Calvinism as Political Ideology

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 63 ( 2012 ) 177 – 183

1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Dunarea de Jos University of Galatidoi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.10.027

The 4th Edition of the International Conference:Paradigms of the Ideological Discourse 2012

Calvinism as Political Ideology

Mihai Andronea*aLecturer, PhD, “Dun ” University of Galati, Romania

Abstract

John Calvin was the most important French religious Reformer, whose vision dramatically influenced Christian theology, thus adding a stepping stone to the creation of the modern world. He was an equally refined political philosopher, showing great interest in power relations between humans. Through his writings, Calvin sought to determine the way superiors should treat their inferiors, and also the respect the formers are due. Therefore, although the wives, children and commoners are expected to obey those of greater authority (husbands, parents or civil officials), the aforementioned authority should not be of a tyrannical or discretionary type, but rather to derive its limits from the Law of God, as described in the Bible.

© 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati.

Keywords: Religious Reformer, Christian theology, modern world, political philosophy, political ideology

John Calvin was the most important French religious reformer, whose thinking had a major impact on Christian theology, decisively contributing to the birth of the modern world. But he was equally important in political philosophy, the focus of his preoccupations lying on the power relations among people. Calvin tried in his entire work to regulate the manner in which superiors should treat their inferiors, and also the attitude of the latter towards the former. Thus, even if wives, children and commoners have the duty to obey those in authority (husbands, parents or civil authorities), this authority should under no circumstances be tyrannical or discretionary, as the limits of the former’s authority and the latter’s obedience are set by God’s Law, as it appears in the Bible.

* Mihai Androne. Tel. +40(0)726305753.E-mail address: [email protected]

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

© 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Dunarea de Jos University of Galati

178 Mihai Androne / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 63 ( 2012 ) 177 – 183

To talk about the political ideology of Calvinism is to discuss the influence of the reformer John Calvin and his political supporters. In any case, Calvin was extremely interested in civil government, the hierarchic relations within the family, church and society. First and foremost, in order to grasp his position in respect to the hierarchic gender relations we should analyse the assertion in his Commentary to the Book of Genesis, when referring to the creation of Adam and Eve in the image of God: “Certainly, it cannot be denied, that the woman also, though in the second degree, was created in the image of God; whence it follows, that what was said in the creation of the man belongs to the female sex” [1]. The Bible, in the initial texts, clearly states that man and woman were both created in the image of God, but the Apostle Paul, at a certain point, seems to deny it: “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God” [2].

This passage in the New Testament is relevant, as it helps understand the arguments of the Reformer regarding the place and role of the two genders in the family, church and society, in the public and the private sphere. So, what explanation can there be for this apparent contradiction between the clarifications in the Old and the New Testament regarding the woman’s creatural condition? Calvin gives the following answer in the same Commentary to the Book of Genesis: “This further difficulty is also to be encountered, namely, why Paul should deny the woman to be the image of God, when Moses honours both, indiscriminately, with this title. The solution is short Paul there alludes only to the domestic relation. He therefore restricts the image of God to government, in which the man has superiority over the wife, and certainly he means nothing more than that man is superior in the degree of honour” [3]. The woman is foreign to the image of God when the analysis criterion is oeconomicum statum, ordinem politicum and ordinem coniugalem, she is inferior to man from an economic, political and conjugal point of view [4]. Therefore, the image means more than pure spirituality transcending the biological gender differentiation, the human nature was created in the image of God, but when referring to human nature we usually mean a gender differentiation, including the social insertion of sexual differentiation. And the social representation of sexual differentiation is not a mere consequence or effect of this differentiation. Certain authors have shown that gender would constitute a manner able to signify power relations, that it has social relevance and is able to express socio-cultural practices, the conventions pertaining to the various political philosophies, revealing more than a mere biological differentiation, and consequently leading to the ideological level. Anyway, it is certain that the term “gender” is seen by some as placed in the proximity of hierarchy and power.

