relating to leases made by colleges in the two universities, and the colleges of Winchester and Eton. This statute (sect. 1) requires, with certain trifling exceptions, that in such leases, one-third of the old rent should be reserved in corn, i. e. in wheat, after the rate of 6s. Sd. the quarter, and malt at 5s. the quarter: or that the lessees should pay for the same according to the price that wheat and malt should be sold for in the neighbouring market on the market day before the rent becomes due. This provision is said to have been the invention of Lord Treasurer Burleigh, and Sir Thomas Smith, then principal secretary of state, with the view to protect college revenues from being prejudiced by the depreciation in the value of money, and increase in the price of provisions, resulting from the extensive importation of bullion from America. The sagacity evinced in the introduction of corn rents is abundantly illustrated by the fact, that though the original proportion of rent reserved in corn was only half of that reserved in money; yet at the present day the proportion is entirely changed, the corn rent varying to from four to five times the pecuniary rent.

In the course of the last century, certain explanatory statutes have been passed for the purpose of removing particular doubts which had arisen upon the construction of the preceding statutes. Thus the statute 4 Geo. II. c. 28, sec. 6, enacted, that chief leases might be renewed without the surrender of the underleases ;- -a circumstance which had been formerly deemed necessary. The statute 5 Geo. III. c. 17, related to ecclesiastical and eleemosynary leases of tithes and other incorporeal hereditaments; the validity of which assurances, under the former statutes, had been questioned, on the ground that there was no remedy for rent in arrear by distress, nor (when the lease was for a life or lives) by action of debt. All this was obviated by the statute 5 Geo. III. which established and authorized all such leases, and enabled the lessors to bring actions of debt for the rent reserved on freehold leases of incorporeal hereditaments. Another recent explanatory statute is the 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 41, by which lands, formerly demised together at an entire rent, may now be demised separately at apportioned rents.

There are also some few other enactments relating to leases by ecclesiastical or eleemosynary corporations, but which, being of local or temporary operation, are not noticed in the chart.

J. E.

ON 1 TIMOTHY iii. 15.

Mr. EDITOR,In the Christian Remembrancer for April last (p. 221), appears a criticism on the above celebrated text. It is not my purpose to animadvert on the new interpretation proposed by your correspondent, but to propose my own view of the meaning of this passage. In order to examine the Apostle's words with less danger from preconceived opinions as to their true interpretation, I write them without the introduction of any stops, and in this state examine their connexion.

Ταῦτά σοι γράφω ἐλπίζων ἐλθεῖν πρός σε τάχιον ἐὰν δὲ βραδύνω ἵνα · εἰδῇς πῶς δεῖ ἐν οἴκῳ Θεοῦ ἀναστρέφεσθαι ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ ζῶντος στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς ευσεβείας μυστήριον Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκὶ . . κ. τ. λ. These words I would render into English as follows: "These things I write to thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly. But, in case I should delay, in order that thou mayest know how it is fit to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth (and without controversy great is the mystery of the true religion) is this, God was manifested in the flesh, &c." The preceding part of the Epistle had been written by St. Paul, under a hope that he might shortly come to Timothy, and have an opportunity of fully communicating all necessary instruction; but this was only a hope, and might therefore be disappointed. Accordingly he proceeds, under this apprehension, to give a compendium, as it were, of the Christian doctrine, telling his disciple that this declaration, viz, God was manifested in the flesh, &c." forms "the pillar and support of the truth." And this he makes known to Timothy in order that, under any possible delay on the part of St. Paul, the former might know in what manner it behoved him to order his conduct in the Church of God, or what should be the beginning and the ending, the sum and substance of his preaching. Our authorized version seems to countenance the Rubric interpretation, which makes "the Church" to be "the pillar and ground" or stay" of the truth; not, of course, as the Romanists urge, any particular Church, but the universal Apostolical Church of Christ. Against this, however, I think we may advance the improbability that St. Paul, having just before called the Church "the house of God," should immediately term the same Church a pillar. Our Saviour declares that the rock upon which he will build his Church, is the declaration of St. Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living 'God;" and St. Paul asserts the pillar, which supports the same Church, to be this equivalent truth, "God was manifested in the flesh." This latter text delivers in one proposition the same truth which St. John makes the subject of two; viz. "The Word was God," and "The Word was made flesh." I cannot but think it singular that the Church of Rome, for the support of her own unjust pretensions, should have fixed upon those two texts in particular for perversion; the one of which sets forth the rock on which the Church of Christ is founded, the other the pillar by which it is upheld. With respect to the widely different readings of this text (1 Tim. iii. 15), it must be admitted, as Archbishop Lawrence observes, that although in his Symbola Critica Griesbach is" contented to rank the manuscripts A and C as mere neutrals in the contest," yet in his Notes to the New Testament he admits neither neutrality in one case, nor probability in the other; but assumes certainty in both,-(Remarks on the Systematic Classification of MSS. adopted by Griesbach, p. 73,) that is to say, he assumes the reading of A and C to be os, which it is well known he introduces into the above text in place of Osóc. In addition to the weighty reasons previously alleged by various critics in opposition to this innovation, we may add that it opposes a rule established by Griesbach himself, “E pluribus ejusdem loci lectionibus ea præstat quæ velut media inter

