I subjoin the evidence, external and internal, which I have been able to discover in favour and in opposition to their authenticity.

The following are the external reasons against their authenticity-1st, Soon after Lord Bacon's death there were various spurious works ascribed to him, with which the Remains abound (b).-2dly, This

am quite at a loss to determine. If an ingenious man means to deride the belief of Christianity, could he have done it more effectually than in the work just now alluded to? Mr. Hume would say-No. There is some uncertainty as to the authenticity of this little tract. I suspect that Bacon meant to try his strength, and then to return quietly to the habitual conviction of his mind, that Christianity is true."

(b) In Rawley's Epistle to the Reader in the Resuscitatio, he says, "For some of the pieces, herein contained, his Lordship did not aim at the publication of them, but at the preservation only, and prohibiting them from perishing, so as to have been reposed in some private shrine, or library: but now, for that, through the loose keeping of his Lordship's papers, whilst he lived, divers surreptitious copies have been taken; which have since employed the press with sundry corrupt and mangled editions; whereby nothing hath been more difficult than to find the Lord Saint Alban in the Lord Saint Alban; and which have presented (some of them) rather a fardle of nonsense, than any true expressions of his Lordship's happy vein; I thought myself in a sort tied to vindicate these injuries and wrongs done to the monuments of his Lordship's pen; and at once, by setting forth the true and genuine writings themselves, to prevent the like invasions for the time to come." And Archbishop Tenison says, "This general acceptance of his works has exposed him to that ill and unjust usage which is common to eminent writers. For on such are fathered, sometimes spurious treatises; sometimes most corrupt copies of good originals; sometimes their essays and first thoughts upon good subjects, though laid aside

Tract is not recognised by Dr. Rawley, who in his address to the Reader in his Resuscitatio, does not mention it amongst the theological works which he enumerates, although he says, " I have compiled in one whatsoever bears the true stamp of his Lordship's excellent genius, and hath hitherto slept, and been suppressed, in this present volume, not leaving any thing to a future hand, which I found to be of

by them unprosecuted and uncorrected; and sometimes the very toys of their youth, written by them in trivial or loose arguments, before they had arrived either at ripeness of judgment, or sobriety of temper. The veriest straws (like that of Father Garnet) are shewn to the world as admirable reliques, if the least strokes of the image of a celebrated author, does but seem to be upon them. The press hath been injurious in this kind to the memory of Bishop Andrews, to whom it owed a deep and solemn reverence. In such an unbecoming manner it hath dealt, long ago, with the very learned and ingenious author of the Vulgar Errors. Neither hath the Lord Bacon gone without his share in this injustice from the press. He hath been ill dealt with in the letters printed in the Cabala, and Scrinia, under his name for Dr. Rawley professed, that though they were not wholly false, yet they were very corrupt and embased copies. This I believe the rather, having lately compared some original letters with the copies in that collection, and found them imperfect. And to make a particular instance; in comparing the letter of Sir Walter Raleigh to Sir Robert Car, of whom a fame had gone that he had begged his estate; I found no fewer than forty different, of which some were of moment. Our author hath been still worse dealt with, in a pamphlet in octavo, concerning the trial of the Earl and Countess of Somerset: and likewise in one in quarto, which beareth the title of Bacon's Remains, though there cannot be spied in it, so much as the ruins of his beautiful genius."

moment, and communicable to the public, save only some few Latin works, which, by God's favour and sufferance, shall soon after follow." And in another part of the same address he says, "I thought myself in a sort tied to vindicate these injuries and wrongs done to the monuments of his Lordship's pen; and at once, by setting forth the true and genuine writings themselves, to prevent the like invasions for the time to come."-3dly, It is not noticed by Archbishop Tenison, who published the Baconiana in 1679, in which he says, "His lordship's writings upon pious subjects are only these: his Confession of Faith, the Questions about an Holy War, and the Prayers in these Remains; and a translation of certain of David's Psalms, into English verse.(a)-4thly, There is not any MSS. of these Paradoxes.(b)

The external reasons in favor of their authenticity are, 1st, They are published in the Remains, in 1648, and, although they are not recognised, they are not expressly disowned either in 1657 by Dr. Rawley, or in 1679 by Archbishop Tenison, who does expressly repudiate (c) other works ascribed to Lord Bacon. Whether this silence is negative evidence that the Paradoxes are authentic, or that the friend and admirer of Lord Bacon, after having discredited the Remains, did not deem the Paradoxes entitled to a particular refutation, is

(a) Baconiana, page 72.