In John Calvin’s conception, men are superior to women at the level of terrestrial life; in his commentary to 1 Timothy 2:13 he asserts the following in regard to the relations between men and women, further emphasising what he had said in his Commentary to the Book of Genesis, trying to evince once more that the role and place of women in society are determined by their ontological condition, viz. being created from a male part, that is after his creation. The woman was created after the man and for the man, and that is why she should obey him, as the order of creation constitutes a hierarchy that should govern life in the family and society: “Yet the reason which Paul assigns, that woman was second in the order of creation, appears not to be a very strong argument in favour of her subjection; for John the Baptist was before Christ in the order of time, and yet was greatly inferior in rank. But although Paul does not state all the circumstances which are related by Moses, yet he intended that his readers should take them into consideration. Now Moses shows that the woman was created afterwards, in order that she might be a kind of appendage to the man; and that she was joined to the man on the express condition, that she should be at hand to render obedience to him” [5].

Commenting on the biblical text mentioned above, viz. 1 Corinthians 1:7 ff., the Reformer is even clearer on hierarchic gender relations. Man’s pre-eminence over the woman, viz. the husband over the wife, is not a mere social convention or a fad that may change at will. In Calvin’s opinion, hierarchy means order, and this order relies on the logic of God’s primordial act. Calvin only follows, in a specific original manner, the thread of biblical writings, supporting the assertions in the Bible, out of his desire to be in complete accord with the inspired Word. “The first is that as the woman derives her origin from the man, she is therefore inferior in rank.


The second is that as the woman was created for the sake of the man, she is therefore subject to him, as the work ultimately produced is to its cause. That the man is the beginning of the woman and the end for which she was made, is evident from the law. (Gen. ii. 18.) It is not good for a man to be alone. Let us make for him, &c. Farther, God took one of Adam’s ribs and formed Eve (Gen. ii. 21, 22.)” [6].

Thus, we have no choice but to resume a very important idea for the topic under discussion. If the woman originates in the man, then she is subordinate to him; if she was created for the man, then she has to obey him, the husband having the duty to protect her and make sacrifices for her. The woman comes from the man; this is the origin of the two closely connected coordinates fixing the woman’s status: hierarchic subordination and obedience. But the hierarchy existing between men and women is aimed at introducing a differentiation in the very humanity, which consequently appears as differentiated, complementary, rich, complete, consummate and open: this hierarchy does not aim at excluding the woman from the human race. Moreover, the assertion that “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18) indicates the human being’s quality as a social and political being, as Aristotle used to say.

In relation to the woman, the man possesses a royal supremacy, and the term royalty is mainly associated with terms such as ascendancy, authority, dominion, jurisdiction and power. Commenting another verse in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, Calvin puts down that the man disposes of full authority over his family: “the father of the family is like a king in his own house. Hence the glory of God shines forth in him, in consequence of the authority with which he is invested” [7].

Thus, the discussion extends from the relations between men and women, husband and wife, to the relations between parents and children. In Protestant Geneva marriage could not take place without the freely expressed agreement of the man and the woman, otherwise it was null and void. The consent of the parents, or in case they were absent, the consent of the legal guardians was also compulsory for spouses who were under a certain age limit. The father’s consent was enough; the mother’s consent was required in the absence of the father, even if other relatives were present. If the parents were absent, then the legal guardians had to express their consent, the male voice being once again decisive. But if the young spouses got married in secret, the marriage was not annulled, just because the parents had not previously given their consent, as stipulated in the regulations. If a teenager were to marry without his parents’ consent, and then his wife proved quite unreceptive to him, then he was to become aware of the rightful reward for his irresponsibility [8].

On the other hand, parents and legal guardians were not allowed to force the young people into marriage, as the absence of their own consent, viz. the absence of their freedom to decide on this matter, rendered the marriage null and void: the adults who were found guilty of this offence could receive a harsh punishment. Both partners had to freely consent to their union, this consent being the very essence of their marriage. In his Commentary on Joshua 15:14, Calvin notes that although the parents are entitled to order the life of their daughters, they may not do so in a despotic manner, forcing them to marry whom their parents want, against their own will. Forced marriages do not have a good outcome, opined the Reformer, as marriage presupposes concord, harmony, good will, free decision, and these words are in fact a warning addressed to all men, husbands or fathers, who might be tempted to act despotically in their relation with the women – wives or daughters. Women should have the right to marry when they want, and fathers should take Moses as an example: the great prophet was not a tyrant to his daughter, forcing her to marry someone she did not want as a husband, but instead allowed her to decide freely on the issue.