66

cæteras interjacet, hoc est ea, quæ reliquarum omnium quasi stamina ita continet, ut hâc tanquam primitivâ admissâ, facilè appareat quanam ratione seu potius quonam erroris genere ex ipsâ cæteræ omnes propullularint." (Prolegom. N. T. Sect. III. § 11.). My own persuasion is, that, upon Griesbach's own shewing, the MS, authorities for Dedc preponderate. But were it not so, were these authorities equally balanced between ös and Os, then, in compliance with the preceding Canon, the latter ought to have been preferred. If öc were the original reading, then wilful corruption (a supposition never to be admitted without almost demonstrative proof) must have changed os into es, and another hand, totally unconnected with the first, must have changed os into 6. By taking og for the original, therefore, the origin of the other readings cannot be but very circuitously accounted for: it does not contain the "stamina" of the others; nor can they by any kind of error" have been deduced from it. If we agree with the Latin Vulgate that ó was the genuine reading of the text, it is, then, most unaccountable how os or cor either of them came to be thought of. But if St. Paul wrote Oɛoc epavɛpwon, then it is manifest by what kind of error os was formed; unquestionably by an accidental omission of the virgula in ✪ in the contracted form Os. Thus os would be propagated through a whole recension or family of MSS. until a transcriber, with a view of rendering the passage more grammatical, changed os into ó, from which quod in the occidental recension was derived. Thus, the reading Osos "tanquam primitiva posita, facile apparet quonam erroris genere ex ipsâ cæteræ omnes propullularint. With respect to the supposition of a wilful corruption of the text, (which if og be genuine can hardly be avoided,) it seems probable that any person having this impious intention, would have fixed rather on Coloss. i. 27, where the change of os into Os would much more readily have effected the object of one who desired, at whatever expense, to maintain a particular doctrine.,

I am, Sir, your very obedient Servant,

II. THE CHARACTER OF ST. PAUL AFTER HIS CONVERSION. ›rshub IN the former part of this enquiry, it was proposed to ascertain what those points were in which St. Paul required to be changed. In a person, in whose heart and life there exists a great and presumptuous depravity, there exists also the necessity for an alteration chiefly of his vital principles of action. But the considerations which have been suggested shew, that neither the general character of St. Paul, nor his acknowledged fault, was of a nature to support the notion of such a malignancy, or, consequently, of such a necessity. But his conduct, in one material point, required to be rectified; and (with relation to that point and to his whole character) the principal defects from which he needed to be set free were his early and ill

!

founded prejudices, his erroneous opinions in religion, and his ignorance of the truth of God.

It was, therefore, antecedently probable, that his conversion would consist chiefly in a change from a state of error to a condition of better knowledge.

But, in the second place, it is desirable to examine what appearance there actually was, in that event, of his heart and principles being changed; or how far the history suggests the notion of an alteration chiefly from erroneous prejudice to a conviction of the truth.

As the misguided man journeyed on his errands of fiery zeal, he suddenly was met on the way by a supernatural vision. A light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shone round about him. He saw before him the majestic presence of a celestial Being, of a person manifestly clothed in the splendour of Omnipotence, fresh from the throne of heaven. He fell to the earth in trembling astonishment, blinded by the glory of that light; and heard the voice of that celestial presence saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?"-The affrighted man replied "Who art thou, Lord?" and he said, "I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest."

