e borne himself had he lived to
see the later development of Deism. Perhaps his influence would have had
a beneficial effect upon both sides; but, in whatever period his lot had
been cast it is difficult to conceive Locke in any other light than that
of a sincere and devout Christian.[176]

It remains for us to consider what were the effects of the Deistical
movement.

The early period of the eighteenth century was a period of controversy
of all kinds, and of controversy carried on in a bitter and unchristian
spirit; and of all the controversies which arose, none was conducted
with greater bitterness than the Deistical.[177] The Deists must bear
the blame of setting the example. Their violent abuse of the Church,
their unfounded assertions that the clergy did not really believe what
they preached, that the Christian religion as taught by them was a mere
invention of priestcraft to serve its own ends, their overweening
pretensions contrasted with the scanty contributions which they actually
made either to theology or to philosophy or to philology,--all this was
sufficiently provoking.[178]

But the Christian advocates fell into a sad mistake when they fought
against them with their own weapons. Without attempting nicely to adjust
the degree of blame attributable to either party in this unseemly
dispute, we may easily see that this was one evil effect of the
Deistical controversy, that it generated on both sides a spirit of
rancour and scurrility.

Again, the Deists contributed in some degree, though not intentionally,
towards encouraging the low tone of morals which is admitted on all
sides to have been prevalent during the first half of the eighteenth
century. It was constantly insinuated that the Deists themselves were
men of immoral lives. This may have been true of individual Deists, but
it requires more proof than has been given, before so grave an
accusation can be admitted against them as a body.

But if the restrictions which Christianity imposes were not the real
objections to it in the minds of the Deistical writers, at any rate
their writings, or rather perhaps hazy notions of those writings picked
up at second-hand, were seized upon by others who were glad of any
excuse for throwing off the checks of religion.[179] The immorality of
the age may be more fairly said to have been connected with the
Deistical controversy than with the Deists themselves. It is not to be
supposed that the fine gentlemen of th