The Reformation’s effect on society
was in more areas than merely theological issues. It had a major influence on
the political, economic, and theological areas of life. John Calvin, one of the
major reformers, is noted for addressing these matters and many other topics of
interest in his day. Moreover, John Cavlin’s economic views were very different
that those of the sixteen century Roman Catholic Church. He was attempting to
reflect faithfully the teaching of the whole Bible (the 66 books of the
Protestant Cannon) on how to operate justly in a fallen world with depraved
humans in control.
Some
historians believe that John Calvin was born July 10, 1509, in Noyon, France.
Others affirm a different date, but not one of a significant difference. In his
early twenties, he had to flee from France to Switzerland because he
unintentionally became an outspoken Protestant in a country aligned with the
Roman Catholic Church. During this time in Europe, the church and the state
roles were co-mingled. It was in Switzerland that he wrote and completed his
expanding work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion. The
persecution in France after his departure was a dark providence that had
directed him to become a self-supporting missionary to Switzerland.
Geneva
was the city where he lived most of the remaining years of his life after
departing from France. He was convinced of God’s call for him to this city, but
because of the difficult conditions there, he would have preferred to move on
at providence’s first bidding for at least the first twenty-five years of
residency there. He resisted, mocked, and threatened. Yet, Calvin’s influence
can be seen in both Geneva and in the Calvinistic traditions that followed,
even though neither totally represented his views. Nevertheless, his position
on economics was used to bring about drastic change in the world of his day.
During
the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church’s position on economics had
dominated both the State and the Church’s teaching and the national laws of
Europe. One of Rome’s long held teachings was that lending money for interest
was wrong and should be illegal.
However, in the 16th Century the Roman Church was not very
consistent on this matter! “As a matter of fact, usury, though prohibited in
the whole Roman Empire . . . was actually practiced through a series of
evasions.” However,
the lower classes were not involved in these evasions, which were only used by
the well-to-do close friends of the Roman Church. “The Church could not
dispense with commercial wickedness in high places. It was too convenient.”
[Usury laws were]
rarely applied to large-scale transactions of kings, feudal magnates, bishops
and abbots . . . . Popes regularly employed the international banking houses of
the day, with a singular indifference . . . . to the morality of their business
methods . . . . and sometimes enforced the payments of debts by the threat of
excommunication.
Thus, this chief economic dogma of
the Roman Catholic Church seemed to Calvin to not only lack scriptural support
based on a careful exegesis of the applicable texts, but it was also troubling to
him that the Roman Church excluded herself from keeping her own laws based on
their doctrinal understanding and yet set different mandate for others.
Similarly, one of
the chief teachings of the 16th Century Roman Church was concerned
with the sin of avarice (greed). Several historians assert that one procedure they
used in helping to remove the temptation of greed from their constituents was for
the church to acquire their money by various religious activities. Accordingly,
some Roman Catholics leaders spoke out against the evil of mammon (money) of
this world, while through the example of their top leaders, they encouraged luxury
and showmanship.
They boldly called middlemen in business ‘parasites’ and they called the for-interest
money lenders ‘thieves;’ while enjoying the abundance of wealth themselves
during the same time that they chastised others for acquiring wealth.
Granted, some monks who took vows of poverty kept these vows even in this
century. However, even though Roman Catholic economic principles denounced
greed and wealth verbally; yet some bishops and cardinals taught by example the
advantages and benefits of having significant wealth and living a lifestyle
reserved for the royalty. They missed the red flag that widespread hypocrisy is
often a result when a teaching is out of balance and is legalistic by adding man-made
rules to the Word of God. It is difficult to justify biblically a view that
would leave no room in the kingdom of God for wealthy people like Job, Abraham,
Joseph of Arimathea, Lydia, and some members of the church at Corinth without
ignoring certain texts and solely concentrating on others. This denies by
practice the hermeneutical principle of interpreting Scripture by the
Scriptures and relating each part to the whole.
In the sixteenth
century, the Roman Church outwardly condemned the banking trade and sought to
enforce its position in both the Roman Church and the governments it
influenced, which led to the creation of usury laws. From their perspective,
every godly person was one who repudiated all wealth, and often begged for a
living, and certainly one who remained poor in this world. They believed money
was barren. Yet, monopolies could exist, in their view, if their profits were minimal.