At once was the mistaken Saul convinced of the utter falsity of his former opinions on the question, whether or no Jesus had been sent from God. In one moment he perceived that the Nazarene, whose name he had opposed, was a person of transcendent dignity. The glory of the vision, the celestial majesty surrounding the Divine Person who appeared, exacted implicit credence of what he asserted. The presence of witnesses, the blindness till the third day, removed only by the word of a servant of the Lord,-in short, the whole, miracle, with all its attendant circumstances, must and did stamp conviction on the mind of the astonished Saul. He could not doubt of what he had learned by such awful experience, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God. His error was rectified, his prejudice removed, his judgment enlightened, on that one great fact.

Thus far the case is simply that of a miracle wrought to convince a mistaken man of his erroneous opinions: it was thus far precisely calculated for that single end.

But more than this effect was also produced at the same time. The misguided man, who had hitherto opposed that holy cause, of the truth of which he was now for ever convinced, was naturally struck with horror and remorse for his past injurious behaviour. He bitterly regretted having done so many things contrary to that name, which he now found to be blessed for evermore. He resolved utterly to renounce his opposition to it, and to dedicate himself, soul and body, to the defence of it in future.

If, then, we suppose him to have been previously sincere in his intentions, and merely misled by prejudice and ill-directed zeal, the whole event is plain, natural, and consistent. It is perfectly natural for an honest heart to accept and follow truth when clearly presented to the mind. It is consistent and intelligible, that one who had pursued with ardent though erroneous zeal the imagined cause of God, should, on perceiving his mistake, and being taught a better and truer course, follow in the path of his new conviction; and that, in pro

1

portion to the former evil which his errors had produced, he should determine, with augmented energy, to retrieve the mischief by unbounded devotion to the cause of truth.

to Again, the supposition of St. Paul's early sincerity, renders it consistent and natural that he should be selected by his Divine Master for the high and holy office to which he was called. His youthful piety, his uprightness of intention, his religious and fervent zeal, rendered him a fit instrument to be employed to exert the same zeal, the same religious feelings, the same conscientious and honourable principles for the defence of truth, which he had before unwittingly employed against it. The rebound of so energetic a mind to the side of truth would be vigorous in proportion to his previous distortion from it: his tenderness of conscience, and the remorse arising from the perception of his injurious errors, would give an unbounded impulse to his ardent soul. To him, on that supposition, would fully apply his own description of the feelings of the Corinthians, "Behold this selfsame thing, that he sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in him, yea what indignation, yea what vehement desire, yea what zeal, yea what revenge."

In this account of the transaction, then, every thing is rational, intelligible, and satisfactory: every thing accords with his own assertion that his Lord "placed him in the ministry, for that He counted him faithful."

But, on the other hand, if, in defiance of proof to the contrary, we assume the hypothesis of his wilful and presumptuous depravity, we are met, at every turn, by insuperable difficulties. We imagine that the discerning and equitable Judge of men,-he who so severely rebuked the Pharisees for their wilful blindness to the truth,- would confer on one of their number his unmerited favour and exalted confidence; without cause altering his awful expressions of indignant condemnation to the mild and friendly expostulation of "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" an interrogation, surely, which in its very terms denotes that the person addressed was ignorant of the evil he was committing. We imply that our Lord raised, not to the episcopal, but to the apostolic office, a person whom we designate, not merely a novice, but a reprobate.

Again, we suppose that a man of wilful hostility to the truth did all at once meekly submit to divine authority, and to the word of Him whom he before had knowingly scorned, reply, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" We imagine that a man of worldly, selfish, and oblique intentions-one who had the means, and on this hypothesis the wish, to raise himself to rank and power among the chiefs of his nation,-all at once gave up every earthly prospect,-his ambition, his ease, his reputation itself;-that he, who had cruelly and wantonly persecuted others, on a sudden consented to become the persecuted; changed from the proud and bitter enemy of truth, so far as to devote his person, his services, his very life-blood itself, the whole course and purpose of his being, to the cause he had before wilfully opposed: all this we imagine he did, not in consequence of a total sudden change of opinion, but simply because he was convinced of a truth, of which we assume him to have been already sufficiently