PREFACE. XXXI 



a question not free from doubt, if it can be supposed 

 that Dr. Rawley and the Archbishop were so insin 

 cere 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 Teni- 

 son admit that there were other MSS. in exist 

 ence. (d~) 3dly. The authenticity of the paradoxes is 

 supposed to have been acknowledged by Archbishop 

 Sancroft ; but upon enquiry it will, perhaps, appeal- 

 that the Archbishop only corrected the copy which 

 was inserted in the Remains, by comparing it with 

 the first publication in 1645. (c). 



(d) See note b, ante xxviii. 



(e) Blackburn, in the fourth volume of his edition of Bacon, 

 A. D. 1730, p. 438, says, &quot; 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, 1 annex some of the 

 passages from Blackburn, where Archbishop Sancroft is men 

 tioned. &quot; 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 say I conceive it evident, that these subscrip 

 tions 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 



