John Calvin, The Duke Of Somerset, And The King Of England
John Calvin’s concern for the Reformation in England J was extensive and deep. Besides providing a haven in Geneva for many Englishmen on an individual basis in the pre-Marian days and for groups during the Marian reaction, he also took a lively interest in the course of reform in England. Nor did this interest fail to bear fruit. In 1551 Pierre Viret reported in a letter to William Farel:
Calvin has received many letters full of kindness from many English notables. All testify that they certainly enjoy his skill and his works. They are encouraged as often as he writes.1
When Viret made this report, Calvin’s writings addressed to England had been directed exclusively to the young King Edward VI and to his uncle, Edward Seymour, later Earl of Hertford, and under Edward VI the Duke of Somerset and Protector of the English throne. The letters and dedications sent from Calvin to Edward VI and his Protector are instructive in a number of ways: (1) They puncture remorselessly that often discredited but stubbornly persistent image of Calvin as “the Pope of Geneva” who “sent out missionary pastors and circular letters … received as encyclicals.”2 (2) By revealing what steps Calvin thought it desirable for the English church to take in reforming
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 2
itself, these writings help to identify major elements of what may validly be called Calvinism. The chasm between Calvin’s own actions and the slanders and claims ascribed to “Calvinism” is an intellectual disgrace which can be at least partially corrected by reference to his relationship with the English King and Protector. (3) These writings reveal the basic compatibility of Calvin’s reforming thought and that of main-stream English Protestantism; they show the kind of influence which Calvin had on the Edwardian Reformation but also the substantial integrity of the English Reformation. (4) Finally, Calvin’s appeals to King and Protector go far to construct a model for the kind of counsel which a religious leader may profitably offer a secular ruler.
If there is any validity in speaking of the “Calvinistic” character of the English Reformation under Edward VI, that validity must rest in large measure upon the link forged by Calvin between himself and the Protector of England, the Duke of Somerset. For it is important to remember that, as F. M. Powicke reminds us, “in all that was done [under Edward] the initiative was taken by the Protector and his colleagues in the Council of regency.”3 The model for reformation in England had been set by Henry VIII, that of reform from on high by the King and his approved ministers, lay and cleric; the next reign carried on this same pattern of reform: it was the Protector and the Council, the archbishops and bishops, rather than friars or docents or popular preachers who led the way. The Protestantism latent in Henry VIII’s reign blossomed under Edward VI, but it was inspired and given shape from the top. And for the first thirty-two months of Edward’s reign the man at the top was the Duke of Somerset.
Before we trace Calvin’s relationship to Somerset, it would be well to outline Somerset’s general career as Protector.4 Somerset,
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 3
the brother of Henry VIII’s third queen, Jane Seymour, and thus an uncle of the new king, had been one of the men named by Henry to his son’s Regency Council, a group in which no provision had been made for leadership. But shortly after Edward’s accession (February 20, 1547) Somerset gained control of the Council and had himself declared Protector. His Protectorship was an uneasy one for a number of reasons: he was pressed in foreign affairs by the Empire (particularly Spain) and also by the French, especially through their machinations in Scotland. He came to power when agrarian interests in England were restless because of the rapid spread of enclosures. He was an essentially moderate leader whose very moderation created difficulties. When he attempted to ease the burden of the common people, he antagonized the nobility; in his efforts to implement a thorough, but moderate reformation of England’s Christianity he antagonized the remaining strongholds of Roman Catholicism in the North and extreme West of England as well as the more advanced faction of Protestants headed by such men as Hooper and Knox. The combination of these factors enabled John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, and later Duke of Northumberland, to gather about himself a coterie of nobles and to depose Somerset in October, 1549.