The mutual agreement between spouses constitutes the essence of marriage; it is not only the wife who has to be free to consent to marriage, but also the husband, as the pure true love cannot be constrained, and without this love there is only confusion and trouble. Those behaving tyrannically as husbands or parents in fact rise against God, who is a loving Father for us humans, and any despotic gesture of men against other individuals is a reversal of the order of nature [9].

Calvin was thus attempting at defining the limits of the freedom of movement for all the members of the family, so that the exercise of parental authority should not remove the entire freedom of the child from the very start. In this respect, it was imperative to find a balance between parental authority and children’s freedom. Although children are not allowed to get married without their parents’ permission, i.e. the father’s and the


mother’s consent, the parents were not to abuse their right by exercising their authority in a despotic manner, for the simple reason that even the parents’ authority has its limitations, established by the civil laws: parental authority was supposed to be exercised to the benefit of the children, and not against them, says the Reformer when commenting on 1 Corinthians 7:37.

Although he was an advocate for order and hierarchy in all the areas of human life, the Genevan Reformer repeatedly showed his disapproval towards any tyrannical exercise of authority, be it husband towards wife, parents towards children, leaders towards subjects. Calvin himself mentions in his main work, Institutes of the Christian Religion (final edition), that man is under a double jurisdiction, one spiritual and the other political. “For spiritual government, indeed, is already initiating in us upon earth certain beginnings of the Heavenly Kingdom, and in this mortal and fleeting life affords a certain forecast of an immortal and incorruptible blessedness. Yet civil government has as its appointed end, so long as we live among men, to cherish and protect the outward worship of God, to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church, to adjust our life to the society of men, to form our social behaviour to civil righteousness, to reconcile us with one another, and to promote general peace and tranquility” [10]. The magistrates are those summoned to administer, viz. coordinate public affairs; they should be people able to show prudence, mercy, moderation and innocence in exercising their leading office, as their governance comes from God, being the expression of divine will: the magistrates are ordained by God. But certain lay rulers are unjust, and instead of exercising their authority in fairness, they prove to be profoundly unfair in all they decide and do: yet the Reformer believes that even so their subjects should obey them, as much as possible.

Even obedience to tyrants is required in the Bible [11], irrespective of their scope of action – the society or the family, but one should bear in mind that the limits of this obedience are also imposed by the Bible. Calvin conceives of this issue in the same coordinates as Vermigli: we owe our whole reverence to our superiors, no matter who they may be, as long as they are in a ruling position, as they govern through God’s will, and the source of their power and authority is God himself.

It is also true that the superiors have duties to perform towards their subjects, but it shouldn’t be inferred that only fair rulers are to be obeyed. Even if husbands and parents, who have the duty to protect and care for their wives and children, are harsh to them, it does not mean that women and children should disobey them in response, as this would mean breaking the Law of God, which states that wives and children shall obey their husbands and parents respectively. Those persecuted by an unfair superior should implore God’s help, by prayer, leaving all revenge to Him: in due time God raises some of his servants “to punish the wicked government and deliver his people, oppressed in unjust ways, from miserable calamity” [12]. The rulers of the world should serve the glory of God, this is the reason why any subject disobeying an unfair edict, which is contrary to divine laws, is not guilty as judged by the civil authority, but on the contrary, he shows piety towards God [13]. It would be possible to say the same about those governing their families; they also have as the supreme objective the glory of God, therefore any family member disobeying an unfair command, which is contrary to the divine laws, is not guilty in the eyes of God, or in front of the husband or parent who gave such a command.

Calvin, as it may be seen, does not approach matters one-sidedly, but he suggests that just like there is a legitimate obedience towards authority, there is also an equally legitimate disobedience towards it, if not even an overt rebellion: some princes, for instance, have strayed from God so much that it is difficult to recognize, by their cruel unjust behaviour, that they were also created in the image of God. But in this case the disobedience towards the political institutions could only be founded on their illegitimacy. An illegitimate government leads to legitimate disobedience which also originates in the Christian’s double status —spiritual and political.

