In the second, if it were genuine, one must, as I said at starting, be on one's guard in reading the writings of a monkish historian; so that, even if I could be induced to believe in the authenticity of the passage, I should deny that of the story.

In the third place, if both the passage and the story were authentic, they would only prove that it is well to keep a sharp eye upon converts from Romanism; for, assuming that Bishop Germanus was a convert from that religion, it would be likely enough that the old leaven might occasionally exhibit itself; and this tampering with relics and miracles on the part of Germanus, looks as if he had not been instructed with sufficient carefulness by the British clergyman who prepared him for confirmation.

In the fourth place, I consider this one of the most valuable passages in the whole of Bede, because it proves conclusively that in the early British Church no reverence was paid to relics. For Germanus, having been formerly a Roman Catholic, naturally possessed "a casket with relics of saints." Now, what do we find him doing with it? Was he kissing it, or kneeling down before it ? No! "He applied it to the girl's eyes." We are not told with how much speed or violence, but we may conjecture with much. In all probability, he projected it, propelled it, threw it, or, as boys would vulgarly say, "shied it" at the girl's eyes, "which were immediately delivered from darkness, and filled with the light of truth." Obviously this means

D

that when the girl perceived that a bishop threw a casket of relics at her head, she saw clearly enough that he set no value on them.

Previous to this happy incident, the girl had been in the darkness of the popular error that there was some virtue in relics, whereas now her eyes were filled with the light of the truth that they were vain things fondly invented.

In the fifth place, I see no reason whatever for putting a strained meaning on the Latin word reliquiæ. Virgil speaks of reliquias Danaum, Cæsar uses the word with gladiatoriæ familiæ, Livy uses it with cladis, while Suetonius makes reliquias serve to express the unconsumed remains of a sacrifice. Cicero, again, puts it with the genitive pristinæ fortuna. Now, in not one of

these instances is the word used in its monkish sense of " relics," and I will take this opportunity of expressing the melancholy satisfaction it would have given me to have had the flogging of the dunce who first mistranslated the word in such a manner. More I can

not say!

The word "miracle," which occurs in the passage under our notice, at first sight presents some difficulties, as we know that no authentic miracles were worked after apostolic times; but I am inclined to doubt the accuracy of the date assigned by Bede to Germanus, for it may have been in the second and not the fifth century that he lived a mistake of two or three hundred years being a common thing with early, and especially Popish, historians—and it is just possible that one

of the apostles may have lived to an extraordinary age, perhaps until near the close of the second century. As long as one apostle lived, even if he were in an advanced stage of second childhood, the times were still apostolic; so if an apostle yet lingered in the days of Germanus, a miracle was then possible.

The multitude rejoiced at the miracle, and praised the power of -God. An infinite number of the poorer sort watched day and night before the cottage; some to heal their souls, and some their bodies. It is impossible to relate what Christ wrought by His servant, what wonders the sick man performed.10