knowledge, and affect contempt for all that concerns most intimately our ’earthly tabernacles.’  Bacon taught us to consider as suspicious every relation, which depends in any degree upon religion, [93:1] but wiser than that ‘wisest of mankind,’ our real Christians execrate such teaching, and will have nothing good to do with those who walk in the light and honestly act in the spirit of it.  How dare they then pretend to sympathise with the opinions of Bacon?  It is true he announced himself willing to swallow all the fables of the Talmud or the Koran, rather than believe this Almighty frame without a Mind; but who is now prepared to determine the precise sense in which our illustrious philosopher used the words ‘without a mind.’  We believe his own interpretation altogether unchristian.  ‘To palter in a double sense’ has ever been the practice of philosophers who, like Bacon, knew more than they found it discreet to utter.  But with all their discretion, Locke, Milton, and even Newton did not succeed in establishing an orthodox reputation.  The passages from Locke given in this Apology do at least warrant our opinion that it may fairly be doubted whether he was either a Christian or a Theist.  Had he been disposed to avow Atheistical sentiments, he could not have done so, except at the imminent hazard of his life.  Speculative philosophers do not usually covet the crown of martyrdom, and are seldom unwilling to fling down a few religious sops to the Cerberus of popular bigotry.  It was the boast of Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais, that when communing with himself, he was always a philosopher, but when dealing with the mass of mankind, he was always a priest.  Who knows how far John Locke followed the safe example.  That he was a materialist his writings prove; and every far sighted Theist will admit that Atheism is the natural termination of Materialism.  John Locke may have been a devout believer in ‘thingless names,’ to which no merely human creature can attach clear and distinct ideas:  he may have thought the Bible had one of the said ‘thingless names’ for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without mixture of error for its matter; though very probable he affected such belief, to shield himself from persecution; but it is quite certain, and may be affirmed without injustice, that he should to have professed Atheism; for his own rule of philosophising is inconsistent with belief in any thing supernatural.  While living he was often charged with Atheism, by opponents who understood the tendencies of his philosophy better than he appeared to do himself.  But the Author of this Apology has no such mean opinion of John Locke, as to suppose him ignorant that Materialism, as he taught it, is totally irreconcileable with that God, and that Religion in which he professed to believe.  Belief in inconceivable entities cannot be reconciled with disbelief of all entities, save those of which we can frame clear and distinct ideas.  Nor is it easy to persuade oneself that Locke could so far have done violence to his own principles as to feel ‘lively faith’ in a ‘science’ with no other aim, end, or ground-work, than ’the knowledge and attributes of the unknown.’