348 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 105. 



inserted is instead of let, to forward their own new (?) 

 doctrines." 



Doubtless wliatevei' the translators did was done 

 " advisedly ; " but what proof has Cephas that they 

 adopted the present version merely to serve their 

 own " intei'est ? " Some verb inust be supplied, 

 and either form will suit the passage. It is true 

 that Hammond prefers let to is, but there is as 

 great authority on the other side. 



1. St. Ghrysostom : 



" For marriage is honourable, and the bed und f filed : 

 why art thou ashamed of the honoiirablL- ; wliy bliisliest 

 thou at the uiidefiled?" — Honi. XII. (Colos.vi.), Oxf. 

 Trans., vol. xiv. p. 330. 



" For marriage is honourable." — Horn. X. (1 Tim. i.), 

 Oxf. Trans., vol. xli. p. 77. 



" And this I savi not as accusing marriage ; for it is 

 honourable: but those who have used it amiss." — 

 Horn. IX. (2 Coriii. iii.), Oxf. T., vol. xxvii. p. 120. 



" And the blessed Paul says, ' Marriaye is honour- 

 able in all, and the bed unde filed ;' but he has nowhere 

 said, that the care of riches is honourable, but the re- 

 verse." — Horn. V. (Tit. ii.), Oxf. T., vol. xii. p. 313. 



" Thus marriage is accounted an honourable thing 

 both by us and by those without : and it is honourable." 



— Horn. XII. (1 Cor. ii.), Oxf. T., vol. iv. p. IGO. 



2. St. Augustine : 



" Hear what God saith ; not what thine own mind, 

 in indulgence to thine own sin", may say, or what thy 

 friend, thine enemy rather and his own too, bound in 

 the same bond of lni(|ulty with thee, may sav. Hear 

 then what the Apostle saith : ' Marriage is honourable in 

 all, and the bed undcfiled. But whoremongers and adul- 

 terers God will judge." — Horn, on N. T., Serm. xxxii. 

 [82 C], Oxf. T., vol. xvi. p. 26.'?. 



" ' Honourable, therefore, is marriage in all, [he had 

 just before been speaking of married persons] and 

 the bed undefiled.' And this we do not so call a good, 

 as that it is a good in comparison of fornication," &c. 



— Short Treat, de Bono Conjug., Oxf. T., vol. xxii. 

 p. 283. 



3. St. Jerome, to whose authority perhaps 

 Cephas will sooner bow on a version of Holy 

 Scripture than to Hammond's ; 



" llli scriptum est : ' Honorabiles nupticB, et cubile 

 immaculatum : ' Tibi legitnr, ' Fornicatores autem et 

 adulteros judicabit Deus.'" — 69. Epist. ad Ocean. 

 Bier. Op., vol. i. f. 325. Basile:e. Ed. Erasm. 152C. 



In all these passages the words are quoted 

 affirmatively, as is evident from the context : and 

 it seems more likely, as well as more charitable, to 

 believe that our translators were induced to adopt 

 the present version in deference to such authorities, 

 than to impute to them paltry motives of party 

 purposes, which at the same time they have them- 

 selves taken the surest means to get exposed, by 

 printing the inserted word in Italics. Can Cephas 

 adduce any Father who quotes the text as he would 



read it, in the imperative mood, and with the sense 

 of "all things," not "all persons?" There may 

 be such, but they require to be alleged in the face 

 of positive and adverse testimony. It is evident 

 that the mere substitution of co-tw for eVn, without 

 an entire change of the rest of the {)assage, will 

 make no difference ; for that which was an asser- 

 tion before will then have become a command. 



II. Cephas proposes another version, and ob- 

 serves, " H. Waltee mistakes the adjective femi- 

 nine iv Trocrt as meaning ' all men,' whereas it 

 signifies here 'in all things.'" Probably this is 

 the first time that Mr. H. Walter and your other 

 readers ever heard that iv ircvn was a, feminine ad- 

 jective. Your learned critic must surely have 

 either forgotten his Greek grammar, in his haste 

 to correct the translators of the Bible, or else is 

 not strong in the genders ; for he has unluckily hit 

 upon the very gender which TrScri cannot be, by any 

 possibility. But let it pass for a " lapsus memo- 

 ria;." However, he supports his version of " all 

 things" by one other passage, 2 Cor. xi. 6., where 

 yet it may be translated, as Hammond himself 

 does in the margin, "among all men" (cf, v. 8.) : 

 and I will offer hiiu one other : 



Iva iv TTcici So|af7)Tai 6 &(hs Sia 'IjjfroO XpicrroD. — 

 1 Pet. iv. 11. 



[Scil. x''/"''''/"'"''"'- ] 



But does Cephas mean t-o say that iv irSo-i is 

 ahcays to be thus rendered, when found without a 

 substantive? Here are five passages from St 

 Paul's Epistles, in which, with one possible excep- 

 tion, it evidently means " persons," not " things." 



1 . 6 Si avrds icrri ©eJts, i inpyHv to, vdvra iv iruaiv. 

 — 1 Cor. xii. 6. 



2. 'Iva 7) 6 ®ibs Ta iravra iv iracric. — 1 Cor. xv. 2S. 



3. pipSapoi, ^icvBrjs, 5oii\os, i\iv8epos, aWa to Travra 

 ical eV ttScti XpiarSs. — Col. iii. 1 1. 



4. Tavra /ieAeVa, iv tovtois tcrdi ' 'iva, aov rj wpoicoirr] 

 (pavepa. ^ e'v iriiaiv. — 1 Tim. iv. 15. 



5. dAA' ovK iv Traaiv i] yvUffis. — 1 Cor. viii. 7, 



Upon the whole, then, I imagine that if any one 

 will take the trouble to compare the passages above 

 cited, and others in which the phrase iv irairt is 

 used, he will find that generally it refers to " per- 

 sons," and requires to be limited by the context 

 before it bears the sense of '■'■things:" — in otlter 

 words, that the former meaning is to be considered 

 the rule, the latter the exception. E. A. D. 



Is not this somewhat dangerous ground for 

 " Notes and (Queries" to venture ui)on, bearing 

 in mind "the depths profound" of disputatious 

 polemics by which it is bounded ? As, however, 

 A. B. C. has, to a certain extent, led you forward, 

 it were well for you to offer a more sufficient direc- 

 tion to the intricacies of the way, than can be 

 found in the only half-informed " Replies " which 

 have hitherto been given to his inquiry. This is 

 the more necessary, as we noiv are accustomed to 



