John Calvin: “It is better to burn a few (Anabaptists) at the stake, than for thousands to burn in hell”

Here's a John Calvin quote that appears on a number of web-pages:

Calvin wrote King Henry VIII, "It is better to burn a few [Anabaptists] at the stake, than for thousands to burn in hell."

This particular version of this quote comes from the web-page, Fathers of the Reformation put together by a fringe group referring to themselves as "The Twelve Tribes." They assert Calvin had a "reign of terror" in Geneva, which is perhaps the least of their charges hurled at Calvin. The quote is typically found in similar polemical web-pages critical of Calvin's view of capital punishment for heresy. The quote can actually be found here on this blog, left by an anonymous comment back in 2007! We'll take a closer look at this quote to see what (if anything) Calvin wrote to King Henry VIII. We'll see that the quote may be spurious. If it's something John Calvin actually wrote, there's very little evidence to support it.

Documentation
As far as I can tell, all the on-line uses of this quote stem from one source: the 1986 book, Renaissance and Reformation by William Estep. Estep was an authority in Anabaptist history and in no way a supporter of either Calvin or Calvinism (see his article here in which he claims Calvinist  doctrines lead to a "dunghill").  On page 241, the author states:

The author includes a footnote for the quote:

The careful reader will notice the footnote does not necessarily say the quote in question was taken from Balke's book, only that Calvin's "harsh attitude" is "delineated." While I currently have this book on order,  it does not appear the quote comes from this source. Google provides two different searchable versions of this book (here and here). Neither appears to provide any such quote. [Update: There is no such quote found on pages '329-32" of Balke's book. These pages comprise of an "Epilogue"]. 

The next avenue to pursue is Calvin's correspondence with King Henry VIII. Henry was king from 1509 until 1547 which would overlap with some periods of Calvin's reforming work (particularly the years 1536-1547). I didn't recall that Calvin had ever written to Henry VIII (or, vice versa). Typically it's Luther's interactions with Henry that garner the most attention. I checked the extant editions of Calvin's letters available to me, and I could find no evidence that Calvin corresponded with King Henry VIII. Even a simple Google search of the terms "John Calvin" and "Henry VIII" did not produce any information about their correspondence.  I'm not the first to come up empty looking for this quote. This author refers to Estep's Calvin quote and states, "Ein solches Schreiben konnten wir bisher nicht finden."


Conclusion
First, I find it very suspicious that the correspondence of two infamous people, King Henry VIII and John Calvin, would be so obscure, particularly in this age of Internet information. This leads to me to question if any such correspondence actually exists.

Second, given the hostile polemic against Calvin that's gone on for centuries, I also find it very suspicious that such a Calvin quote as "it is far better that two or three be burned than thousands perish in Hell" would be so obscure. Calvin's detractors have sifted his work over and over, searching for any nugget that would paint him a the tyrant of Geneva. Only one person found this tidbit? That's really difficult to believe.  It's true that Estep was knowledgeable in Anabaptist history, so this sort of blunder is also peculiar given his pedigree.

Third, according to Beveridge and Bonnet, "Calvin condemned with great severity the spiritual tyranny of Henry the Eighth, and the endeavours of that prince to substitute a sanguinary imperial popedom for that of Rome." Consider Calvin's statement about Henry VIII in his commentary on Hosea:

In short, the reformation under Jehu was like that under Henry King of England; who, when he saw that he could not otherwise shake off the yoke of the Roman Antichrist than by some disguise, pretended great zeal for a time: he afterwards raged cruelly against all the godly, and doubled the tyranny of the Roman Pontiff: and such was Jehu.

He goes on to say:

When we duly consider what was done by Henry, it was indeed an heroic valour to deliver his kingdom from the hardest of tyrannies: but yet, with regard to him, he was certainly worse than all the other vassals of the Roman Antichrist; for they who continue under that bondage, retain at least some kind of religion; but he was restrained by no shame from men, and proved himself wholly void of every fear towards God. He was a monster, (homo belluinus — a beastly man) and such was Jehu.

These negative comments about Henry VIII do not necessarily prove that Calvin would not offer him counsel on suppressing anabaptists, but it does suggest that Calvin did not have an amicable relationship of counsel with the king, as Estep's quote suggests, that Calvin made recommendations to the king for the benefit of "other Englishmen."

Finally, lest I be chastised for missing the forest for the trees, yes, it is true that Calvin believed in the death penalty for heresy. In his letter to the Protector Somerset (October 22, 1548) Calvin states, 

From what I am given to understand, Monseigneur, there are two kinds of rebels who have risen up against the King and the Estates of the Kingdom. (1) The one, a fantastical sort of persons, who, under color of the Gospel, would put all into confusion. (2) The others are persons who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist. Both alike deserve to be repressed by the sword which is committed to you, since they not only attack the King, but strive with God, who has placed him upon a royal throne, and has committed to you the protection as well of his person as of his majesty.

