An English translation of Pierre Bayle's posthumous last book, Entretiens de Maxime et de Themiste (1707), in which Bayle defends his skeptical position on the problem of the evil. This book is often cited and attacked by G.W. Leibniz in his Theodicy (1710). Over one hundred pages of original philosophical and historical material introduce the translation, providing it with context and establishing the work's importance.

Pierre Bayle was one of the most important sceptical thinkers of the seventeenth century. His work was a major influence on the development of the ideas of Voltaire (who acclaimed it for its candour on such subjects as atheism, obscenity and sexual conduct), Hume, Montesquieu and Rousseau. Banned in France on first publication in 1697, Bayle's Dictionnaire Historique et Critique became a bestseller and ran into several editions and translations. Sally L. Jenkinson's masterly new edition presents the (...) reader with a coherent path through Bayle's monumental work (which ran to seven million words). This is the first volume in English to select political writings from Bayle's work and to present its author as a specifically political thinker. Sally L. Jenkinson's authoritative translation, careful selection of texts, and lucid introduction will be welcomed by scholars and students of the history of ideas, political theory, cultural history and French studies. (shrink)

Richard Popkin’s meticulous translation--the most complete since the eighteenth century--contains selections from thirty-nine articles, as well as from Bayle’s four Clarifications. The bulk of the major articles of philosophical and theological interest--those that influenced Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, and Voltaire and formed the basis for so many eighteenth-century discussions--are present, including David, Manicheans, Paulicians, Pyrrho, Rorarius, Simonides, Spinoza, and Zeno of Elea.

There were three such assumptions required, one explicitly stated, and two not made explicit until Bayle. The explicit one was a certain commonly accepted double understanding of ‘destruction’: a ‘natural’ version, which made it no more than a change in a particular arrangement or ‘organization’ of particles through which an aggregate was destroyed by losing its identity, and a metaphysical version, which entailed the actual annihilation of a substance. It was assumed that the latter could be accomplished only by (...) miraculous supra-natural means available only to God. Thus, if it could be shown that the soul was ‘without parts,’ it followed that the soul was ‘naturally’ indestructible and thus immortal. Bayle summarized the Cartesian argument to immortality as follows. (shrink)

(From Liberty Fund:) The topics of church and state, religious toleration, the legal enforcement of religious practices, and religiously motivated violence on the part of individuals have once again become burning issues. Pierre Bayle’s Philosophical Commentary was a major attempt to deal with very similar problems three centuries ago. His argument is that if the orthodox have the right and duty to persecute, then every sect will persecute, since every sect considers itself orthodox. The result will be mutual (...) slaughter, something God cannot have intended. -/- The Philosophical Commentary takes its starting point from the words attributed to Jesus Christ in Luke 14:23, “And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be full.” Bayle contends that the word compel cannot mean “force.” From this perspective, he constructs his doctrine of toleration based on the singular importance of conscience. His point is not that coercion usually is ineffective in matters of faith but that, even when effective, it is wrong because it ignores the indispensability of the free conscience. (shrink)

A new translation of Pierre Bayle's first great work, which undermines the influence of "superstition" in political life and laid the groundwork for the separation of church and state.

ABSTRACT Pierre Bayle developed an expansive theory of toleration in his Commentaire philosophique by arguing that tolerance is a universal principle of natural law. However, by situating toleration in natural law rather than positive law, Bayle was brought into theoretical conflict with the Old Testament injunction that the state should punish idolatry. To resolve this conflict, Bayle drew upon the work of early modern Hebraists, particularly the Catholic biblical scholar Richard Simon. Bayle adapted Simon’s idea (...) that theocracy uniquely shaped the institutions of ancient Israel to argue that prohibitions against idolatry should be exclusive to the Hebrew republic. Bayle argued that the Mosaic Law did not punish someone for their sincerely held religious beliefs but only prohibited treason, and these circumstantial laws should not be emulated by other states. This allowed Bayle to contend for the moral veracity of the Old Testament and the notion that toleration is an unconditional principle of natural law. Bayle’s use of Simon displayed the revolutionary potential of textual critical scholarship in the early modern period, as he adapted Simon’s critical ideas to his own aims of promoting religious toleration within the ecclesiastical and civic spheres of his own confessional context. (shrink)

Bayle's Dictionary is one of the best known and most influential works of the eighteenth century. Banned in Catholic France on first publication in 1697 it became a bestseller and ran into several editions and translations. Its merciless scientific and philosophical enquiring challenged all assumptions and blind reverence for authority, setting new standards for all future encyclopedists. This second English edition is enlarged from the fourth French edition, which in turn had been much enlarged from Bayle's manuscripts. Edited (...) and with a life of Bayle by the highly esteemed Pierre Desmaizeaux, this edition represents the most comprehensive English edition available. (shrink)

Dmitri Levitin's extremely erudite study of the works and intellectual worlds of Isaac Newton and Pierre Bayle demands that we take these early modern scholars on their own terms, rather than testing their qualifications to be deemed 'enlightened.' In the case of Bayle, Levitin emphasizes the importance of his antipathy to scholastic philosophy and his debts to the theological debates in contemporary France and the Low Countries.