Somerset languished in prison from then until February of the next year, at which time Northumberland had him released and even reinstated to the Council of Regency. But Somerset’s real power was gone. When in October, 1551, his popularity with the lower classes seemed to threaten Northumberland’s power, he was once again imprisoned. His execution followed on the morning of January 22, 1552. Although he had come to power as a convinced Protestant and had remained true to his beliefs, it was under his administration that Protestantism began to suffer in the public eye because of the actions by certain Protestant nobles in appropriating church monies, a practice which became endemic under Northumberland. Although many of England’s nobles went far beyond Somerset, he too was not loath to line his pockets at the expense of England’s ecclesiastical resources.5
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 4
A. G. Dickens indicates Somerset’s general susceptibility to Calvin’s influence and the general tenor of their relationship when he writes
If he [Somerset] was not, as some historians have alleged, a “rank Calvinist” at his accession, he soon established a cordial contact with Calvin, who urged him to undertake forthwith a reformation along Genevan lines. Yet he intended no Calvinist theocracy.6
Five of Calvin’s own works have come down to us as primary sources for his relationship with Somerset: a dedicatory epistle prefacing Calvin’s commentary on I and II Timothy (Aug. 8, 1548) ; a letter from Calvin to Somerset (Oct. 22, 1548) ; a letter from Calvin to Lady Anne Seymour, Somerset’s daughter (June 17, 1549) ; and two further letters from Calvin to Somerset (early, 1550, and July 25, 1551).
It seems likely that Calvin saw in Somerset the means of achieving a thorough reformation of the English church in accordance with the Word of God, that his sanguine hopes for the English church rested principally on the good reports he had received of Somerset’s commitment to consistent Protestantism, and that his reliance on Somerset led him to ascribe power to Somerset long after the Reformation in England had passed from his control.
The dedication to the Timothy commentaries begins with an almost embarrassing panegyric of Somerset’s virtues, particularly his piety. Somerset, we are told, is “tutor, not of the King only, but of a very large kingdom,” who discharges his duties so well “that all are astonished at [his] success.”7 The fact that great difficulties beset Somerset’s efforts on behalf of reform did not prevent him from keeping religion as his chief concern. Calvin praises Somerset for “banishing idols and setting up … the pure worship of God.”8 This is probably a reference to the Order of Communion of March, 1548, which abolished many of the Roman Catholic usages in the mass and which later was taken almost
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 5
verbatim into the First Book of Common Prayer. Calvin cannot refrain from congratulating Somerset for this, even though he is separated from the Protector geographically and by his humble station. He offers these commentaries to Somerset so that even as Paul directed Timothy in the governing of the church, Somerset might direct his “Timothy” according to Paul’s instruction. Calvin’s benediction includes the prayer that England and Somerset might continue in their “noble cause.”9 The dedication as a whole is striking in its uncritical praise and the absence of any theological or practical suggestions for Somerset to carry out.
Calvin’s next communication remedied the dedication’s lack of theological exhortation and practical instruction. This letter, dated October 22, 154$, is the most significant of Calvin’s direct contributions to the English Reformation under Edward VI, and as such it deserves special attention. It is a long letter (sixteen pages in the Bonnet edition of Calvin’s letters) and as it is Calvin’s most definitive statement to the English under Edward VI, it must be used as a major source to assess the nature of his over-all influence in England at this time.
After opening amenities Calvin outlines his high purposes for the letter:
I feel assured, that for the love of him [God] you will receive with courtesy that which I write in his name, as indeed I have no other end in view, save only, that in following out yet more and more what you have begun, you may advance his honour, until you have established his kingdom in as great perfection as is to be looked for in the world. And you will perceive likewise as you read, that without advancing anything of my own, the whole is drawn from his own pure doctrine.10
He then praises God that He has used Somerset for fashioning “the purity and right order of his worship in England … and establishing the doctrine of salvation.”11 It is worth noting at the outset that Calvin, in spite of corrections or changes which he will propose for the English church, accepts it as a true church, as an essentially reformed church which, albeit, does require some modification.
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 6
He goes on to encourage Somerset to be firm amidst the trials which beset anyone who seeks to lead the church in the way it should go. It is necessary to deal with both Roman Catholics and fanatics firmly and to be careful that a reformed church does not acquire an unjust reputation for fomenting unrest. In short, Calvin urges Somerset not to flag in the effort to produce “an open and complete reformation of the church.”12 There are three things, furthermore, involved in such a reformation.
1) First, a reformation must have sound instruction. Calvin, who is so often caricatured as an unbending rigorist, goes so far as to say: “I do not mean to pronounce what doctrine ought to have place.”13 God has already given this to the English; they know that God is the sole governor and his law the sole director, that the mercies of God the Father are found in Christ. In England, however, there is a need for lively preaching to drive these truths home; for too long England has lacked such preaching and, for fear lest some should preach incautiously or injudiciously, has kept preaching from its proper place. There is also a need for “an explicit summary of the doctrine which all ought to preach, which all prelates and curates would swear to follow.”14 And little children need a formula for instruction as a means for sound instruction and to expose error. Finally, however important it is properly to regulate and define the administration of the sacraments and public worship, the matter of greatest consequence is to preserve the preaching of the Gospel at all times.
