Before taking up any recent author, let me state as a general rule of proportion that present English uses relatives less frequently than the Psalms and Shakspere, and not quite half as frequently as the New Testament. There is, however, one difference to be noted: English writers have carried this reform somewhat farther than Americans have carried it. It is still further to be noted that preachers and theological writers usually have a good deal of biblical syntax, and therefore employ relatives more freely than other writers. It is a convenient place to mention the fact that in modern English of the best type, ellipsis is more common than in older writers or inferior modern writers. The old writers and their readers had more time than we have, and the “economy of attention” was not in Shakspere’s day a recognized rule of rhetoric. The inferior modern writer is afraid to trust an ellipsis to the tender mercies of the critic, and spoils his sentences by trying to say everything. Ellipsis is one of the chief places for art and genius in writing. As a rule, American writers are in greater awe of the grammarians than Englishmen are. We shall find, then, more relatives in American than in English writers; we shall find more in sermons than in other writings. Young ministers are often advised to cultivate a biblical style. I must confess my inability to sympathize with efforts to employ religion upon the unavailing task of continuing the use of dead words and forms. If we are to write and speak in dead tongues as a religious duty, let us go back to Greek, at least, if not to Hebrew. The truth is that we ought to put the Bible into modern English, and so end the unprofitable business of disagreeing about the claims of a biblical style upon the pulpit. At present the contention is that in order to imitate the Bible of 1611, preachers should use obsolete English.