We examine the premises of the interpretation of Bayle as a sceptic and fideist and seek to
refute some of the arguments advanced in favour of that reading. The crucial distinction
between moral principles and “particular” or “speculative” truths allows us to present Bayle
as a moral rationalist, who insists on the irrational nature of the Christian faith,
incompatible with the self-evident principles of natural morals. Bayle’s fideistic stance – i.e.
his adoption of Jurieu’s definition of faith – is presented as a “shield” against persecution.
His arguments on the existence of God and on His nature are always conducted within the
framework of a hypothetical concession designed to contribute to the radical refutation of
rationalist theology.
