Master's command, and baptized all their converts into the name of the Lord Jesus' alone, had they only just received from him the express injunction to baptize them in the name of the Trinity.

The treatment which many, perhaps all, of the original manuscripts of the Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament experienced at the hands of the Fathers of the Early Church may be illustrated by that to which the early English ballads were subjected by their compiler and editor, Bishop Percy. That otherwise conscientious man arbitrarily altered the manuscripts which came into his hands in such a manner as to leave the readers of the poems he gave to the world as antiques quite in the dark as to what parts of them were really ancient and what parts were mock-antiques of his own. And these hybrid compositions were to serve, and in fact have served, as sources of information and as models to our modern poets! As regards one of the poems, 'Sir Cauline,' the Bishop complacently avows that, as it appeared to fall short of the perfection it seemed to deserve, he was tempted to add several stanzas in the first part, and still more in the second, so as to connect and complete the story in the manner which appeared to him most interesting and affecting,'--his object being to please both the judicious antiquary and the reader of taste,' and his endeavour to gratify both without offending either.' If such tampering with original documents was deemed not only venial, but even justifiable, by a prelate of the Established Church of England, in order to meet the requirements of a polished age," "like that in which he lived, it will certainly not be judging human nature too harshly to suppose that, in the ages immediately following that in which our Lord lived, that prelate's predecessors may in like manner have sought to please both the judicious (Jewish) antiquary' and the Greek or Roman 'reader of taste,' by altering the Sacred History so as to 'gratify both without offending either.'

In spite of the Apostle Paul's warning, the maxim has always prevailed in the Church-that is to say, among the clergy—that

pious frauds are allowable, nay commendable, when done ad majorem Dei gloriam '-for the greater glory of God; and there can be no doubt that this fraudulent system prevailed to a frightful extent among the Fathers of the Christian Church. In saying this, it is not meant to impute any specially evil intentions to them in particular. They were generally pious, wellintentioned men; but they were men like ourselves, and they had a cause to serve, which they felt it to be their bounden duty to advance by every means in their power. Hence there is no reason whatever to regard them as incapable of palming off on their ignorant, superstitious, and credulous flocks just such palpable fictions as have been invented and promulgated down to the present day, and are defended, nay insisted on, by divines of the highest position in the Church, in other respects liberal and enlightened men, who would feel aggrieved if they were thought not to be devout and sincere Christians, but whose piety, it is to be feared, is after all much on a par with that which inspired the prayer of Leicester and his confederates in Sheridan's famous play, 'The Critic':

'O mighty Mars!

Behold thy votaries submissive beg,

That thou wilt deign to grant them all they ask,

And sanctify whatever means they use

To gain it.'

It may be objected by simple-minded professors of Christianity, that it is not possible for the true religion to have spread itself as it has over the world by means of such a system of fraud and imposture. But this they can only say in ignorance of the laws that regulate the spread of religion, and indeed of all other opinions, the reception of which by the masses of mankind is generally far from being dependent on their truth or falsehood. Were it otherwise, a plebiscitum of the whole human race would soon settle the question as to which is the true religion. The actual result, when placed in the form of a return of the poll after an election, may surprise those who fancy that the truth must at once prevail as a matter of course. That it

D

will prevail eventually there can be no doubt; but the time of its accomplishment is in the hands of the God of Truth alone.

In the following return-list, the Roman Catholics, as being the votaries of the Mother of God' (and it might be added of the various saints likewise) more than of the Son, or even the Father, are entered as giving their votes for Mary.' The Orthodox Greeks shall be classed with them. Protestants are entered as voting for Christ,' Jews for Jehovah,' Mohammedans for Allah.' The Polytheists of Asia are returned as voting for Buddha' and 'Brahma' respectively. The votes of other heathens, principally Africans, have to be recorded as blank or informal. The numbers given may not be quite correct, but they are sufficiently so for the purpose required.

