Pyrrhonic or skeptical philosophy. Pyrrhonism may be reached in two possible ways which are in opposition to each other: we adopt this philosophical point of view either because we know too little, or because we know too much. Huet took the second way, which is rare.

Since the time of Huet, theologians seem to have been conspiring to discredit the use of reason. Do they not realize how difficult most of the questions are that pertain to the experience of God, the immortality of the soul, the need of ritual, the truth of the Christian religion? Do they desire a belief that is blind or one that is enlightened? If it is the former, let them admit it in good faith. If it is the latter, let them convince us, by all kinds of measures, of the feebleness of our mind. The way they are going about it, they will produce more skeptics than Christians. Is it not an astonishing paradox that it is precisely those men who are supposed to acquaint us with the most profound and most thorny questions, who also preach that our reason is weak. Should they succeed in convincing us that the instrument nature gave us stands in no relation to the weight we have to move, what conclusion could we draw from this. If God exists, would it not be simpler to do nothing and entrust oneself to his goodness; surely He would not punish us for having been ignorant of something that, according to his own ministers, we could not possibly know? What folly it is to claim that one can set up the authority of tradition against that of reason, as if the authenticity of tradition did not have to be examined in the light of reason. And what guarantee will I have that I did not commit an error, once my confidence in natural reason was destroyed?

... among the sectarians of pyrrhonism we have forgotten Michel de Montagne [ sic ]. But skepticism, whether among the ancients or the moderns, had no more redoubtable champion than Bayle.

Bayle was born in 1647.... He was still very young when he met a cleric who abused [took advantage of] his uncertainties to preach the necessity of submitting to some decisive authority, and made him expose his parents to shame and grief by abjuring [having him abjure] publicly the religion he had received from them [of his parents]. He had barely taken that inconsiderate step, when he was seized by proselytizing fervor.... In 1681 appeared the comet renowned for its size, and perhaps even more for Bayle's thoughts. [2] In this work Bayle took advantage of the phenomenon and the popular terrors that accompanied it in order to raise most important questions about miracles, the nature of the Divinity, and superstition. The philosophic freedom evident in this book pleased sensible people considerably and displeased the theologians all the more . Following this, Bayle concerned himself with the history of Calvinism written by the verbose liar Maimbourg. [3] ... Bayle ... cleared Malebranche of the accusations of Arnaud [ sic ]. The latter was a vain and opinionated man. Since he was the head of a faction, and besides exceedingly quarrelsome by nature, he felt it incumbent upon him to attack Bayle, to indulge in verbiage and to muddle a clear subject. In this he succeeded very well. During this period members of the Reformed Church were subjected to unheard-of persecutions. France was being returned to Catholicism at the price of her ruin; the extirpation of heresy was being achieved by violating the most sacred laws of humanity and by dishonoring religion. This is what Bayle demonstrated in a little pamphlet on what Catholic France really was . [4] In some of his other writings he had already made fleeting references in favor of toleration. He took a clear stand on the subject of his philosophical commentary. [5] This work, Bayle's best and most useful , appeared in sections. At first it won the approval of all factions; then it displeased the Catholics but continued to please the Protestants; finally it equally displeased both sides and kept as faithful admirers only the philosophers. That is because they are the only truly tolerant men. We cannot recommend this work sufficiently , it is a masterpiece of reason and eloquence. [This work is a masterpiece of eloquence.] ... The works which we have mentioned are not the only ones written by this extraordinary man; and yet he lived only to the age of fifty-nine. He died in January 1706. Do you wish to know what to think of him? Take into account that there was, is, and will be only men of a certain kind, who have, do, and will speak badly of him. From this you can conclude that it is not truth but some particular bias which makes them speak. In this world there are only three courses one can pursue: one can express one's real thoughts, one can disavow one's real thoughts, one can remain silent. The last course is undoubtedly the safest and the least honest. At the time of his death Bayle was writing a criticism of some proofs of God's existence. According to some people, this augurs ill for his salvation. Those people have not taken into account the fact that, in the eyes of the Supreme Being who is universally good and just, it is neither truth nor falsehood which renders us guilty or innocent, but the way in which we remain true to ourselves.