Calvin's support of capital punishment goes beyond the scope of this entry. My concern here is with a particular quote that I believe paints Calvin in a worse light than I think is fair. Calvin is purported to have flippantly said, "it is far better that two or three be burned than thousands perish in Hell." If Calvin really did say such a thing, I'd like to see the proof.  I'm going to keep an active search for this quote, until more proof emerges, I remain skeptical. 

Luther: "if wives aren’t having sex with their husbands, the state should either force them or put them to death"

This popped up over on the Catholic Answers discussion forums:

I agree that we should be careful to be balanced and chartiable in our treatment of Luther, making sure that claims are factual. However we can’t whitewash him either. He did say some terrible things. For example, it is simply factual that he said—in “On the Estate of Marriage” that if wives aren’t having sex with their husbands, the state should either force them or put them to death.

It's refreshing to find someone over on Catholic Answers admonishing others to be balanced, charitable, careful, and factual, and avoid whitewashing in regard to Martin Luther.  It's also true, Luther did say some "terrible things." Let's take a look at the example provided and see what's going on. Was Luther the misogynist and abuser the Catholic Answers participant is making him out to be?

Documentation

The participant provided the bare reference,"On the Estate of Marriage." No edition or page number was provided. Even though sparse, Luther does say something similar to what's being purported.  This treatise from Luther dates from 1522. It can be found in WA 10 II, 267-304 and also in LW 45:11-49. The section of this treatise that's being referred to is found in LW 45:33. An online version of this text from LW can be found here.

Context

The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfil the conjugal duty or to live with the other person. For example, one finds many a stubborn wife like that who will not give in, and who cares not a whit whether her husband falls into the sin of unchastity ten times over (LW 45:33).

Here you should be guided by the words of St. Paul, I Corinthians 7[:4–5], “The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does; likewise the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Do not deprive each other, except by agreement,” etc. Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another. We would certainly have to accept it if someone’s life were taken from him. Why then should we not also accept it if a wife steals herself away from her husband, or is stolen away by others? (LW 45:33).

Conclusion
In the section of the treatise being mentioned, Luther was examining grounds for divorce. If a spouse is unable to fulfill the marital obligation and produce children, a divorce may be appropriate in some instances. For instance, if a spouse goes into a marriage with full knowledge of impotence, but keeps it a secret, this could be grounds for a divorce. Another ground is adultery. If the adultery is secretive and only the offended spouse knows, Luther says,"he may rebuke his wife privately and in a brotherly fashion, and keep her if she will mend her ways. Second, he may divorce her, as Joseph wished to do" (LW 45:31). Exposed public adultery though should fall under the rules of the civil authorities, similar to that situation set up under Mosaic law. The state is responsible to enforce the rules of marriage, not the church. 

Luther goes on to discuss a situation in which a spouse refuses sex. He cites Paul "do not deprive each other except by agreement." To willfully deny the other spouse is to rob the other spouse, and is something that is so contrary to marriage, it's like dissolving it. Luther recommends the state step in to compel the spouse, or face the death penalty. That is, marital duties are so crucial to marriage, they need to be taken very seriously. To willfully deny the other spouse is to rob the other, and is actually an act of killing a marriage. To kill a marriage is so terrible, it should meet with severe penalties.  When Luther suggested the death penalty, the point was the seriousness of violating marriage ordinances. That's how seriously Luther took spouses being committed to each other.

I've discussed the quote before: Luther: On Putting Women and Adulterers To Death.  Similarly in regard to adultery, Luther said, "The temporal sword and government should therefore still put adulterers to death, for whoever commits adultery has in fact himself already departed and is considered as one dead" (LW 45:32). The sixteenth century was not the twenty-first century. The Roman Catholic Church also believed in the death penalty for certain sins during the sixteenth century. The question is, should Luther's ideas about these marital sins warrant the death penalty? In Luther's mind, the sin was so grievous, it did because it interfered and violated God's divine marriage ordinance. 

I am not an advocate of the death penalty, nor of Luther's view on this, but I can't help but wonder what would happen if a society took marriage and sexuality at least as seriously as Luther did, by recovering the paradigm that marriage functions under a divine mandate. Luther's notion of invoking the death penalty does seem extreme, if not ridiculous. I've not come across anything in the historical record that demonstrates Luther's view was followed during Luther's lifetime, so perhaps the civil authorities thought it extreme and ridiculous as well. However, I don't think Luther's point was simply an example of misogyny, abuse towards women, and a perpetuating of male dominance. Rather, both sexes fell under the same guidelines he proposed.