(b) I venture to assert this for I have not been able to find a MSS. I should be happy to have my error corrected.

(c) See note (b) ante xxviii.

a question not free from doubt, if it can be supposed that Dr. Rawley and the Archbishop were so insincere as, knowing their reality, to express their opinion of Lord Bacon's religious sentiments, and to censure the author of the Remains, without doing him the justice to acknowledge that the Paradoxes were authentic. 2dly, Dr. Rawley and Archbishop Tenison admit that there were other MSS. in existence. (d) 3dly. The authenticity of the paradoxes is supposed to have been acknowledged by Archbishop Sancroft; but upon enquiry it will, perhaps, appear that the Archbishop only corrected the copy which was inserted in the Remains, by comparing it with the first publication in 1645. (e).

(d) See note b, ante xxviii.

(e) Blackburn, in the fourth volume of his edition of Bacon, A. D. 1730, p. 438, says, "Archbishop Sancroft has reflected some credit on them by a careful review, having in very many instances corrected and prepared them for the press: among the other unquestioned writings of his lordship, I annex some of the passages from Blackburn, where Archbishop Sancroft is mentioned. “Our noble author's letters in the Resuscitatio' are in full credit; and yet these are in many instances corrected by Dr. Sancroft, and that uncontestably from MSS. because the author's subscription, under that prelate's hand, is in several particulars added, as N. X. Your lordship's most humbly in all duty. N. XI. Your lordship's in all humbleness to be commanded.' I I say I conceive it evident, that these subscriptions to the printed copy of 1657, do ascertain the additions to be made from original MSS. since they could not be added upon judgment or conjecture, but must be inserted from authority. And this gives sanction to the emendations of these letters contained in the Resuscitatio;' so that I may presume to

Such is the external evidence. The internal evidence is either from the thought, or the mode in which the thought is expressed.

The reasons against the authenticity of the Paradoxes, from the nature of the thought, are1st. If a spirit of piety (w) pervades the Paradoxes,

think this present edition is even more exact than what Dr. Rawley himself published. Blackburn, Vol. I. p. 193.

In page 458, of vol. iv. he says, "I have added some fragments from the quarto edition of the remains printed in 1648. That copy has been deservedly treated with great indignation and contempt being notoriously printed in a surreptitious and negligent manner. However, I do not remember a single page in this scandalous edition, excepting these fragments and the essay of a king, which does not appear in a more correct dress in some part or other of our noble author's works. This seems to give them a little credit; and Dr. Sancroft having corrected them with so much diligence, as to distinguish where he has done it from printed copies, I have some cause to apprehend that the other copies were amended by unquestionable MSS. of our noble author. The order they appear in is, 1. An Explanation what manner of persons those should be, that are to execute the power or ordinance of the king's prerogative, p. 3. This is corrected in very many places. 2. Short notes for civil conversation, p. 6. interlined in many places, with apt divisions, not observed in the edition of 1648. 3. An Essay on Death, p. 7. This is likewise corrected in very many places, and subdivided as if done from MSS. and made a new work. 4. The Characters of a believing Christian, in paradoxes and seeming contradictions. This in terms of abatement under the Archbishop's own hand stands thus: Compared with the other copy, printed Lond. anno, 1645. 5. A Prayer, corrected only in two places, which I must confess does not appear to be cast in the same mould with that printed above, p. 447.

(w) In the year 1762, the third edition of a penny tract