So that Buddha, or Sakya-Muni, has a preponderating majority, his followers comprising more than one quarter of the human race, and exceeding all the Christian sects put together! If two candidates had to be returned, the colleague of Buddha would be Brahma (the two together polling nearly half the world!), though between the latter and Mary it is almost a tie. It is seen Who is at the bottom of the poll, just as Truth is said to be at the bottom of a well! And the result but too plainly shows that, as regards religious faith at all events, 'vox populi' is not 'vox Dei.'

It may be rejoined, that the early professors of Christianity gave the most convincing proof of the truth of their religion by suffering death or the most cruel tortures rather than renounce it. But those who rely on such an argument should bear in mind

that the testimony of the confessors and martyrs of the first century, at Rome and elsewhere, is of no greater intrinsic value as evidence than that of their followers and imitators in the second and third centuries, or at any later period. Their selfsacrifice demonstrates the sincerity of their belief, but that is all; it is no sure evidence of the facts on which that belief was founded. On the contrary, how many martyrs have there not been for various differences of belief, and even for totally different religions! The ancient Romans slaughtered the early Christians; and the modern Romans in Italy, Spain, and France have murdered Jews, Mohammedans, Albigenses, Huguenots, and other 'heretics,'-every one, in fact, that was not an 'orthodox' Christian. And here in England, the Roman Catholics have burned the Protestants, and the Protestants the Roman Catholics. Which of these various armies of martyrs' did not die in the firm conviction that they suffered for the truth? And which of the persecuting parties did not believe that they were acting for the greater glory of God? For the heathens were convinced that they were performing an acceptable service to their deities, quite as fully as the Christians believed they were pleasing the All-merciful God by offering up to Him their human sacrifices!

Reverting to the origin of traditions and legends, it has to be remarked that, notwithstanding the prevalence of what are commonly called gratuitous falsehoods, it may be questioned whether an error can ever obtain general adoption unless it has some foundation of truth, however slight that foundation may be, and however much the truth may have been tampered with and perverted. It is a homely proverb that there is no smoke without fire;' and if this is not always true in the sense in which it is usually understood, namely, that there must necessarily be some foundation for what is not unfrequently the falsest of accusations, it is true enough, nevertheless, if that foundation be looked for in appearances, or in the motive for making such accusation.

Truths, when presented to the generality of persons in an ab

stract form, fail to make the same impression on their minds as when placed before them in the concrete. In this instance, as in most others, example is better than precept. The following anecdote is therefore given in illustration of what has just been asserted.

All who have read Sir Walter Scott's novel Kenilworth' will remember the life-like scene at the Black Bear Inn at Cumnor, kept by Giles Gostling, with which the tale opens. The whole incident, like most of those in that highly interesting but most unhistorical romance, is pure fiction. That there was a village inn of some sort at Cumnor in the time of Scott's heroine, Amy Robsart, is most probable, and that one existed there when 'Kenilworth' was written is certain; though whether it was the same house, or bore the same sign at both periods, may not now be ascertainable. But that the sign was not the Black Bear,' or any thing like it, is an undisputable fact, as may indeed be inferred from the suggestive note of the author of the novel, in the edition published in 1831, that The jolly “Black Bear" has been restored to his predominance over bottle and bowl in the village of Cumnor.'

How this restoration' was brought about of what had previously no existence, except in the imagination of the novelist, is deserving of being related, as showing plainly how local 'traditions' often originate, and also because it is believed that the precise particulars have never been made known to the public *.

On the first appearance of Kenilworth,' in the year 1821, some undergraduates of the University of Oxford, from which city Cumnor is distant about three miles, had a signboard painted with a representation of the 'Bear and Ragged Staff,' the badge of the noble family of Neville, which had been wrongfully assumed as his own by the upstart Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, the hero of Scott's novel; and this signboard they took to Cumnor, where they had no great difficulty in inducing

*The statement in Notes and Queries,' 3rd ser. v. 439, does not give all the details.