liberal and polite, it being utterly rude and barbarous, and abounding with every fault that can deform a language." Shaftsbury in the Characteristics, throws out the same insinuation. We shall quote the passage, not only as giving his opinion, but as a striking specimen of the sly insidious manner in which this writer, and others of his stamp, manage their attack upon Christianity. "It is no otherwise," says his Lordship, "in the grammatical art of characters, and painted speech, than in the art of painting itself. I have seen in certain Christian churches an ancient piece or two, affirmed on the solemn faith of priestly tradition to have been angelically and divinely wrought, by a supernatural hand and sacred pencil. Had the piece happened to be of a hand like Raphael's, I could have found nothing certain to oppose to the tradition. But having observed the whole style and manner of the pretended heavenly workmanship to be so indifferent, as to vary in many particulars from the truth of art, I presumed to beg pardon of the tradition, and to assert confidently that if the pencil had been heaven-guided, it could never have been so lame in the performance; it being a mere contradiction to all divine and moral truth that a celestial hand, submitting itself to the rudiments of a human art, should sin against the art itself, and express falsehood and error, in the place of justness and proportion." The object of both these writers is obviously the same; to discredit the inspiration of the scriptures by aspersing the style in which they are written. It would lead us too far out of our intended course to attempt to canvass and confute these objections. It may be observed, however, in passing, 1st, that they both grossly falsify the character of the New Testament style-most unfairly exaggerating those peculiarities which are supposed to detract somewhat from its ex cellence when compared with classick standards, and viewed merely as models of good writing; and, 2dly, were this not the case, but supposing their representation to be much nearer the truth than it is, yet it may be most clearly shown that the main principle on which their objection is grounded, viz. that an inspired communication must be a faultless model of composition, is wholly gratuitous and fallacious. The following remark of a profound biblical critick presents this point in a clear light. words or construction of sentences, in judging of the style of the New Testament it will be necessary to ascertain, 1. Whether single words, expressing things of which the Greek writers frequently speak, are used by the sacred penmen in precisely that sense in which these writers use them. But we can turn to no part of the New Testament without meeting with words used in a sense totally unknown to any Greek classick writer, and for the most part evidently derived from the Hebrew. For instance, the word dixeron occurs in Mat. vi. 1. (Griesb. Ed.) in the sense of liberality or alms; Do not your alms, &c. Now as this term, though frequently found in classical Greek, is never there used in this acceptation, which it borrows from the Heb. "In short," says he, "a classical or unclassical style has no more influence on the Divinity of the New Testament, than the elegance or inelegance of the hand in which it is written, or the accuracy or inaccuracy of the pronunciation with which it is uttered. Whoever was accus-py, it follows that the word is in tomed to write a bad hand would not certainly improve it by inspiration. But admitting the fact, it would have this unfortunate consequence, that no one accustomed to the hand would, in its improved state, believe it to be genuine." We come now to the main object aimed at in this inquiry, viz. to ascertain the true character of the New Testament style; premising that we give the terin style in this discussion somewhat more than its usual import, and consider it nearly equivalent to language or diction. As to purity of style then, if it be asked, Is the New Testament written in pure Greek?-the question immediately suggests another, What constitutes pure Greek, or purity of style in general, as far as language is concerned? We answer, purity of style implies, 1. Grammatical propriety, or conformity to the syntactical structure of the language in question; in other words, freedom from solecisms. 2. Freedom from foreign idioms, or barbarisms-applying this term not merely to phrases or combinations of words, but also to single words used in a foreign sense. If a pure style then admits of nothing exotick in the signification of this place impure. So of the word It must be remarked, however, in justice to the advocates for the purity of the New Testament Greek, that the weight of this argument will depend upon the number of instances adduced. As subjects wholly unknown to Greek writers are treated of in the New Testament, they could not of course be expected to have terms adapted to express them. So that either new terms must be introduced, or old ones used in new senses. But the occasional introduction of such terms will not detract from the general purity of any writer's style. Cicero uses the words qualitas, mores, perceptiones, in senses to which the Roman language was an entire stranger, deriving them. immediately from the Greek. Yet this would not be sufficient to denominate his style barbarous or impure. But when such terms enter essentially into every part of an author's work-when they are interwoven into the whole strain of his composition, and form, as it were, the staple of it, the case is altered; this will certainly establish the impurity of his style. And such we conceive is the fact in respect to the New Tes tament. 2. It is necessary to compare particular phrases, or combinations of words, with the classick usage. Take, for example, the phrase dixios voy TOU JEOV. The words taken singly are good Greek, but the combination is foreign, answering to the Heb. n , consequently impure. In the same manner παραστήναι ενωπιον τίνος occurs in the New Testament in the sense of ministering to one. In pure Greek it would be παραστήναι τιν. These instances may serve as specimens of innumerable others. 3. It is obvious to any competent judge that the form and structure of the periods in the New Testament writers is Hebraick, or conformed to the style of the Old Testament histories. A striking contrast between the Greek and Hebrew style occurs in the first chapter of Luke, where the four first verses are written in classical and pure Greek, while the three following verses are so perfectly Hebrew, that they would seem to have been a literal translation from that language. In cases where a native Greek would have introduced, as the connexion required, perhaps several particles, the writers of the New Testament are obliged to supply their place with the single conjunction, which they repeat nearly as often as the Hebrew writers their Vau prefixum. This gives a peculiar uniformity to the structure of their periods. 4. Two other considerations may be mentioned, in proof of the Hebraick character of the New Testament. The one is, that if any number of passages be taken promiscuously from the New Testament writings, particularly the Gospels, they are more easily translated literally into the Hebrew than any other language. The other, that numerous phrases in the New Testament are utterly inexplicable, unless they be considered as Hebraisms. In Col. iii. VOL. I.-Ch. Adv. 4, love is called videos TEŽELOTHTOS, translated bond of perfectness, which is scarce intelligible. Viewing the phrase as a Hebraism, and rendering the last word as such, we come at the force of the expression at once, viz. that love or charity is the most perfect bond of union. There are a great many uses of the words Vεvμa, agg, diaben, &c. which are to be explained by a recurrence to the corresponding Hebrew terms. It will be superfluous to attempt any farther to establish the Hebraick or Hellenistick character of the New Testament Greek. It is beyond quesEvangelists and Apostles is deeply tion that the general style of the pervaded by the Old Testament idiom. How indeed could it have been otherwise, considering the character, the age, the country, the circumstances, the theme of the writers? For whom did the apostles immediately write? Not for the polished Greek, charmed with the beauties of Plato and Xenophon, but for Jews, who had been accustomed from their infancy to the style of the Old Testament scriptures; for the humble and uncultivated, who were as unable to appreciate the high qualities of the classicks as to imitate them. If our object in this essay were to take sides in the controversy, and actually to enter the lists, an imaginary Pfochenius Redivivus, we are aware that the argument drawn from the circumstances of the writers and the persons written to, would deserve, in point of weight, the very first rank. But our object is rather to hold the scales than to take up the gauntlet; and there is besides a certain obviousness about the argument, that makes it less necessary to be dwelt upon. When we say that the Hebrew idiom pervades the New Testament, we mean that which is found in the Old Testament. But it is to be recollected that after the return from the Babylonish captivity, the ancient and genuine Hebrew gradually fell into disuse, as the language of common life; though it was retained in X |