An annotated bibliography of the primary and secondary literature of Pierre Bayle.

De Pierre Bayle, la tradition critique a longtemps voulu ne faire qu'un précurseur des Lumières. C'était trop négliger la personnalité et la pensée du théologien calviniste, et le considérer comme un auteur mineur. En 1964, Élizabeth Labrousse, directeur de recherches au CNRS et grande historienne du protestantisme, publiait son Pierre Bayle qui allait vite s'imposer comme l'ouvrage de référence sur le réfugié de Rotterdam. Grâce à ce livre en deux volumes, l'auteur du Dictionnaire Critique retrouvait enfin (...) sa place de penseur au coeur de la « crise de la conscience européenne », de théoricien de la tolérance, de théologien philosophe convaincu qu'avec le triomphe du cartésianisme la foi chrétienne abordait aux rives des temps modernes. (shrink)

Pierre Bayle (1647–1706) is often considered one of the staunchest defenders of toleration, especially in the domain of religion. His Commentaire philosophique, published in 1686, one year after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, argued for a broad idea of toleration, to be extended with no exceptions to all sects and religions. However, his thought can hardly be reduced to an exaltation of the “rights of the conscience,” for he realized very soon that such an exaltation risks (...) bringing forth religious fanatism, which in turn is the cause of religious wars and acts of violence. Toleration, in these conditions, is only a political remedy for the sickness of the human mind. (shrink)

Given the difficulties of Pierre Bayle’s writing—its occasional nature, its digressive and wandering style, and its sheer size—it is no small task to present him as an author of a coherent metaphysical doctrine. But Todd Ryan does just that in this cogently-argued analysis of Bayle’s encounters with, among others, Descartes, Malebranche, Locke, Leibniz, and Spinoza. We are thus invited, as the subtitle indicates, to “rediscover early modern philosophy” by way of Bayle’s philosophical engagements.The main fault line (...) in Bayle scholarship concerns the sincerity of the philosopher’s religious and philosophical commitments, and scholars have had recourse to biographical and contextual scholarship to solve some of these problems. Ryan sidesteps context, simply approaching Bayle’s texts as coherent arguments and analyzing them philosophically—a fruitful approach generally. That said, he periodically finds himself drawn into the debates about Bayle’s intentions, since he wishes to insist upon a single coherent interpretation of the philosopher as a Cartesian, something that requires one to confront instances where Bayle expresses doubts about Cartesian principles. Ryan’s strategy is to insist that Bayle takes evidence to be “a matter of degree. (shrink)

Pierre Bayle and the impossibility of a rational debate on evil I claim that Bayle engaged with theodicy in order to show how philosophy was misused in religious matters. For Bayle, the debate on evil does not oppose dichotomically reason and religion, it just requires that the participants deal with revealed truths using reason alone. In this regard, Bayle does not only criticize the Calvinist theologians of his time, but also the very source of Christian (...) theology, Augustine of Hippo. En ese artículo, sugerimos que el debate sobre la teodicea bayleana tiene por finalidad hacer patente el uso ilegítimo que se hace de la filosofía al aplicarla al debate religioso. La discusión sobre el mal no supone una disputa entre la razón en sentido absoluto y la religión, sino que compromete el uso de la razón en la revelación, de modo exclusivo Por esa razón, como veremos, el filósofo de Rotterdam no limita su crítica a la teología calvinista de su tiempo sino que la dirige al mismo corazón de la teología cristiana: la obra de Agustin de Hipona. (shrink)

This is the first English translation of Pierre Bayle's political pamphlet, Ce que c'est que la France toute catholique of 1686. Now that Bayle has received renewed attention from scholars such as Jonathan Israel and Gianluca Mori, it is time to introduce his political ideas to English-speaking readers who cannot read the original. And although a selection of the political writings from the Historical and Critical Dictionary has been published, much of Bayle's political thought has not (...) been translated. This translation complements recent editions of Bayle's Thoughts on the Comet and Philosophical Commentary, along with a forthcoming translation of his Conversations Between Maxime and Thémiste. A substantial introduction explores the context and reviews scholarly interpretations, and notes to the text explain references. (shrink)

This chapter contains section titled: Life and Works Civil Toleration Metaphysics Problem of Evil Skepticism and Fideism Influence.