2) Secondly, it is necessary to abolish the abuses which Satan had mixed into the pure church during the period of Roman domination. A true church returns “to the strict and natural meaning of the commandment of God” and does not merely “lop off such abuses by halves.”15 After stating this principle, which begins to look like the biblicistic “Calvinism” so favored by many surveys, Calvin goes on to say, however:
I willingly acknowledge that we must observe moderation, and that overdoing is neither discreet nor useful; indeed, that forms of worship need to be accommodated to the condition
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 7
and tastes of the people. But the corruption of Satan and Antichrist must not be admitted under that pretext.16
As examples of such abuses which must be removed, Calvin does not cite vestments, kneeling for the sacrament, or episcopacy (all targets of those who came to be seen by some as English “Calvinists”), but rather prayers for the dead and the ceremonies of chrism and unction.
3) Finally, Calvin maintains that a true church must repress vice. He specifies no particularly English example of vice but says only:
The great and boundless licentiousness which I see everywhere throughout the world, constrains me to beseech you, that you would earnestly turn your attention to keeping men within the restraint of sound and wholesome discipline.17
Calvin then closes the letter by stating his confidence that he has not offended Somerset since his sincere desire is that God may be glorified in England, a circumstance for which he prays daily.
It will be seen at once how truly moderate Calvin’s “program” for England is. He leaves to Somerset and the English the responsibility for doctrine, and recommends for changes in the church’s practice only those elements which were the common concerns of most of the magisterial reformers. It would be extreme to claim that Calvin did not have a vision of a positive doctrinal and ecclesiastical structure, going well beyond the correction of abuses, to which he thought the English should attend. But on the other hand, to make the facile identification between everything Geneva practiced or everything those who claimed Geneva as inspiration desired and that which Calvin held to be essential for the church is an extremely naive conclusion. If the letter to Somerset were used as the sole criterion for “Calvinism” (an admitted oversimplification), it could be maintained that “Calvinism” began to triumph in England under Edward VI: prayers for the dead, chrism, and unction, all present in the First Prayer Book (1549), were removed from the Second (1552) ; the Forty-Two Articles of 1553 fulfilled the need for “an explicit summary of doctrine”; and while there was little effort exerted to write an English catechism, a great effort
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 8
was made to obtain sound, evangelical preaching for both the great and small churches in England. But to call these reforms “Calvinistic” is surely nonsense—they are very close to the programs of Cranmer, Bucer, Bullinger, Melanchthon, and most of the major and minor reformers of the day who, when they avoided controversy on the Lord’s Supper, evinced a remarkable harmony regarding the acceptable limits of church doctrine and practice.
That this confusion between Calvin’s stated desires and a spectral “Calvinism” is not an imaginary issue is indicated in the pages of W. K. Jordan’s otherwise sterling work on the reign of Edward VI. Of this October 22, 1548, letter from Calvin to Somerset, he writes:
This harshly clear and assured homily, incredible if one remembers that it was addressed to a head of state, exhibits at once the immense power and self-assurance of Calvinism and its inherent inability to compromise on spiritual matters, whether essential or indifferent. It displays, too, little understanding of Somerset’s tolerant mind or of the moderate and gradual process of reform by which he and Cranmer were trying to create and give spiritual meaning to the Church of England.18
It is difficult indeed to make sense of Jordan’s statement unless one divorces “Calvinism” from the thought of John Calvin as expressed in his letter to Somerset. Leaving aside the issues of the letter’s “harshness,” the “incredible” nature of its tone directed to a head of state, and its “immense power,”19 certain aspects of Jordan’s judgment are dubious. Is it indeed an evidence of “Calvinism [‘s] … inherent inability to compromise on spiritual matters, whether essential or indifferent,” for Calvin to call for an end to chrism, unction, or prayers for the dead -all activities implying an ex opere operato infusion of grace to the beneficiary and as such intolerable to any of the major reformers? Does it display a misunderstanding of Somerset’s and
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 9
Cranmer’s process of reform to urge a doctrinal statement, a catechism, and further emphasis on preaching when Cranmer himself worked to formulate the Forty-Two Articles, to recruit preachers from all over Europe for England, and to loose England’s own hot-gospellers such at Latimer and Hooper?
