He who seeks to refute skepticism must produce a criterion of truth.  If such exists, it is certainly that advanced by Descartes, the evidence, the evident clearness of a principle.  Well, then, the following principles pass for evident:  That one, who does not exist, can have no responsibility for an evil action; that two things, which are identical with the same thing, are identical with each other; that I am the same man to-day that I was yesterday.  Now, the revealed doctrines of original sin and of the Trinity show that the first and second of these axioms are false, and the Church doctrine of the preservation of the world as a continuous creation, that the last principle is uncertain.  Thus if not even self-evidence furnishes us a criterion of truth, we must conclude that none whatever exists.  Further, in regard to the origin of the world from a single principle, its creation by God, we find this supported, no doubt, both by the conclusions of the pure reason and by the consideration of nature, but controvened by the fact of evil, by the misery and wickedness of man.  Is it conceivable that a holy and benevolent God has created so unhappy and wicked a being?

Bayle’s motives in defending faith against reason were, on the one hand, his personal piety, on the other, his conviction of the unassailable purity of Christian ethics.  All the sects agree in regard to moral principles, and it is this which assures us of the divinity of the Christian revelation.  Nevertheless, he does not conceal from himself the fact that possession of the theoretical side of religion is far from being a guarantee of practice in conformity with her precepts.  It is neither true that faith alone leads to morality nor that unbelief is the cause of immorality.  A state composed of atheists would be not at all impossible, if only strict punishments and strict notions of honor were insisted upon.

The judgments of the natural reason in moral questions are as certain and free from error as its capacity is shown to be weak and limited in theoretical science.  The idea of morality never deceives anyone; the moral law is innate in every man.  Although Christianity has given the best development of our duties, yet the moral law can be understood and followed by all men, even by heathen and atheists.  We do not need to be Christians in order to act virtuously; the knowledge given by conscience is not dependent upon revelation.  From the knowledge of the good to the practice of it is, it is true, a long step; we may be convinced of moral truth without loving it, and God’s grace alone is able to strengthen us against the power of the passions, by adding to the illumination of the mind an inclination of the heart toward the good.  Temperament, custom, self-love move the soul more strongly than general truths.  As in life pleasure is far outbalanced by pain and vexation, so far more evil acts are done than good ones:  history is a collection of misdeeds, with scarcely one virtuous act for a thousand crimes.  It is not the external action that constitutes the ethical character of a deed, but the motive or disposition; almsgiving from motives of pride is a vice, and only when practiced out of love to one’s neighbors, a virtue.  God looks only at the act of the will; our highest duty, and one which admits of no exceptions, is never to act contrary to conscience.