¥l 
volume of ‘ Notes and Queries.” It then occurred to me that my posi- 
tion as a member of Trinity College, Dublin, gave me the means of 
setting at rest this question, which has hitherto remained unanswered, 
And my principal object in making this communication to the Academy 
is to announce that, by a careful examination of the manuscript, I have 
been enabled to establish, that M. Cousin’s anticipation is perfectly 
correct. The “‘ Opus Majus” not only Aad, but in the Dublin manu- 
script still has, a seventh part devoted to moral philosophy. 
This seventh part is of considerable length: the six parts printed 
by Jebb fill 406 pages in the manuscript; the seventh occupies 92 
pages. It is written by the same hand as the earlier portion, and, like 
it, is filled with contractions. It begins on the same page on which the 
sixth part terminates. In fact, there is every appearance of perfect 
continuity with what precedes. It is headed, ‘‘ Incipit septima pars 
hujus persuasionis, de Morali Philosophia’”—a formula quite similar, 
with the single change of the number and subject, to those prefixed to 
the preceding parts. The first words are, ‘‘ Manifestavi in preecedentibus,” 
—which imply something before them. These are striking indications, 
exhibiting themselves at once on inspection. It might, however, be 
urged, that the latter only shows the treatise to form a part of some 
larger work, not necessarily of the “‘ Opus Majus,”’ and that the former 
might have arisen from the mistake of a transcriber ; and Jebb’s omis- 
sion of the treatise in his edition naturally made me slow to attach im- 
portance to these prima facie evidences. But when the treatise is exa- 
mined throughout, the truth becomes apparent. Every allusion to 
preceding matter, and such allusions are frequent, becomes perfectly 
clear on the hypothesis that we are reading a part of the ‘‘ Opus Majus.” 
It would be easy to multiply proofs of this kind: at present I will men- 
tion only a few, which, however, appear decisive :— 
In the opening pages of the treatise Bacon enumerates the subjects 
treated in the first six parts of the ‘‘ Opus Majus,”’ in the order in which 
they occur in that work, and in doing so speaks of their utility 
“‘ relate ad Dei Ecclesiam et cetera tria prenarrata.’’? Now to under- 
stand this phrase we must go back to the first page of the ‘ Opus 
Majus,” where this sentence occurs:—‘‘ Per lumen sapientie ordinatur 
Ecclesia Dei, respublica fidelium disponitur, infidelium conversio procu- 
ratur, et illi qui in malitia obstinati sunt, valent per virtutem sapientize 
reprimi..... Omnia vero que indigent regimine sapientize ad hee 
quatuor reducuntur.” The idea of these four ends is reproduced fre- 
quently through the “‘ Opus Majus,” and may be said to be woven into 
its texture. And the reference, ‘‘ ceetera tria preenarrata,” is strictly 
similar to those throughout the whole ‘‘Opus Majus,” in which the 
opening passage is recalled,—such, for example, as that which is found 
in page 58 of Jebb’s edition,—“‘ sicut ad Ecclesiam Dei et cetera tria 
comparantur.”’ 
Again, in fol. 242 of the manuscript, when proving the necessary 
existence of seven sects only, including that of Antichrist, he says:— 
“* Superius in comparatione Mathematice ad Ecclesiam revolute sunt 