Moreover, the Roman church itself was a major financial center during this
century. These funds were controlled by men who had access to this wealth on
the Roman Church’s ledgers, even though it was not in their individual names.
On
the other hand, the Reformers evaluated economics differently. They were
concerned with the purification of the church and society.
Both Calvin and Luther rejected the monastic lifestyle and emphasized the
importance of work rather than begging. Calvin especially emphasized the need
to be diligent in the vocation to which God had called each one to serve.
Laziness was a sin that was not tolerated by the Reformers. All believers were
to provide for their families, working heartily to the honor and glory of God.
Thus, the Calvinistic work ethic and its view of man’s chief end to glorify God
(Soli Deo Gloria) radically departed from the 16th Century Roman
Catholic dogma.
Calvin
further departed from the Roman system in his views on wealth and interest.
Wealth, he taught, was not necessarily evil. A person’s motives in acquiring
and using this wealth were what was subject to scrutiny. If God blessed one as
he labored hard at his vocation, he should use that blessing to provide for his
own family, support the local ministry, assist the poor, and improve the
community, However, greed, selfishness, abuses of wealth, along with loving
money or making it an idol, were always condemned. A Reformed Christian was to
be economical and modest, but not necessarily poor. Calvin taught that the 16th
Century Roman Catholic view that money was evil in and of itself was simply not
the teaching of Scripture; and it was his understanding of the meaning of the
Scriptures that restricted and guided John Calvin.
The
most radical departure from the Roman system, however, was Calvin’s views on
charging interest for loans. According to Calvin, the key to charging interest
correctly was for the loan to bring proportional profit to both the borrower
and the lender. Accordingly, the interest rates must always be equal to or under
that which is set by the government and the conscience of the lender as fair and reasonable rates.
Thus, the banking trade was just as respectable occupation and industry as that
of a land leaseholder.
However, he also believed that there were several exceptions for an individual on
which it was improper to charge interest when making loans. Calvin argued:
1.
One must take no
interest when lending to the poor.
2.
One must not
neglect charity in order to have money to lend.
3.
Nothing should occur
which is not in accord with the Golden Rule.
4.
The borrower
should make at least as much on the money as the lender.
5.
We must not
measure our practices by what is licit par l’iniquité du monde, but by
the Word of God.
6.
What is good for
the public takes precedence over our private benefit.
7.
What is legal may
be unchristian and prohibited to the Christian.
This radical
departure from the 16th Century Roman Church’s position on the charging
of interest on loans was a positive boost to Western society. Yet, more
significantly, a return to accurately interpreting the Bible gave Christian business
owners the right to join in many different honorable callings. Interest is both
the just compensation for the time value of money and the risk that the lender
assumes when investing in another person’s business. Therefore, it is
historically significant that Calvin recognized “the necessity of capital,
credit, and banking,” and “large-scale commerce and finance.”
Furthermore,
Calvin had specific expectations of governmental responsibilities in economics.
He was opposed to any welfare-type systems established for the benefit of
individuals who were unwilling to work. As the New Testament taught,
those who refuse to work should not be able to eat either,
which is a major motivation to work. Likewise, the Consistory, which was a
church council make up of teaching elders (pastors) and ruling elders in
Geneva, pushed for more governmental regulation to punish greed and selfishness
in business dealings. They also put church censures on “harsh creditors,” and
they punished “usurers,
engrossers, and monopolists” as well as all others who took more than their
lawful share from others.
Thus, Calvin taught that the government had been given the responsibility to
protect the poor and maintain necessary economic laws for the public’s benefit.
Calvin was an influential reformer who
understood that God governed humans through two forms of governments. The first
sphere is the spiritual government or the church, and the second form is the
civil government.
According to Calvin,
each of these “rooms” (spheres) in our “earthly house” (society) has its own
identity, right or existence, reason for existence, its own God-given sovereignty,
which is inviolable, but limited—limited in one way by the overall supreme
sovereignty of God, which must always be upheld, and in another way by the co-existing
and pro-existing coordinate sovereignties of other spheres of life-activity. Therefore,
neither church nor state may trespass the limits of its proper authority. If
one or the other oversteps its bound, people suffer either spiritual harassment
or political tyranny.
