T E S 



New Ttllamcnt. The language of Malllicw, Mark, Luke, 

 and ,l()hn, is better adapted to the readere, for wliofc life 

 the Gofpels and Afts were at firft compofed, tliaii the hu\- 

 guage of Plato or Demofthcnes would have been. 



If we would enter tliorou£rhly into the idiom of the New 

 Teilament, we muft familiarife ourfelves to that of the Scp- 

 tuagint ; and if we would enter thoroughly into the idiom 

 of the Septuagint, we muft accuilom ourfelves to the ftudy, 

 not only of the original of the Old Tcftanicnt, but of the 

 dialeft ipoken in Paleftine between the return of the Jews 

 from the Babylonifti captivity, and the deflrutlion of Jcru- 

 falem by the Romans ; for this laft, as well as the Hebrew, 

 has affefted the language both of the old Greek Iranflatiou 

 and of the New Teilament. 



Such is the origin and the charafter of the idiom, which 

 prevails in the writings of the apoftles and evaiigelills, 

 and the remarkable conformity of the new revdation we 

 Lave by them, though written in a different language, to 

 tlie idiom of the old. It has been diftinguilhed in the 

 former by the name Helleniftic, not with critical accuracy, 

 if regard be had to the derivation of the word, but with 

 fufficient exaftnefs, if attention be given to the application 

 which the Hebrews made of the term Hellenift, by which 

 they diilinguifhed their Jewifli brethren, who lived in Grecian 

 cities and ipoke Greek. It has been by fome of late, after 

 father Simon of the Oratory, more properly termed the 

 Greek of the fynagogue. It is, acknowledged, that it 

 cannot ftridlly be denominated a feparate language, or even 

 dialeft, when the term dialctl is conceived to imply pecu- 

 liarities in declenfion and conjugation. But, with the 

 greateft juftice, it is denominated a peculiar idiom, being 

 DOt only Hebrew and Chaldaic phrafes put in Greek words, 

 but even fmgle Greek words ufed in fenfes in which they 

 never occur in the writings of profane authors, and which 

 caa be learnt only from the extent of fignification given to 

 fome Hebrew or Chaldaic word, correfponding to the 

 Greek in its primitive and moll ordinary fenfe. This dif- 

 ference in idiom conftitutes a difficulty of .another kind 

 from that which is created by a diftcrence in dialeft ; a dif- 

 ficulty much harder to be furmounted, as it does not afFe£l 

 the form of the words, but the meanmg. 



It is pertinent, however, to obferve, that the above re- 

 marks on the Greek of the New Teftament, do not imply 

 that there was any thing which could be called idiomatical 

 or vulgar in the language of our Lord himfelf, who taught 

 always in his mother tongue. His apoftles and evangelifts, 

 on the contrary, who wrote iu Greek, were, in writing, 

 obliged to tranflate the inftruftions received from him into 

 a foreign language of a very different ftrufture, and for 

 the ufe of people accuflomed to a peculiar idiom. The ap- 

 parently refpeftful manner io which our Saviour was accofted 

 by all ranks of his countrymen, and in which they fpoke 

 of his teaching, fhews that he was univerfally confidered as 

 a perfon of eminent knowledge and abilities. It was the 

 amazing fuccefs of his difcourfes to the people, in com- 

 manding the attention and reverence of all who heard 

 him, which firft awakened the jealoufy of the fcribes and 

 pharifees. 



Although all the writers of the New Teftament wrote in 

 the idiom of the fynagogue, we are not to conclude from 

 lience, that there is no difcernible diverfity in their ftyles. 

 As the fame language admits of a vai-iety of dialefts, and 

 even of provincial and foreign idioms, fo the fame dialeft 

 and the fame idiom are fufceptible of a variety of ftyles. 