La 4e de couverture indique : "La pensée et l'œuvre de Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) forment une énigme, depuis toujours objet d'un conflit des interprétations. En butte aux persécutions qui précédèrent la révocation de l'édit de Nantes, il préféra l'exil à Rotterdam. Sa revue les Nouvelles de la République des lettres constitua une des premières formes de l'espace public européen, et on a pu dire de son fascinant Dictionnaire historique et critique (1696) qu'il constitua la matrice des Lumières. Dans (...) son Commentaire philosophique, où il fait l'apologie de la tolérance, il critique l'oppression religieuse de « la France toute catholique ». Mais dans son Avis aux Réfugiés, il fustige toute sédition religieuse des protestants réfugiés. L'intrication de ces deux lignes, qui remontent de Hobbes et Machiavel, d'une part, et d'autre part de Milton et Bodin, jusque chez Calvin, aide à comprendre les paradoxes politiques, et politico-théologiques, fondateurs d'une modernité aujourd'hui en crise. En cherchant à penser ces « différends », Bayle invente un style d'écriture pluraliste, délinéarisée, qui correspond au caractère oblique de son plaidoyer pour la sincérité de l'autre.". (shrink)

For most interpreters of the philosopher from Rotterdam, his doctrine of tolerance is solely a consequence of his religious and moral doctrines. In this article, I intend to show that his doctrine rest on the political doctrine of indivisible sovereignty and on the strictest separation between political obedience and religious membership. Baylean tolerance is a political doctrine that allows the articulation between freedom of conscience (individual), minority confessions (private associations), and public religion (acknowledged as official).

This article analyzes the physical theory presented by Pierre Bayle in the new Spanish translation of Various Thoughts on the Occasion of the Comet. First, it deals with his critcism of the supertitous aspects of tradition, and subsequently, it analyzes his position, inspired by Descartes, regarding the physical nature of comets as opposed to the aristotelian cosmology, trough the analysis of five key issues: influence of distance, propagation of light, interaction between particles, difference between systems and problem of (...) qualities. (shrink)

In his magnum opus, the _Historical and Critical Dictionary_, Pierre Bayle offered a series of brilliant criticisms of the major philosophical and theological systems of the 17 th Century. Although officially skeptical concerning the attempt to provide a definitive account of the truths of metaphysics, there is reason to see Bayle as a reluctant skeptic. In particular, Todd Ryan contends that Bayle harbored deep sympathy for the attempt by Descartes and his most innovative successor, Nicolas Malebranche, (...) to establish a metaphysical system that would provide a foundation for the new mechanistic natural philosophy while helping to secure the fundamental tenets of rational theology. Through a careful analysis of Bayle’s critical engagement with such philosophers as Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke and Newton, it is argued that, despite his reputation as a skeptic, Bayle was not without philosophical commitments of his own. Drawing on the full range of Bayle’s writings, from his early philosophical lectures to his final controversial writings, Ryan offers detailed studies of Bayle’s treatment of such pivotal issues as mind-body dualism, causation and God’s relation to the world. (shrink)

La metáfora del teatro no sólo aparece en el título del _Teatro crítico universal_ (1726–1739) de Benito Jerónimo Feijoo, sino también fue aducida por Pierre Bayle en su _Projet et fragmens d’un dictionaire critique _(1692). Es cierto que, a principios de la Edad Moderna, la metáfora del teatro podía emplearse y se empleaba en multitud de contextos y con fines muy diversos. Sin embargo, la combinación de teatro y error, tal y como se da tanto en Bayle (...) como en Feijoo, merece un examen más detenido. Se muestra cómo el _Theatrum vitae humanae_ (1565) de Theodor Zwinger, que es el texto en el que Bayle afirma basar su _Dictionnaire_, introduce una noción de teatro que no se centra en el escenario sino en el auditorio. Esto es significativo tanto para las estrategias de escritura de Bayle como para las de Feijoo, ya que apunta a la gestión de vastos cuerpos de conocimiento y, en última instancia, a la citacionalidad de ambos proyectos. Al mismo tiempo, sitúa al lector frente a la sabiduría tradicional y prepara así un espacio para el modo emergente de la crítica – por algunos caracterizado como escepticismo – que informa los proyectos de ambos autores. (shrink)

