[Footnote 169:  But Shaftesbury was bitterly opposed to one part of Locke’s philosophy.  ‘He was one of the first,’ writes Mr. Morell (History of Modern Philosophy, i. 203), ’to point out the dangerous influence which Locke’s total rejection of all innate practical principles was likely to exert upon the interests of morality.’  ’It was Mr. Locke,’ wrote Shaftesbury, ’that struck at all fundamentals, threw all order and virtue out of the world, and made the very ideas of these (which are the same as those of God) unnatural and without foundation in our minds.’  See also Bishop Fitzgerald in Aids to Faith.]

[Footnote 170:  Locke’s Works, vol. iv. p. 96.]

[Footnote 171:  ’My lord, I read the revelation of Holy Scriptures with a full assurance that all it delivers is true.’—­Locke’s Works, vol. iv. 341.]

[Footnote 172:  Locke’s Works, vol. vii. p. 166.]

[Footnote 173:  Locke’s Works, vol. vii. p. 188, Preface to the Reader of 2nd Vindication.]

[Footnote 174:  Locke’s Works, vol. iv. 259, 260.]

[Footnote 175:  ’Mr. Locke, the honour of this age and the instructor of the future’....  ’That great philosopher’....  ’It was Mr. Locke’s love of it [Christianity] that seems principally to have exposed him to his pupil’s [Lord Shaftesbury’s] bitterest insults.’—­Dedication of The Divine Legation (first three books) to the Freethinkers.]

[Footnote 176:  It is, however, not improbable that Locke contributed to some extent to foster that dry, hard, unpoetical spirit which characterised both the Deistical and anti-Deistical literature, and, indeed, the whole tone of religion in the eighteenth century.  ’His philosophy,’ it has been said, ‘smells of the earth, earthy.’  ’It is curious,’ writes Mr. Rogers (Essays, vol. iii. p. 104, ‘John Locke,’ &c.) ’that there is hardly a passing remark in all Locke’s great work on any of the aesthetical or emotional characteristics of humanity; so that, for anything that appears there, men might have nothing of the kind in their composition.  To all the forms of the Beautiful he seems to have been almost insensible.’  The same want in the followers of Locke’s system, both orthodox and unorthodox, is painfully conspicuous.  And again, as Dr. Whewell remarks (History of Moral Philosophy, Lecture v. p. 74) ’the promulgation of Locke’s philosophy was felt as a vast accession of strength by the lower, and a great addition to the difficulty of their task by the higher school of morality.’  The lower or utilitarian school of morality, which held that morals are to be judged solely by their consequences, was largely followed in the eighteenth century, and contributed not a little to the low moral and spiritual tone of the period.]

[Footnote 177:  The Calvinistic controversy was more bitter, but it belonged to the second, not the first half of the century.]

[Footnote 178:  ’They attacked a scientific problem without science, and an historical problem without history.’—­Mr. J.C.  Morison’s Review of Leslie Stephen’s ‘History of English Thought’ in Macmillan’s Magazine for February 1877.]