 The ftyle of Paul has iomething peculiar, by which, in our 

 opinion, there would be no difficulty in diiiinguifiiing him 

 from any other writer. A difcerning reader would not 



T E S 



readily confound the ftyle of Luke with th.it of cither of 

 llie rvangclids who preceded him, Matthew or Mark ; and 

 ftill lefs would he miftake the apoftle .lohn's didiion for that 

 of any other penman of the New Teftament. The fame 

 differences of ftyle will be difcovered by one who is but 

 moderately converfant in Hebrew in the writers of the Old 

 Teftament. In it we have ftill greater variety than in the 

 New. Some of the books arc written in profe and fome 

 in Terfe : and in each, the differences between one book and 

 another are confiderable. In the book of Job, for inftance, 

 the charafter of the ftyle is remarkably peculiar. What 

 can be more diffunilar in this refpcft, though both are ex- 

 cellent iu their kind, than the towering flights of the fub- 

 hme Ifaiah, and the plaintive ftrains of the pathetic Jere- 

 miah ? In tlie books of Scripture we can fpecify the con- 

 cifc ftyle and the copious, the elevated and the fimple, the 

 aphoriftic and the diffufc. 



How this diverfity of ftyle is reconcilcable with the idea 

 of infpiration, we have attempted to fticw under the article 

 Inspikatiox. See Campbell's Prelim. Difl'. 



For other particulars in conneftion with the fubjcft of 

 this article, fee Bible and Canon. 



TESTAMENTARY Adoption. See Adoption. 



Tkstamentary Caufes, in Law, are thofe that relate to 

 teftaments, which were originally cognizable in the king's 

 courts of common law, -viz. the county-courts ; and after- 

 wards transferred to the jurifdiftion of the cluirch, by the 

 favour of the crown, as a natural confequence of granting to 

 the bifliops the adminiftration of inteftates' effefts. This fpi- 

 ritual jurifdiftion of teltamentary caufes is a peculiar confti- 

 tution of this ifland ; for in almoft allather (even in popifti) 

 countries, all matters teftamentary are of the jurifdiftion of 

 the civil magiftrate. And that this privilege is enjoyed by 

 the clergy in England not as a matter of ecclefiaftical right, 

 but by the fpecial favour and indulgence of the municipal 

 law, and as it ftiould feem by fome public .lA of the great 

 council, is freely acknowledged by I^indewode, the ablell 

 canonift of the fifteenth century ; and about a century be- 

 fore, in a canon of archbidiop Stratford ; alfo by the confti- 

 tutions of cardinal Othobon ; and likewife by archbifliop 

 Pai-ker, iu the time of queen Elizabeth. At what period 

 of time the ecclefiaftical jurifdiftion of teftaments and intef- 

 tacics began iu England, is not afcertained by any ancient 

 writer. It appears the foreign clergy were early ambitious 

 of this power, though they jvere curbed by the edift of the 

 emperor Juftin, which reftrained the infinuation or probate 

 of teftaments (as formerly) to the office of the nwg'tfler 

 ceiifus : but afterwards by the canon law it was allowed, that 

 the bidiop might compel, by ecclefiaftical cenfures, the per- 

 formance of a bequeft to pious ufes. And therefore it fell 

 within the jurifdiftion of the fpiritual courts, by the exprefs 

 words of the charter of king William I. wliich feparated 

 thofe courts from the temporal. And afterwards, when king 

 Henry I. by his coronation-charter, direfted that the goods 

 of an inteftate (hould be divided for the good of his foul, 

 this made all inteftacies immediately fpiritual caufes, as much 

 as a legacy to pious ufes had been before. This therefore, 

 fays judge Claekllone, we may poffibly conjefture, was the 

 era referred to by Stratford and Othubon, when the king, by 

 the advice of the prelates, and with the confent of his b.trons, 

 inverted the church with this privilege. 



This jurifdiftion is principally exercifed with us in the 

 confiftory courts of every diocefan billiop, or iu the pre- 

 rogative court of the metropolitan originally ; and in the 

 arches court, and courts of delegates by ajipeal. It is 

 divifible into three branches ; the probate of wills, the grant- 

 ing of adminiftrations, and the fuing for legacies. The two 



fonuer 



