It is not, however, so much in direct statements of doctrine as in the whole tenour and frame of his spirit, that Locke differs ‘in toto’ from the Deists:  for Locke’s was essentially a pious, reverent soul.  But it may be urged that all this does not really touch the point at issue.  The question is, not what were Locke’s personal opinions on religious matters, but what were the logical deductions from his philosophical system.  It is in his philosophy, not in his theology, that Locke’s reputation consists.  Was then the Deistical line of argument derived from his philosophical system? and if so, was it fairly derived?  The first question must be answered decidedly in the affirmative, the second not so decidedly in the negative.

That Locke would have recoiled with horror from the conclusions which the Deists drew from his premisses, and still more from the tone in which those conclusions were expressed, can scarcely be doubted.  Nevertheless, the fact remains that they were so drawn.  That Toland built upon his foundation, Locke himself acknowledges.[174] Traces of his influence are plainly discernible in Collins, Tindal—­of whom Shaftesbury calls Locke the forerunner,—­Morgan, Chubb, Bolingbroke, and Hume.

On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the opponents of Deism built upon Locke’s foundation quite as distinctly as any of the Deists did.  After his death, it was soon discovered that he was a Christian.  The orthodox Conybeare was not only an obvious follower of Locke, but has left on record a noble testimony to his greatness and his influence:  ’In the last century there arose a very extraordinary genius for philosophical speculations; I mean Mr. Locke, the glory of that age and the instructor of the present.’  Warburton was an equally enthusiastic admirer of our philosopher, and expressed his admiration in words very similar to the above.[175] Benson the Presbyterian told Lardner that he had made a pilgrimage to Locke’s grave, and could hardly help crying, ‘Sancte Johannes, ora pro nobis;’ and innumerable other instances of the love and admiration which Christians of all kinds felt for the great philosopher might be quoted.

The question then arises, Which of the two parties, the Deists or their adversaries, were the legitimate followers of Locke?  And the answer to this question is, ‘Both.’  The school of philosophy of which Locke was the great apostle, was the dominant school of the period.  And even in the special application of his principles to religion, it would be wrong to say that either of the two parties wholly diverged from Locke’s position.  For the fact is, there were two sides to Locke’s mind—­a critical and rationalising side, and a reverent and devotional side.  He must above all things demonstrate the reasonableness of the Christian religion, thereby giving the key-note to the tone of theology of the eighteenth century; but in proving this point, he is filled with a most devout and God-fearing spirit.