The book was attacked not by infidels but by believers, not by those who objected to Christianity but by those who, attaching importance to certain truths passed over by Locke, thought that he presented an objectionable view of the Gospel. He appeared to them to be a rationalist. Dr. Edwards, a clergyman of the Church of England, son of the famous Presbyterian who wrote the _Gangræna_, assailed the treatise with bitterness; and so great was its unpopularity in some quarters, that a Prelate, who thought of it favourably, candidly confessed: “If I should be known to think so, I should have my lawn sleeves torn from my shoulders.” Foreign divines, however, hailed it with applause, especially Dutch friends of the Remonstrant school, Le Clerc and Limborch. It found numerous readers abroad, and a Dorsetshire rector, named Samuel Bold, though thoroughly orthodox on the subject of the Trinity--respecting which Locke laboured under some suspicion--took up his pen in defence of the lay theologian. Locke’s idea of faith, as a simple belief that Jesus is the Messiah, will be regarded by most theologians as very defective; nor is the account which he gives of Christianity one likely to afford satisfaction to any reader who has mastered the contents of the New Testament, whether he believes them or not. Absorbed in the effort to enforce his own view of the Gospel, Locke merely ignores, without disproving, certain doctrines, which by evangelical teachers of Christianity are identified with the system itself. I plainly see that with his habits of close philosophical thinking, he could not but be repelled by the manner in which those doctrines were urged by some warm-hearted divines. Yet however objectionably or offensively presented, they require to be noticed and disposed of in some way. They are true or false--if true, they must be taken into full account before any conclusion can be drawn respecting the reasonableness of revelation; if false, they need to be refuted, ere such a notion of Christian faith as is propounded by our philosopher can be placed upon a sufficient basis. But Locke’s defects or mistakes relative to the extent of faith do not invalidate his main reasoning. His proofs of the truth and divinity of the Gospel, drawn from the miracles of Jesus, and from the necessity of an authoritative revelation of truth and morals, remain the same; and I would add, that of the devout faith of the author there can be no doubt, when we are assured that “he admired the wisdom and goodness of God in the method found out for the salvation of mankind, and when he thought upon it, he could not forbear crying out, ‘O the depth of the riches of the goodness and knowledge of God.’”[442] [Sidenote: WORKS ON CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.]