El objetivo de este trabajo es revisar las posturas de Pierre Bayle y David Hume en torno al problema del mal, para determinar si la postura de Hume se reduce a la de su predecesor o si existen diferencias más profundas entre ambos. Bayle propone una solución fideísta, declarando que se trata de un misterio que está por encima de la razón al que debemos adherir a partir de la creencia, mientras que Hume se limita a suspender (...) el juicio al respecto. En primer lugar, se reconstruye el planteo del problema del mal y sus consecuencias sobre la moral en los dos autores. Luego, se revisan sus críticas a la teología racional y el papel que juega el escepticismo respecto de la religión. Se concluye que la influencia de Bayle sobre Hume está centrada en mostrar las limitaciones de la razón humana para abordar el problema, y que el aporte original de este último se vincula con la defensa de la filosofía como un tipo de especulación autónoma. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 125 to such a future contingent event, not only does such an event not exist now, it does not even exist in its causes now, and this for the reason that no sufficient causes of the event exist now. Accordingly, if someone were merely to make a guess to the effect that the sea-fight will occur tomorrow, and the fight actually does occur, it still could not (...) be maintained that the original guess at the time it was made was therefore true. It simply could not have been true, because at the time of its assertion there literally was no evidence of any kind that could have rendered it true. Nevertheless, modern logicians have generally been so dead set against the notion that the truth or falsity of a proposition could ever be relative to the time when the proposition was uttered that they seem scarcely to have taken account of a consideration such as the foregoing. Nor is it likely that with the publication of this excellent translation of St. Thomas's commentary, such critics will begin to take account of this Thomistic argument even now. Somehow, one is reminded of Dr. Johnson's purported remark, "Sir, I can only give a man a reason, not an intelligence!" HENRY VEATCtt Northwestern University Pascal e Nietzsche. Scritti di E. Castelli, H. Gouhier, A. del Noce, H. Birault, K. Takeno, K. LSwith, J. D~lhomme, G. Vattimo, R. Boehm, G. Morra. (Padova: Cedam; Casa Editrice Dott. Antonio Milani, 1962. Pp. 218. = Archivio di Filosofia. Organo dell'Istituto di Studi Filosofici. Anno 1962. No 3. L. 2000.) This issue of the Archivio di Filosofia offers essays by the various authors indicated in the title above. Pascal and Nietzsche are here brought together because of what they have in common, that is, suffering, restlessness, dissatisfaction with the human condition, the historical sorrow of post-Copernican man, a paradoxical and chaotic thought. Both Pascal and Nietzsche urge man to measure the real by the possible and not the possible by the real and to risk the present certainties for the uncertainty of the future. They dislodge man from his ordinary seat and launch him on the risky adventure and great experiment of real existence. PA~L T. FUHRMANN Columbia Theological Seminary Pierre Bayle and Voltaire. By H. T. Mason. (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 1963. Pp. xv -k 163.) Pierre Bayle and Voltaire confronts the ideas of the two philosophers and formulates some prudent conclusions about their relationship. Since Bayle's works run to nine long folio volumes and Voltaire's come to fifty quartos in the Moland edition, one cannot help but be impressed by the magnitude of Professor Mason's undertaking and by his ability to reduce his findings to a book of just over one hundred and fifty pages. In the case of Bayle and Voltaire, the basic facts concerning influence are readily available. We know what works of Bayle's were in the library at Ferney; we can see the pages the Enlightenment philosopher marked as he read; we have almost two hundred references to Bayle in Voltaire's works and letters (listed chronologically by Mason in an appendix); and critical editions, such as Morize's Candide and Lanson's Lettres philosophiques, have disclosed how consistently Voltaire turned to the Dictionnaire historique et critique or other works from Bayle's pen for information. Yet, when dealing with passages that seem to rely on Bayle for factual content, a scholar runs into many hazards. Voltaire may draw his data from Bayle, from Bayle's source, from an intermediary, or from an outside source. We know that he consulted Richard Simon, Spinoza, Dora Calmet, and Dr. Astruc as well as Bayle for his Biblical criticism. Therefore, it is very frequently impossible to be sure just how much Bayle's thinking 126 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY contributed to the philosophe'~. Professor Mason, while continually aware of this Uncertainty, lists the numerous cases he has found where Voltaire's source may be Bayle. More significant, of course, are Bayle's seminal ideas and their role in the formation of Voltaire's intellect. The bulk of this book is devoted to chapters on "the... (shrink)