The civil government worked through
the civil law and enforced it with the sword. On the other hand, the church
worked through its discipline of the unruly, resulting in the excommunication
of the unrepentant.
Moreover, the
application of this principle [of church discipline] carried Cavin very far,
and, indeed, in its outworking gave the world through him the principle of a
free Church in a free State. It is ultimately to him, therefore, that the Church
owes its emancipation from the State, and to him goes back that great
battle-cry which has since fired the hearts of many saints in many crises in
many lands: “The Crown Rights of King Jesus in His Church.”
Thus, with Calvin’s radical
teachings on the separation of state and church, both could assume their
individual responsibilities in the area of economics. The state exercised its
jurisdiction by laws and punishments, while the church maintained her prophetic
voice against immoral or unjust practices in society in each individual culture
and disciplined professing Christians who violated these principles.
Calvin’s
perspective was that a church was not to play the role of the state in dealing
with offenders. As a pioneer in encouraging the separation of church and state,
he stressed that the church’s role and sphere was primarily spiritual. However,
in Calvin’s writings, the interdependence between the church and the state was
much greater than that which exists today. Moreover, he never conceived of a
secular state that would divorce itself from all wisdom available from God’s
special revelation in the Bible. Consequently, Calvin taught that the state
[had the
responsibilities] 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 behavior to civil righteousness, to
reconcile us with one another, and to promote general peace and tranquility.
At the same time,
Calvin believed that the election of ministers and the excommunication of the
delinquent should never be under the jurisdiction of the state. These were solely
spiritual ministries to be rendered by the church of Christ under His Lordship
alone. Much of his struggle in Geneva was because of his firm convictions
concerning the church’s independent sphere of sovereignty under the Lord Christ
in these areas. Thus, during the Reformation, different state governments and
cultures shifted their stance on economics away from the Roman Church’s stated
position. Instead, they embraced the position of the Reformed Church, which
allowed the church to keep its prophetic voice and required all its officers to
practice the church’s official economic position consistently.
Calvin’s
understanding of the Bible’s teachings that encouraged capitalism brought
landmark results to the modern world. Other pastors and theologians in the
Calvinistic tradition have seen the validity of capitalism and wealth based on the
divine calling for some people to be prosperous as those positive examples in
Bible were like Job, Abraham, Joseph of Arimathea, Lydia, and some members of
the church at Corinth. The key factors for these good examples were their
motivation and method of acquiring wealth and their godly compassionate use of
those divine blessings as well. The Reformers carefully interpreted the Apostle
Paul’s instructions to Timothy when he wrote, “For the love of money is a root
of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness
and pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (1 Tim 6:10 NKJV). They
believed that money itself is amoral, but loving it leads to numerous
violations of God’s law. Adoring or worshiping money and especially loving
money more than God or one’s neighbor is a violation of the moral law.
Likewise, Calvinistic capitalism rewarded those who diligently worked in their
occupations established by their divine calling. However, those who were idle
or lazy had to bear the consequences of their sins. Those able body persons who
refused to work were not to be supplied with food, since their hunger would
motivate them to work (2 Thes 3:10). Nevertheless, the Reformers also strongly
emphasized that the church and individual Christian should provide care and nurture
for the poor and those who could not work (1 Tim 5:9). Calvin believed this was
clearly the church’s responsibility. In addition, he taught that the Reformed Christian
gave part of his/her testimony by the way in which he/she worked. The Bible
called these believers to work heartily to the honor and glory of God (Col
3:23-24). In return, God’s blessing on the diligent laborer was also a
testimony to the world. Thus, the capitalism spawned by Calvin brought many
benefits to Christianity and to society. Calvinistic capitalism had biblical
safeguards that was not present in the capitalism generated by the Renaissance
which was centered on humanism.
There
was a stark contrast in economics in Calvin’s day with the Reformers on one
side, and the Roman Church on the other. The Reformers noted that some of the
Roman Catholic polices encouraged hypocrisy and asceticism, which they believed
from careful study of the Bible, that neither of these were condoned by the
Scriptures. Nevertheless, those who study history often rightly recognize that
the poor were often protected under the Roman Church’s official policies.
