Is not this somewhat dangerous ground for "NOTES AND QUERIES" to venture upon, 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 direction 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 now are accustomed to turn to you for the resolution of many of our doubts; and, under these circumstances, it were better that you spake not at all, than that your language be incomplete or uncertain. But the present question, from the very nature of the case, is involved in some difficulty; and, to set about the proof of individual instances of the non-celibate _as a rule_ of the bishops of the primitive Church, or to discuss probabilities, which have already formed the subject of much παραδιατριβή, would fill more of your pages than you would be ready to devote to such a purpose. It would best then subserve the intentions of your publication, upon such a matter as the present, to direct the attention of your correspondents to accredited sources of information, and leave them to work out the results for themselves. Voluminous are these authorities, but it will be found that the following contain the entire subject in dispute, as presented by the combatants on both sides; namely, _The Defense of the Apologie_, edit. fol. 1571, pp. 194-231, 540-545.; Wharton's _Treatise of the Celibacy of the Clergy_, in Gibson's _Preservative against Popery_, fol. 1738, vol. i. pp. 278-339.; and Preby. Payne's _Texts Examin'd_, &c., in _the same_, pp. 340-359. Previously, however, to commencing the study of these authorities, I would recommend a perusal of the statement made by Messrs. Berington and Kirk, on the celibacy of the clergy, in _The Faith of Catholics_, &c., edit. 1830, p. 384. COWGILL. [COWGILL is right: the question of the Marriage of Ecclesiastics is not calculated for our pages. But our correspondent CEPHAS having impugned the scholarship of H. WALTER, and the honesty of the translators of the authorized version, justice required that we should insert MR. WALTER'S answer, and one of the many replies we have received in defence of the translators. With these, and COWGILL'S references to authorities which may be consulted upon the question, the discussion in our columns must terminate.] LORD STRAFFORD AND ARCHBISHOP USSHER. (Vol. iv., p. 290.)