Pierre Bayle can lay claim to having fathered the history of philosophy or the history of ideas. Marx at any rate said of his Dictionnaire that it "wrote the epitaph of philosophy." He was also the founder of the journal Nouvelles de la République des Lettres—one of the forerunners of the modern academic journal—in whose Preface he wrote: "il s'agit [ici] de Science: on doit donc mettre bas tous les termes qui divisent les hommes en différentes factions et (...) considérer seulement le point dans lequel ils se réunissent, qui est la qualité d'Homme illustre dans la République des Lettres." Mme. Labrousse devotes the first two chapters to an elucidation of the connection between Bayle's active interest in science and in the history of ideas, a connection all the more obscure because science for Bayle meant roughly Cartesian mechanism, and Descartes was notably anti-historical. While the author's observations are pertinent, it would seem that the connecting link is overlooked: the Discours de la méthode is itself a history. However that may be, this well executed work will serve as an appropriate introduction to the issues in the very extensive writings of one of the moving spirits of the Enlightenment.—H. C. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Pierre Bayle dans la République des Lettres: Philosophie, Religion, CritiqueJosé R. Maia NetoAntony McKenna and Gianni Paganini, editors. Pierre Bayle dans la République des Lettres: Philosophie, Religion, Critique. Paris: Honoré Champion, 2004. Pp. 589. Cloth, €90.00.Pierre Bayle is an early modern philosopher who has received relatively little attention given the philosophical relevance and historical influence of his work. Fortunately this situation has (...) been rapidly changing in recent years. This volume, edited by Antony McKenna and Gianni Paganini, is a good sample of the volume, quality, scope, and polemical nature of current Bayle scholarship. The book contains twenty-five articles by the main Bayle scholars from France, Italy, England, the Netherlands, Canada, and the United States. It also contains an introduction by the editors, who give an overview of current scholarship, summarizing its main trends and achievements, and a useful name index. The articles are organized in five sections, each dealing with some aspect of Bayle's life and thought.The first set of articles, gathered under the heading, "Interlocutors, Friends and Enemies," deals with Bayle's personal relations as a Huguenot exiled in the Netherlands. Luisa Simonutti deals with Bayle's relations to one of the radical Reformed groups in Holland, the Quakers. Although Bayle disagreed with their religious views, he respected and maintained [End Page 476] healthy intellectual exchanges with them. Hans Bots examines Bayle's view of the "republic of letters," of which he was a major architect—a republic whose right to citizenship required the suspension of religious, political, and national partisanship and engagement in free intellectual debate. H. H. M. van Lieshout contests the entrenched view that Bayle lived as a recluse scholar in Rotterdam. Both she and Bots show how Bayle's main work, the Dictionary, exhibits his life committed to the "republic of letters." Finally, Hubert Bost focuses on Bayle's activity as a journalist, crucial in this republic but also revealing the difficulty of the pursued ideal of neutrality.The next three sections of the book deal with Bayle's thoughts on religion and philosophy. Anna Belgrado denies the late Bayle scholar Elizabeth Labrousse's thesis that Bayle's thought is wrought with Protestantism. Bayle's views on the Jews, the Middle Ages, and women are examined, respectively, by Myrian Yardeni, Gregorio Piaia, and Maria-Cristina Pitassi, who concur in concluding that, although not free from the prejudices of his time, Bayle's views are more complex and balanced than those of his contemporaries.Bayle's political views and in particular his view on tolerance receive a good deal of attention in the volume. Stefano Brogi explains Bayle's attack on the "rational theologians" (Le Clerc), at first sight puzzling given their defense of religious tolerance, pointing out Bayle's radical opposition between faith and reason. According to Jean-Michel Gros, it is this radical separation of philosophy from theology that renders Bayle's view of tolerance so modern, unlike Locke's, for instance, which still has a theological ground. Jonathan Israel explains another apparent puzzle: Bayle's defense of absolute monarchism despite his philosophical and religious ideas, which were no less radical than Spinoza's. Bayle, unlike Spinoza, does not support republicanism because of his pessimistic view of human nature. John Christian Laursen shows that the political menace posed by the Millenarians explains Bayle's unusual lack of tolerance towards them.One of the most influential contemporary Bayle scholars, Gianluca Mori, summarizes his view of Bayle as a philosophical atheist, and he is contested in this by Jean-Luc Solère, who argues that for Bayle, materialism does not provide a coherent metaphysical system alternative to the Christian one, so that Bayle's position amounts to a radical skepticism with regard to reason. In his contribution to the volume, Mori argues that Bayle's skepticism is restricted, and is not relevant to the issue of theism versus atheism. He replies to Solère's objections to his interpretation in an appendix to his article. Mori's interpretation relies on the method of reading Bayle's text as containing irreligious views hidden beneath apparently orthodox claims. Thomas Lennon relies on the opposite approach to argue... (shrink)