However, at the same time, the middle class was held in abeyance and stagnancy
by policies that went beyond the teachings of the Bible. Therefore, many believed
that for the improvement of society, the adjusting of 16th Century Roman
Catholic economic policies were in order. The new phenomenon in this century of
the Bible being translated into the heart languages of the middle class, who
were not trained in Latin, may have supported the Reformer’s challenges of
policies that went beyond the teachings of Scripture. Since these polices
appeared to have human origins, even though they may have had good intentions,
they could be easily updated to polices that were a closer match to divine
special revelation found in the Bible.
During
all the changes in the 16th century from numerous sources, Calvin’s
economic system had a greater influence on Western culture than the Roman
Church’s system. People recognized the differences were in the understanding
and interpreting of the Bible and that those differences had a radical
practical application for the Protestant work ethic and the prosperity of the
middle class. Likewise, over the years, Calvinistic thinkers have moved the
line of the separation of church and state from where Calvin’s beginning
reforms had placed it. For instance, the revised separation has argued against
allowing the state to use capital punishment to deter heretics and to protect
the faithful from soul-destroying error. This new understanding has prevented
the use of capital punishment for heretics, yet the American understanding of
the separate roles of the church, the family, and the state also has it
weaknesses. Separation has now developed into a concept where the state is free
from the prophetic voice of the church in apply the Bible to the present-day
culture. This is not how God intended it. Each of the divinely created and sanctioned
institutions: the state, the family, and the church, have roles, duties,
boundaries, and work best for society when they work together under God. Unfortunately,
the state is more than willing to punish the church when the changing ideas of
culture clash with the Bible’s teachings on morality and economics. Sanctioning
doctrine for a church, even on morality, or the order of worship is not a role
given to the state since Christ alone is Lord of the church and not Caesar.
It
is sad to see that Calvin’s principles of the compassionate use of wealth and
the necessity of loans to be equally beneficial to both parties (lender and
borrower) are no longer practiced by most in today’s Western society. There
still should be places and people from where those who are poor can acquire
loans without interest. May God grant us a new Reformation that aligns us more
with the Scriptures in all areas of life, including economics.
===================================================================
APPENDIX
I: JOHN CALVIN’S LETTER TO SACHINUS IN 1545
The
following letter by John Calvin was originally published in Calvini Opera
Selecta which was edited by Barth and Niesel in 1952. The English
translation as follows is taken from W. F. Graham’s The Constructive
Revolutionary.
While I have had no experience myself, I
have learned from the example of others how dangerous it is to give an answer
to the question on which you ask my advice. For if we wholly condemn usury [les
usures], we impose tighter fetters on the conscience than God himself. Yet
if we permit it in the least, many under this pretext will take an unbridled
liberty which can then be held in bounds by no restriction. . . .
In the first place, by no testimony of the
Scriptures is usury wholly condemned. For the meaning of the saying of Christ,
commonly thought to be very clear, e.g., “Lend, hoping for nothing again” (Luke
6:35), has been perverted [faulsement destournee enc e sens]. As
elsewhere in speaking of the sumptuous feasts and ambitious social rivalry of
the rich, he commands rather that they invite in the blind, the lame, and the
poor from the streets who cannot make a like return, so here, wishing to curb
abuses in lending, he directs us to loan chiefly to those from whom there is no
hope of receiving anything. . . . The words of Christ mean that he commends
serving the poor rather than the rich. Thus, we do not find all [receiving interest]
usury forbidden.
The law of Moses (Deut 23:19) was political
and should not influence us beyond what justice and philanthropy will bear. It
could be wished that all usury, and even the name, were banished from the
earth. But since this is impossible, it is necessary to concede to the common
good. . . .
Now it is said that today, too, usury should
be forbidden on the same grounds as among the Jews, since there is a bond of
brotherhood among us. To this I reply, that in the civil state there is some
difference; for the situation in which the Lord had placed the Jews, and many
other circumstances, made it easy for them to engage in business among
themselves without usury. Our relationship is not at all the same. Therefore, I
do not consider that usury is wholly forbidden among us, except when it is
repugnant to justice and love.
The reasoning of Saint Ambrose and of
Chrysostom, that money does not give birth to money, is, in my judgement, too
superficial. What does the sea give birth to? What does the land give birth to?
