estô]">ἔστω than ἐστί. See also Hammond and Macknight; and observe that the Alexandrian and two other MSS., for δὲ in the following sentence read γάρ, and the Vulgate translates by enim, "for."

I cannot but think that the makers of the authorized version advisedly inserted is instead of let, to forward their own new doctrines, as this their rendering would seem to countenance the marriage of priests. Curiously enough, when they had no interest in putting in the indicative instead of the imperative mood, those same translators have of themselves inserted, in the verse following, the latter, thus: "Let your conversation be without covetousness," &c. Moreover, in translating ἐν πᾶσι, in another passage of St. Paul, 2 Cor. xi. 6., they render it, "in all things;" in which same sense it is to be understood in the above place, Heb. xi. 4.

CEPHAS.

In lately reading that very curious book, Whiston's Autobiography, I met with some remarks on this subject, which I made a note of, and which are at the service of A. B. C. Whiston quotes the well-known Dr. Wall as follows:—

"The Greek Church still observe the rule of allowing their clergy to marry but once, and before the Council of Nice made a further rule that none after his orders should marry; and I believe it is hard to find in church history an instance of any one who married after he was in priest's orders for a thousand (in reality for above a thousand four hundred) years before Martin Luther."

The interpolation marked by a parenthesis is Whiston's, who proceeds:—

"The Church of England allows their very bishops to be twice—nay thrice—nay even four times married without any impediment to their episcopal functions, whereas the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople would not admit the Emperor Leo, a layman, into the church, because he had married a fourth wife."

Whiston, though a "fanciful man," as Burnet calls him, was well read in Christian antiquity, and his opinion is therefore of some weight. Wall's authority no one would willingly undervalue.

I cannot call to mind any English bishop who was four times married; yet Whiston would hardly have asserted the fact if he had not had some example in view. I should be obliged to any one who would inform me on the subject.[1]

[1] We have somewhere read of a Bishop Thomas giving his fourth wife a ring, with this posy:—