My other mistake, he says, has been that of not perceiving that the imperative _let_ should be supplied, instead of the indicative _be_. This must be allowed to be open to debate; but as the proper meaning of τίμιος is "to be esteemed honourable," "had in reputation" (Acts v. 34.), will it be a mistake to say, that the primitive Christians would properly respect marriage, in their clergy as well as in others, on the ground of the Scriptures saying, "Let marriage be esteemed honourably in every respect?" Could they properly want ground for allowing it to the clergy, when they could also read 1 Tim. iii. 2. 11., and Titus i. 6.? 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 πᾶσι, renders the next clause, "and _their_ couch _is_ pure," showing that _persons_ were understood. Next comes K. S., who tells your readers that Whiston quotes the well-known _Doctor_ Wall 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 crazy, when he quitted those mathematical studies which compelled him to fix his mind on his subject with steadiness whilst pursuing them. K. S. has told us that he terms "the _Apostolic Constitutions_ the most sacred of the canonical books of the New Testament." Such an opinion is quite enough as a test of Whiston's power of judging in such questions. 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 adverted, I gave some evidence of marriages among ecclesiastics, at later dates than your correspondent supposes such to have been allowed. Can he disprove that evidence? (See Vol. iv., p. 194.) HENRY WALTER. Your correspondent CEPHAS attacks the authorised version of Heb. xiii. 4., and favours your readers with another. I venture to offer a few remarks on both these points. I. He thinks-- "The authors of the authorised version advisedly inserted _is_ instead of _let_, to forward their own new (?) doctrines."