I receive income from the rental of a house. Is it because the money grows there?
The earth produces things from which money is made, and the use of a house can
be bought with money. And is not money more fruitful in trade than in any other
form of possession one can mention? Is it lawful to lease a farm, requiring
payment in return, and unlawful to receive any profit [fruict] from the
use of money? . . .
How do merchants derive their profits?
[Lit., “increase their goods.”] By their industry, you will say. Certainly, if
money is shut up in a strong-box, it will be barren—a child can see that. But
whoever requests a loan from me does not intend to keep this money idle and
gain nothing. The profit is not in the money itself, but in the return that
comes from its use. It is necessary then to draw the conclusion that while such
subtle distinctions appear on the surface to have some weight, they vanish on
closer scrutiny, because they have no substance. I, therefore, conclude that [receiving
interest] usury must be judged, not by any particular passage of Scripture, but
simply by the rules of equity.
==============================================================
APPENDIX
II: AN EXAMPLE OF EQUITY BETWEEN A LENDER AND MERCHANT
A baker receives
an order for one-hundred loaves of bread for a wedding feast the following
week. It is a signed contract that is contingent on the baker acquiring
financing for the ingredients of the bread. The price of each loaf is 5 cents,
so the contract is for $50. The baker just completed an order that used all his
ingredients for bread, for which he will not receive payment until next week. Government
contracts are always slow to repay. The baker gets an estimate of the costs of
ingredients (flour, yeast, etc.) and the coal needed to produce the bread. He takes
the contract for the bread to the moneylender, which includes the payment date
along with his current supply inventory and a written estimate of $30 for
everything needed. He and his family will provide all the sweat equity and work
several 14-hour days to fill the order. The money lender cannot use the money
lent for any other productive purpose during the lending period and he assumes
the risks that the baker will not pay him back or pay him back on time.
Interest represents the time value of money, so late payments involve a loss of
income. The profit from this transaction will be $20. Thus, if the baker makes
$10-$12 from the transaction and the money lender makes $8-$10, then there is
an equitable relationship in this partnership. Because the greater labor is on
the baker’s part, the interest for a short-term note for a few days could be $6
and still be equitable for both. However, if the money lender demands $17 in
interest, and the baker’s earnings for all the hours of labor are only $3, this
is not an equitable situation. It is even less equitable if he put up his mule
as collateral so that the loan was secured, and the risk to the moneylender was
low.
This equity
principle would not apply to a loan for a vacation or to purchase a Clydesdale
horse when a mule can pull the baker’s cart just fine. Loans to aid someone to
live beyond their means are high-risk loans and the funds do not reproduce
themselves. The principle of equity would not apply in these situations, as
these are not loans for joint business ventures.
=========================================================================
APPENDIX III: CALVIN’S TESTIMONY
AND COMMENTS ON SAVING FAITH
Calvin shares part of his testimony
in his Author’s Preface (July 22, 1557) to the Psalms to show how he both
related to and benefited from David’s example and struggles included in these
songs.
My condition, no
doubt, is much inferior to David’s, and it is unnecessary for me to take the
time to show this. But as he was taken from the sheepfold and elevated to the
rank of supreme authority; so, God, having taken me from my originally obscure
and humble condition, has reckoned me worthy of being invested with the honorable
office of a preacher and minister of the gospel. When I was as yet a very
little boy, my father had destined me for the study of theology. But
afterwards, when he considered the legal profession commonly raised those who
followed it to wealth, this prospect induced him suddenly to change his
purpose. Thus, it came to pass that I was withdrawn from the study of philosophy
and was put to the study of law. To this pursuit I endeavored faithfully to
apply myself, in obedience to the will of my father, but God, by the secret
guidance of his providence, at length gave a different direction to my course.
