Page:A budget of paradoxes (IA cu31924103990507).pdf/99

 the edition have been served in the same way. The Religious Tract Society republished them recently in 'Selections from the Writings of Lord Bacon,' (no date; bad plan; about 1863, I suppose). No omissions were made, so far as I find.

I never believed that Bacon wrote this paper; it has neither his sparkle nor his idiom. I stated my doubts even before I heard that Mr. Spedding, one of Bacon's editors, was of the same mind. (Athenæum, July 16, 1864). I was little moved by the wide consent of orthodox men: for I knew how Bacon, Milton, Newton, Locke, &c., were always claimed as orthodox until almost the present day. Of this there is a remarkable instance.

Among the books which in my younger day were in some orthodox publication lists—I think in the list of the Christian Knowledge Society, but I am not sure—was Locke's 'Reasonableness of Christianity.' It seems to have come down from the eighteenth century, when the battle was belief in Christ against unbelief, simpliciter, as the logicians say. Now, if ever there were a Socinian book in the world, it is this work of Locke. 'These two,' says Locke, 'faith and repentance, i.e. believing Jesus to be the Messiah, and a good life, are the indispensable conditions of the new covenant, to be performed by all those who would obtain eternal life.' All the book is amplification of this doctrine. Locke, in this and many other things, followed Hobbes, whose doctrine, in the Leviathan, is fidem, quanta ad salutem necessaria est, contineri in hoc articulo, Jesus est Christus. For this Hobbes was called an atheist, which many still believe him to have been: some of his contemporaries called him, rightly,