El Commentaire philosophique sur ces paroles de Jésus-Christ ‘Contrain-les d’entrer’ publicado en 1686 por el calvinista francés Pierre Bayle constituye uno de los capítulos más interesantes y menos conocidos en la elaboración moderna del concepto de tolerancia civil. En este artículo se reconstruye el itinerario desarrollado por Bayle en esa obra y se pasa revista a las señales de inconsistencia teórica que se han detectado en la misma. En principio, estamos de acuerdo con Walter Rex y Gianluca (...) Mori en que los criterios racionalistas presentados en la Parte I del escrito resultan difíciles de conciliar con los argumentos escépticos que dominan en la Parte II. A nuestro juicio, sin embargo, estos y otros intérpretes comparten un supuesto no evidente: que en el Commentaire Bayle intentó elaborar una teoría de la tolerancia. Si se prestan atención a algunos pasajes de la obra, en cambio, la empresa bayleana aparece más bien como una recopilación de argumentos contrarios a la intolerancia religiosa que no requiere necesariamente de una articulación interna. Desde esta perspectiva, nos parece, las inconsistencias no resultan insalvables.The Commentaire philosophique sur ces paroles de Jesus-Christ ‘Contrain-les d’entrer’, that the French Calvinist Pierre Bayle wrote in 1686 is a particularly important book in the built-up of the concept of civil toleration on Modern Philosophy. In this article we reconstruct the principal arguments of the work and review some problems of incoherence detected. We agree with Walter Rex and Gianluca Mori on their rationalist criteria presented where they express that is difficult to conciliate in Part I with the skeptical reasoning that dominates in Part II, but it must be noted that these exegetes, and many others, have in common a non-obvious assumption: that Pierre Bayle wrote the Commentaire philosophique to present a unified theory on toleration. If we examine some passages of the book it could be seen, whereas, that the baylean design shows itself as a compilation of arguments against religious intolerance, a compilation that is not internally required to be articulated. From this point of view, we think that the problems of coherence could be saved. (shrink)

This dissertation develops an original interpretation of the relationship between reason and religious belief in the work of Pierre Bayle, a seventeenth-century skeptic, that I call “philosophical fideism.” The underdetermined, and often paradoxical, nature of Bayle’s writing makes interpreting him a formidable task; I therefore begin by sketching out the contemporary interpretive landscape of Bayle studies, currently deeply divided over the issue of Bayle’s conception of the reason-faith relationship. I subsequently examine other conceptions of the (...) reason-faith relationship among rationalists and skeptics of the seventeenth century, and argue that Bayle’s position on this issue is deeply influenced by his Cartesian inheritance. I argue that the central, but neglected, factor in understanding Bayle on the reason-faith question is the influence of seventeenth-century Calvinist rationalism, particularly that of Moïse Amyraut. I show how Amyraut’s tripartite distinction of revealed truths provides the framework for a central element of Bayle’s philosophical fideism, and argue that a small group of revealed truths that Bayle calls “the Christian mysteries” form the core of Bayle’s philosophical fideism. I attribute a conception of reason to Bayle that I call “qualified Academic skepticism,” in contrast to the “supersceptical” interpretation of Richard Popkin on the one hand, and the Stratonian interpretation of Gianluca Mori on the other. Finally, I explain the grounds of Bayle's claims about the erring conscience and the justification for religious toleration. Conscience plays a crucial role in Bayle’s philosophical fideism, not only epistemologically, but also morally. The erring conscience supports the interpretation of Christian mysteries as Bayle’s own religious first principles, greatly increasing the significance of Bayle's doctrine of the erring conscience. If the conscience is the source of one’s core beliefs and of their moral force, then reason, though still able to examine critically the claims of conscience, would be impotent to mitigate the moral force of the duties and rights of conscience. One cannot in good conscience, therefore, be intolerant of those who articulate alternative "first principles" since their source is the individual conscience itself. This account thus establishes a ground for religious toleration that is independent of, but compatible with, religious first principles. (shrink)