Anyway, in this particular case it would be necessary to avoid the confusion between the position of Calvin and his followers, who witnessed the ever more brutal repression of an intolerant civil government upon the adepts of the new faith. To Calvin, the legitimacy of the political rulers is somehow placed above the action sphere of particular individuals, but not above the one of inferior magistrates who have the duty to make sure that the people’s freedom is protected [14]. But even here a note is imperative, just to have an accurate view over the topic. If this political, civil obedience is seen by Calvin as an actual manifestation of our attachment to God, then this obedience is meant to keep us close to God, and not let us stray from him. That is why nobody has to execute


an unjust order given by a certain authority, as those complying by an unfair order commit in their turn an unfair act. In other words, if we were to generalize, the superiors’ authority over the inferiors, i.e. the earthly authorities over the subjects, the husband over the wife, the parents over the children, should not counter God’s authority over his entire creation, as the superiors’ authority comes from God and cannot replace the authority of God, who is the eternal Lord of the Universe. If we obey the magistrates just because God requires us to, it would be illogical to stop obeying God just because one of the magistrates says so.

In this context let us remember that only God, and not a creature, no matter who it may be, has sovereign rights over the nations’ destiny, as he created them, keeps them going by his omnipotence and governs them by his commands. The original sin, on a political level, ended God’s direct governance on men, and so men obtained political power; man has no power on his fellows except through this God-given authority. Calvinism is opposed to the omnipotence of state power, the conception that all human rights and liberties are to be found only in civil laws; it is opposed to absolutist arrogance that sees the prince as the only source of the man’s rights and liberties[15]. It would be erroneous to imagine that Calvin the Reformer promoted the idea of unconditional blind submission to lay or religious authorities, unlike John Knox, for instance, who was presumably more radically against despotic regimes. In one of his commentaries to one of the books of the Old Testament (Micah 5:5), Calvin wrote that it is true that God chooses shepherds for his people, but he wants to protect people’s freedom by giving them the opportunity to choose their own leaders, of their own accord; “for when any one by force usurps the supreme power, it is tyranny; and when men become kings by hereditary right, it seems not consistent with liberty. We shall then set up for ourselves princes, says the Prophet; that is, the Lord will not only give breathing time to his Church, and will also cause that she may set up a fixed and a well-ordered government, and that by the common consent of all” [16]. Hence, it may be inferred that subjects should obey those in authority over them, but it would be much better if people were able to choose their rulers: just like the woman chooses the one who is to be her husband, the people should choose their magistrates, and the members of a Christian community should choose their religious leaders. This may be the root of the republicanism and in a way the democratism of the Reformer who, although a supporter of order in the public and private life of the people, was the adept of social harmony and the advocate of political freedom.

People need to be free, and there is a close connection between the social political freedom and the principle of electing political and ecclesiastical leaders, of which the Reformer was fully aware. The law’s very mission is to protect freedom within a community, and the Reformer’s opinion on this matter is as follows: “in as much as God had given them [sc. the Israelites] the use of the franchise, the best way to preserve their liberty for ever was by maintaining a condition of rough equality, lest a few persons of immense wealth should oppress the general body. Since, therefore, the rich, if they had been permitted constantly to increase their wealth, would have tyrannized over the rest, God put a restraint on immoderate power by means of this law” [17]. Calvin, however, equally opposes anything that may be extreme, exaggerated or unbalanced in point of political regime, i.e. the rulers’ unlimited rights, as well as the subjects’ unlimited freedom, as both tyranny and anarchy are equally harmful in his opinion. In this respect, the main concepts are balance and moderation: choices are useful for a good political and religious administration, but the people should not abuse this right, as this abuse gives rise to despotic political regimes.

The limiting norm of the political rulers’ rights and the subjects’ freedom should ultimately be the common authority, viz. the Word of God [18], the Law of God, as the Word of God circumscribes the scope of both political authority and individual freedom, instituting a harmonious relation between the State and Church, so that the State may adhere to the religious measures taken by the theologians, and in turn the religious leaders may support the good policy of the state officials. In a regime centred on observing the divine commandments, the harmony existing between the political and the religious presupposes that the political factor is closely interested in religious issues, just like the religious authority is interested in the manner of coordinating public affairs by the political authorities; but even in this case the balance should be maintained, so that no interference, viz. a forbidden intrusion of the political into the religious sphere, and likewise, a trespass of the religious into the scope of the civil government. There should be cooperation between the political and the religious, aiming at the spiritual uplift of people and the glory of God.


