García Alonso, Marta María2024-05-202024-05-202016-06-250191-6599 ; EISSN: 1873-541X10.1080/01916599.2016.1203593https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14468/11984For most interpreters of the philosopher from Rotterdam, his political doctrine is solely a consequence of his religious and moral doctrines, and so an image of Bayle as a political philosopher is not usually presented. To my mind, however, only by analyzing his political doctrine can the extent of his religious proposal be understood. In this article, I intend to show that both the Baylean criticism of popular sovereignty and his rejection of the right of resistance are analyses that are indissociable from the Baylean doctrine of tolerance. The protection of individual freedom of conscience and the defense of a multiconfessional state model, tolerant regarding religious minorities, can only be articulated as historical reality if they rest on the political doctrine of indivisible sovereignty and on the strictest separation between political obedience and religious membership.enAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacionalinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessartículoBaylepoliticstolerancesovereigntyright of resistanceabsolutism