Nov. I. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



347 



and K. S. for the information contained in the 

 fonner's criticisms, and tlie latter's addition to 

 what you liad inserted in my name on the subject 

 of clerical marriages. 



Cephas is very fair; for lie does not find fiiult 

 with other persons' versions of the first part of 

 Heb. xiii. 4. without giving his own version to be 

 compared ; and he states the ground of his criti- 

 cisms on my reference to it. He has kindly told 

 your readers, what they might have conjectiired 

 from the Italics in our authorized version, that in 

 rendering TiViof o ■ydfios iv iraui, " Marriage is ho- 

 nourable in all," they inserted is ; and to show 

 your readers an example of keeping closer to the 

 original, he himself renders it as follows: "Let 

 (the laws of) marriage be revered in all things, 

 and the marriage bed be undefiled." 



Then comes his exposure of my unhappy mis- 

 take : " H. Walter mistakes the adjective/e»»"- 

 nine iv TrStri as meaning all men.'''' lieally, had 

 I known that ■n-acri was an adjective feminine, I 

 could scarcely have fallen into the mistake of sup- 

 posing it to mean all men. But many of your 

 readers will be likely to feel some sympathy for 

 mv error, while they learn from Cephas that the 

 ordinary Greek grammars, in which they can have 

 proceeded but a very few pages before they read 

 and were called upon to repeat the cases of ttus, 

 ■nacra, irav, were quite wrong in teaching us that 

 though Train might be either masculine or neuter, 

 it must not be taken for a feminine form. But be- 

 fore we correct this error in one of the first pages 

 of our grammar, I presume that we should all like 

 to know from what recondite source Cephas has 

 discovered that Tracri, and not Tratrai?, is the feminine 

 form of this constantly-recurring adjective. 



But farther, p. 193. will show that I did not 

 give him a right to assume that I should construe 

 Train " all men." For under my mistaken view of 

 its being masculine, I thought the weaker se.x was 

 included ; and being myself a married man, I knew 

 that marriage comprehends women as well as men. 



But there is still more to be learnt from the 

 criticisms of Cephas, which the learned world 

 never knew before. For, having told us that 

 TTuin is an adjective feminine, he adds, " it signifies 

 here in all things;'" whereas the grammars have 

 long taught that things must not be understood 

 unless the adjective be neuter. Perhaps he 

 had better concede that the grammars have not 

 been wrong in allowing that Trno-i may be neuter ; 

 and theti, as we know that it is also masculine, and 

 he knows it to be femitiine, it must be admitted to 

 be of all genders; and so young learners will be 

 spared all the trouble of distinguishing between 

 them. If it be admitted that irao-i is neuter here, 

 it may signify all things. 



My otlier mistake, he says, has been that of not 

 perceiving tiiat tlie im[)erative let should be sup- 

 jjlied, instead of the indicative be. This must be 



allowed to be open to debate ; but as the proper 

 meaning of Ti7«o[,- is " to be esteemed honourable," 

 "had in reputation" (Acts v. -34.), will it be a mis- 

 take to say, that the primitive Christians would 

 properly respect marriage, in their clergy as well 

 as in others, on the ground of the Scriptures say- 

 ing, " Let marriage be esteemed honourably in 

 every respect?" Could they properly want ground 

 tor allowing it to the clergy, when they could also 

 read 1 Tim. iii. 2. 11., and Titus i. G. ? As Cephas 

 quotes the Vulgate for authority in favour of enim 

 in the next clause, he might have told your 

 readers to respect its authority in rendering the 

 first clause, " Honorabile connubium in omnibus." 

 And if he has no new rules for correcting Syriac 

 as well as Greek, that very ancient version, though 

 the gender of the adjective be ambiguous in the 

 equivalent to irSo-i, renders the next clause, " and 

 their couch is pure," showing that persons vfere 

 understood. 



Next comes K. S., who tells your readers that 

 Whiston quotes the well-known Doctor AVall for 

 evidence as to the prohibition of second marriages 

 among the Greek clergy, before the Council of 

 Nice. I should like to know something of this 

 well-known Doctor. There was a well-known 

 Mr. Wall, who wrote on baptism ; and there was 

 a Don Ricardo Wall, a Spanish minister of state, 

 well known in his day ; and there was a Governor 

 Wall, too well known from his being hanged ; but 

 I cannot find that any of these was a Doctor, so as to 

 be the well-known Doctor Wall, whose " authority 

 no one would willingly undervalue,"(p. 299.) As for 

 poor Whiston, his name was well known too, as a 

 bye-word for a person somewhat craz3', when he 

 quitted those mathematical studies which com- 

 pelled him to fi.x his mind on his subject with 

 steadiness whilst pursuing them. K. S. has told 

 us that he terms " the Apostolic Co?istitutions the 

 most sacred of the canonical books of the New 

 Testament." Such an opinion is cpiite enough as 

 a test of Whiston's power of judging in such ques- 

 tions. After much discussion, the most learned of 

 modern investigators assigns the compilation of the 

 first six books of those Constitutions to the end of 

 the third century, and the eighth to the middle of 

 the fourth. 



In the remarks to which Cephas has thus ad- 

 verted, I gave some evidence of marriages among 

 ecclesiastics, at later dates than your correspondent 

 supposes such to have been allowed. Can he dis- 

 prove that evidence ? (Sec Vol. iv., p. 194.) 



IIenrt Walter. 



Your correspondent Cephas attacks the autho- 

 rised version of lleb. xiii. 4., and favours your 

 readers with another. I venture to oiler a few 

 remarks on both these points. 



I. He thinks — 



" The authors of llio authorised version advisedly 