In Institutes, when considering the best form of government, Calvin notes that none is perfect and safe, all being affected by dangers or abuses. Monarchy means the domination of one individual, and this individual who concentrates the political power may easily yield to the temptation of absolutism or despotism. Aristocracy may risk the temptation of oligarchy, and democracy risks anarchy; the Reformer ultimately favours a combination between aristocracy and democracy, where he saw the maximum political balance possible. Calvin opts for choosing the aristocrats as magistrates, all the more that his preference was also biblically justified, by taking the history of the Jewish people as an example. It is worth mentioning that even if he was not very keen on monarchy, he constantly saw it as a legitimate form of government.

Far from being an adept of authoritarian political regimes, Calvin remained in the conscience of his contemporaries and descendants as a man of order. Many of his political ideas are still perfectly valid today: anyway, many solid studies have been written on the connection between Calvinism and our modern world. And Calvin’s theological and philosophical arguments in favour of social balance and harmony may constitute a valid point of reference for our contemporaries.

References

[1] Calvin, John (1848). Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, vol. I. Trans. by the Rev. John King. Edinburgh: CTS, 129. [2] 1 Corinthians 11:7-12, New International Version.[3] Calvin, John, op. cit., 95-96.[4] Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. Ed. Wilhelm Baum Eduard Cunitz, and Eduard Reuss. 59 vol. Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 29-87. Brunswick, C. A. Schwetschke and Son (M. Bruhn), 1863-1900 (hereafter, CO). CO 23, 27; Calvin, Jean (1928-1936). Opera selecta, t. 3-5. München (hereafter OS). OS 3, 180; CO 49, 476.[5] Calvin, John (1856). Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Trans. by the Rev. William Pringle.Edinburgh: CTS, 68-69.[6] Calvin, John (1848). Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. I. Trans. by the Rev. John Pringle. Edinburgh: CTS, 357-358. And Calvin goes on by saying: “It is asked, whether he speaks of married women exclusively, for there are some that restrict to them what Paul here teaches, on the ground that it does not belong to virgins to be under the authority of a husband. It is however a mistake, for Paul looks beyond this—to God’s eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex” (ibid., 358).[7] Ibid., 354.[8] Cf. Witte Jr., John (2006). Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother? Child Marriage and Parental Consent in Calvin’s Geneva. The Journal of Religion 86:4, 589. Cf. CO 10, 252ff.[9] Cf. CO 28, 230.[10] Calvin, John (2006). Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vol. Edited by John T. McNeill, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press (hereafter, Inst.). Inst., IV, 20, 2.[11] The oppression we are subjected to by a despotic ruler is a correction to our trespasses against God, and an urge to humility, a king, a husband or a tyrannical parent is an instrument of divine providence meant to punish our mistakes (cf. Inst., IV, 20, 29). “But (you will say) rulers owe responsibilities in turn to their subjects. This I have already admitted. But if you conclude from this that service ought to be rendered only to just governors, you are reasoning foolishly. For husbands are also bound to their wives, and parents to their children, by mutual responsibilities. Suppose parents and husbands depart from their duty. Suppose parents show themselves so hard and intractable to their children, whom they are forbidden to provoke to anger [Eph. 6:4], that by their rigor they tire them beyond measure. Suppose husbands most despitefully use their wives, whom they are commanded to love [Eph. 5:25] and to spare as weaker vessels [I Peter 3:7]. Shall either children be less obedient to their parents or wives to their husbands? They are still subject even to those who are wicked and undutiful” (Inst., IV, 20, 29). But Calvin does not forget to set the limits of domestic obedience, if obedience is commanded by the Law of God, then the latter also circumscribes, delimitates it, viz. it sets its boundaries: “But we also ought in passing to note that we are bidden to obey our parents only