He will not reward us for having been witty, nor will He punish us for having been dullards. Our behavior depends on our will, our reasoning on our abilities. We are free to do good and avoid evil, but we are not free to know truth and to escape error. To err is a misfortune but not a crime. Our bad deeds will damn us, the ideas we perceive will not save us. I am more confident of the salvation of a man who preaches a lie in which he believes with all his heart, than I am of the salvation of someone who preaches a gospel in which he does not believe. The former may be a right-thinking man; the latter is clearly wicked. Certain opinions may well arouse dissensions in one's own society. But since Bayle wrote in a country where freedom of the press is tolerated he cannot be accused of this. Moreover, when certain truths may not be stated openly, this can only be due to poor legislation, which mistakenly links the political and the religious system. Wherever civil authority supports religion or uses religion as a prop, the progress of reason will be slow and there will be persecution, which is useless and ineffective, because men's minds can never be successfully put in fetters. Whenever this occurs there is at best limited toleration, which is scarcely less distressing than no toleration at all. Tolerance must be universal; universality alone can produce the two main advantages, enlightenment and tranquillity. A truth, whatever it may be, even if harmful for the present, will necessarily become useful in the future. A lie, whatever it may be, even if advantageous at present, will necessarily become harmful in time. To hold otherwise is to be unable to distinguish between truth and falsehood. As the Persians said, and as the skeptics repeat after them, doubt is the first step toward science or truth. Whoever does not question will be sure of nothing; whoever does not doubt, will discover nothing and whoever discovers nothing is blind and will remain blind. Dissensions among men are caused by ignorance and lies: ignorance, which confuses everything and is opposed to everything, and lies, which can never be so firmly established in men's minds that they are not suspect, open to challenge, and contested. Only in truth can man find tranquillity. Why is it that questions of metaphysics have always caused divisions among men? It is because they are obscure and untrue. Why is it that principles of natural morality, instead of creating dissensions among men have always brought them closer together? It is because they are clear, obvious, and true. If I had the proof of some great truth, a truth so self-evident that no man of good will could refuse to believe it, I would proclaim it immediately, no matter how troublesome it might be for my time and my country. I am persuaded that no good can be achieved in this world that does not cause trouble, and truth is the greatest good. Sooner or later man will taste its sweetest fruit.

Bayle had few equals in the art of reasoning.

Whatever one may say about the man of letters, the man is above reproach. He had an upright mind and an honest heart; he was obliging, frugal, hardworking, without ambition or pride; he was the friend of truth, just even toward his enemies, tolerant without being sanctimonious, credulous, or dogmatic. Gay, amusing, consequently prone to take liberties in his stories, a liar in the sense in which all witty men are, ... often ribald, ... I do not think that he attached much value to chastity, modesty, conjugal fidelity, or other virtues of this kind; otherwise he would have been more reserved in his judgments. In order to mitigate his skeptical passages, he always introduced them under the pretext of confirming Revelation, while on the other hand, when the occasion presented itself, he knew full well how to undermine Revelation. He would alternately vindicate reason against authority and authority against reason, convinced that men would not give up their rights and freedom in favor of a yoke which would irk them and which they would want to shake off. He knew too much either to believe or to doubt everything. It is said of his writings, quamdiu vigebunt, lis erit , [6] and with this we will end his story.

Notes

1. [Translated from the article as contained in Gordon and Torrey, The Censoring of the Encyclopédie and the Re-established Text (New York: The Columbia University Press, 1947); with permission of The Columbia University Press.]

2. [ Pensées diverses écrites á un docteur de Sorbonne à l'occasion de la comète qui parut au mois de décembre 1680 (Rotterdam, 1683).]

3. [Louis Maimbourg (1620–1686), a Jesuit who wrote numerous histories about Church problems, including a Histoire du Calvinisme . Bayle's attack, published in 1682, was entitled Critique générale de l'Histoire du Calvinisme, de Mr. Maimbourg .]

4. [ Ce que c'est que la France toute Catholique sous le règne de Louis le Grand (1686).]

5. [The original edition appeared in 1686, under the following title: Commentaire philosophique sur ces paroles de Jésus-Christ: "Contrainsles d'entrer"; où l'on prouve par plusieurs raisons démonstratives, qu'il n'y a rien de plus abominable que de faire des conversions par la contrainte, et où l'on réfute tous les sophismes des convertisseurs à contrainte, et l'apologie que saint Augustin a fait des persécutions, Traduit de l'Anglais de Sieur Fox de Bruges, par M.J.F. ]

6. ["As long as they continue to be read (literally, exist) there will be controversy." The quote is from Brucker, Historia Critica Philosophiae , IV, 1, p. 603, where it reads: Baylius hic ille est, cuius dum scripta vigebunt, lis erit, oblectent erudiantne magis ("This is Bayle, and as long as his works continue to be read, there will be controversy whether they delight or instruct us more").]