And first, I was too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of the Roman
Church to be easily extricated from such a deep abyss of mire. But God, by a
sudden conversion, subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame, which was
more hardened to such matters than might have been expected from one at my age
at this early period of life. Having thus received some taste and knowledge of
true godliness, I was immediately inflamed with so intense a desire to make
progress in understanding the truth, that although I did not stop all other
studies, I pursued them with less intensity. I was quite surprised to find that
before a year had passed by, all who had any desire for purer doctrine were
continually coming to me to learn, although I was still only a novice and a
beginner. Being of a disposition that was unpolished and shy, which led me always
to love the shade and solitude, I then sought some isolated place where I could
be out of the public view; but so far from being able to accomplish this object
of my desire, all my retreats became like public schools. In short, while my
one great goal was to live in seclusion without being known, God so led me
about through different directions and changes, that He never permitted me to
rest in any place, until despite my natural disposition, he brought me forth to
public notice. Leaving my native country, France, I moved to Germany [now Switzerland],
for the very purpose of being able there to enjoy some obscure location and the
private life I had always desired, and which had been so long denied me since
my conversion. But it was not to be so. While I was hiding in Basle and only
know by a very few people there, many faithful and holy persons were burnt
alive in France for their faith. The report of these martyrs reached other
nations. These reports brought about a very strong negative emotional reaction
by the German people. They became very indignant against the people who
committed such tyranny. In order to mislead other nations about the murder of
these true believers, pamphlets were distributed, accusing them of sedition
against both the church and the state. The court had designed these to not only
cover the innocent blood already shed, but to prevent foreign sympathy for continuing
the murdering of these poor French saints. It appeared to me, that unless I
opposed these pamphlets to the utmost of my ability, my silence would be
clearly cowardice and betrayal. This is what motivated me to write and publish my
book, Institute of the Christian Religion . . .
Every place I have
traveled since, I was careful to conceal that I was the author of this book. I
had resolved to continue in the same privacy and obscurity until I met William
Farel in Geneva. He convinced me to stay in Geneva, not by advice or a gentle admonition,
but by a dreadful warning, which I believed to be as if God had from heaven
laid His mighty hand on me to hold me at this place . . . Farel had declared that God would
curse my seclusion and my studies if I left Geneva and refused to give the new
church there assistance when their need to be taught the truth was so urgent.
For in it the righteousness of God is
revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall
live by faith” (Rom 1:17 NASB). John Calvin writes about this text:
But instead of the
expression he used before, ‘to everyone who believes,’ he says now, from
faith; for righteousness is offered by the gospel and is received by faith.
And he adds to faith. For as faith makes progress, and as it advances in
knowledge, so the righteousness of God increases in us at the same time, and
the possession of it in a manner confirmed. When we first taste the gospel, we
indeed see God’s smiling countenance turned towards us, but at a distance. The
more knowledge of true religion grows in us, by coming as it were nearer, we behold
God’s grace more clearly and with more familiarity . . . Faith alone is that
which secures everlasting life, it leads us to God and makes our lives
dependent on Him . . . We are justified by faith through the mercy of God alone
. . . The righteousness that is grounded on faith, depends entirely on the
mercy of God.
===============================================================
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bouwsma,
William J. John Calvin: A Sixteen Century Portrait. New York: Oxford
University, 1988.
Cadier, Jean. The Man God
Mastered. London: InterVarsity Fellowship. 1964.
Calvin,
John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke,
vol. 16. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.
________. Letters of John Calvin.
Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1980.
________. Commentary on The Book
of Joshua and the Book of Psalms 1-35, vol. 4. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.
________. Commentary on The Acts
of Apostles 14-28 and The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans 1-16, vol.
19. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.
Farley,
Benjamin W., ed. John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten Commandments. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1980.
Graham,
W. Fred. The Constructive Revolutionary: John Calvin and His Socio-Economic
Impact. Richmond: John Knox, 1971.
Green,
Robert W. Protestantism and Capitalism. Boston: D. C. Heath, 1959.
Hughes,
Phillip E., ed. The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time
of Calvin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966.
Holwerda,
David E., ed. Exploring the Heritage of John Calvin. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1976.
Johnson, E. M. The Man of Geneva.
Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1977.
McNeil,
John T., ed. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 Vols. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1960.
Parker,
T. H. L. John Calvin: A Biography. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975.
Schreiner, Susan B. The Theater of His Glory: Nature and the
Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin. Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1991.
Tawney,
R. H. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. New York: The New American
Library, 1960.
Warfield,
Benjamin B. Calvin and Augustine. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1956.
Wileman,
William. John Calvin: His Life, His Teaching, and His Influence.
Choteau, MT: Gospel Mission, 1981.
Posts