by the Lord, who shares with them a part of his honor. Therefore, the submission paid to them ought to be a step toward honoring that highest Father. Hence, if they spur us to transgress the law, we have a perfect right to regard them not as parents, but as strangers who are trying to lead us away from obedience to our true Father. So should we act toward princes, lords, and every kind of superiors” (Inst., II, 8, 38). In regard of the obedience to unjust rulers required by Calvin, in a similar manner Thomas Aquinas also considered that political tyrants are instruments of divine justice aiming at punishing the people’s unfair deeds, “tyranni sunt instrumentum divinae justitiae ad puniendum delicta hominum” (Tomae Aquinatis (1875), Opera Omnia, vol. 27. Parisiis: Vivès, 375). [12] Inst., IV, 20, 30.


[13] Cf. CO 41, 25. Cf. Calvin, John (1852). Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, vol. 1. Trans. by Thomas Myers. Edinburgh:CTS, 382.[14] “But we must, in the meantime, be very careful not to despise or violate that authority of magistrates, full of venerable majesty, which God has established by the weightiest decrees, even though it may reside with the most unworthy men, who defile it as much as they can with their own wickedness. For, if the correction of unbridled despotism is the Lord’s to avenge, let us not at once think that it is entrusted to us, to whom no command has been given except to obey and suffer. I am speaking all the while of private individuals. For if there are now any magistrates of the people, appointed to restrain the wilfulness of kings (as in ancient times the ephors were set against the Spartan kings, or the tribunes of the people against the Roman consuls, or the demarchs against the senate of the Athenians; and perhaps, as things now are, such power as the three estates exercise in every realm when they hold their chief assemblies), I am so far from forbidding them to withstand, in accordance with their duty, the fierce licentiousness of kings, that, if they wink at kings who violently fall upon and assault the lowly common folk, I declare that their dissimulation involves nefarious perfidy, because they dishonestly betray the freedom of the people, of which they know that they have been appointed protectors by God’s ordinance” (Inst., IV, 20, 31). The inferior magistrates have the role of standing between the king and the people in certain critical situations, just to defend the latter from the arbitrariness of the royal power. It is what may be called “the principle of governmental interposition”, according to Tom Rose in one of his articles (Rose, Tom, 1978. On Reconstruction and the American Republic, The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, 5:1, 33). The task of these magistrates would really be normal and natural if they were elected by the people, just like the ephors (cf. McNeill, John T. (1956). Introduction (pp. XVIIIf.), In Calvin,John, On God and Political Duty. New York: The Liberal Arts Press). See also Witte, Jr., John (2008). Rights, Resistance, and Revolution in the Western Tradition: Early Protestant Foundations, Law and History Review 26: 3, 551ff. This “principle of governmental interposition” is instrumental in the idea of political progression and mediation. Cf. Baron, Hans (1939). Calvinist Republicanism and Its Historical Roots, Church History 8:1, 36.[15] Cf. Kuyper, Abraham (1899). Calvinism: Six Stone-lectures. Edinburgh-New York: T. & T. Clark-Fleming H. Revell Company, 108, 126.[16] Calvin, John (1847). Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, vol. 3. Trans. by the Rev. John Owen. Edinburgh: CTS, 310.[17] CO 24, 697. Höpfl, Harro (1982). The Christian Polity of John Calvin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 158.[18] Cf. Murray R. H. (1960). The Political Consequences of the Reformation: Studies in Sixteenth Century Political Thought. New York: Russell & Russell, 92. The Word of God constitutes the norm of a theocratic political regime and, in point of the interaction between the political and the religious in Calvinist Geneva in Calvin’s lifetime and after his death, our recommendations are two books by Eugène Choisy: La théocratique au Genève au temps de Calvin (Genève: J.-G. Fick, 1897) and L’Etat chrétien calviniste à Genève au temps de Théodore de Bèze (Genève: Ch. Eggimann & Cie, 1902). The same line of thought is to be found in the study of Herbert Darling Foster (1908), Calvin’s Programme for a Puritan State in Geneva, 1536-1541, The Harvard Theological Review 1, 396, which stresses the idea of the need for a representative government, both for the state and for the church.

Documents

Calvinism as Political Ideology