Like Fontenelle, he took a gloomy view of humanity; he had no faith in that goodness of human nature which was to be a characteristic dogma of the age of illumination.

But he was untouched by the discoveries of science; he took no interest in Galileo or Newton; and while the most important work of Fontenelle was the interpretation of the positive advances of knowledge, Bayle's was entirely subversive.
The principle of unchangeable laws in nature is intimately connected with the growth of Deism which is a note of this period.

The function of the Deity was virtually confined to originating the machine of nature, which, once regulated, was set beyond any further interference on His part, though His existence might be necessary for its conservation.

A view so sharply opposed to the current belief could not have made way as it did without a penetrating criticism of the current theology.
Such criticism was performed by Bayle.

His works were a school for rationalism for about seventy years.