While it may perhaps be true that some later self-styled adherents of Calvin were harsh, inflexible, and slow of understanding, these traits are not found in Calvin’s letter to Somerset. The letter, in short, is not at all “Calvinistic” except for the obvious fact that Calvin wrote it himself.
This lengthy letter from Calvin and the dedicatory epistle which it followed received a warm welcome in England. Calvin wrote to Farel on July 9, 1549, that he had received a letter from Somerset thanking him for the writings. Besides that, the Protector’s wife had sent him a ring as a tangible appreciation for these works:20 Previously Calvin had written to Somerset’s daughter, Lady Anne Seymour, and had requested her to thank her mother for the generous gift.21 At this time also Calvin wrote to Bucer (then the Regius professor of divinity at Cambridge) expressing his prayer that the English would act in religion contrary to the French who did not allow themselves to be regulated by Christ’s rule alone. He also asked Bucer to lend Somerset all possible aid in the latter’s effort to purify the church, particularly “that those rites which savour of superstition be entirely removed.”22 As the First Prayer Book had not as yet been revised, it is probable that Calvin was thinking about at least some of those abuses which he had mentioned in his long letter to Somerset.
Shortly after these letters were written Somerset fell from power (October, 1549) and was imprisoned. That Calvin was not callous to Somerset’s fate and indeed still looked on him as a means to direct reform in England is indicated by a letter which he wrote to Somerset early in 1550 after Somerset had been released from custody. Calvin wrote that Somerset had been singularly blessed in that God has rescued him from his troubles; he should remember the example of Joseph. This little letter closes with general admonitions to further reform and
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 10
expressions of joy over the development of the young king.23 It is possible that Calvin did not realize that real power had forever slipped from Somerset’s hands and that he still thought of him as the power behind the throne through which reform could be furthered.
In June of that year, 1550, Calvin received a disquieting letter from Bucer concerning the English situation. By this time it would be reasonable to assume that Calvin knew of the transition of power to Northumberland. Bucer began his description of the English scene with these somber words:
The cause of Christ … is likewise so conducted in this country, that unless the Lord look upon our most innocent and religious king and some other godly individuals with his especial mercy, it is greatly to be feared that the dreadful wrath of God will very shortly blaze forth against this kingdom also.24
He then proceeded to a long catalogue of weaknesses in the English church: bishops are agreed in neither doctrine nor practice, few parishes have qualified pastors, pluralism exists even among the “gospellers,” the nobility often chooses papal-leaning pastors, some areas have not had a sermon for years, college graduates shirk their duties and indulge themselves wantonly, neither secular nor church officials accept responsibility for reform, the nobles prefer self-aggrandizement to reform, and Christ is excluded from the church by the refusal of many to maintain discipline. Bucer closes this dreary tale by admonishing Calvin to pray for the church in England, an admonition which reveals the close relationship which, at least in Bucer’s eyes, existed between Calvin and Somerset:
I have written to you, most excellent Calvin, thus freely, that you may be more earnest in your prayers for these churches and that, when you write to the duke of Somerset, you may most seriously admonish him respecting the desolation and betrayal of the churches, which with very few exceptions are entrusted to those who neither know, nor care to know, any thing about Christ.25
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 11
It is significant that Calvin’s subsequent letters to Somerset and Edward VI encourage them to correct several of the abuses which Bucer’s letter cites, in particular the necessity to cleanse the universities, to keep greedy nobles from appropriating church and university revenues, and to provide even the poorest congregation with adequately paid and qualified pastors.
After this Calvin wrote only one more letter to Somerset (July, 1551) while he directed a literary fusillade at Edward in December, 1550, and January, 1551. It is only conjecture, but the hypothesis is attractive that Calvin, when he learned of Somerset’s fall from power, directed himself toward the young king as the force promising to be most sympathetic to reform.
In June, 1551, Calvin received a report of the King’s pleasure at his writings of December and January, 1550–1551, and also of the fact that Somerset had personally undertaken the task of presenting the works to the King. Along with this came a direct commendation from Somerset himself.26 Calvin wrote back immediately (July 25, 1551) and thanked Somerset for shepherding the books sent to Edward. The letter is short, but it does contain the admonition that Somerset should work to establish better order in the church, above all that university revenues should not be squandered on those who oppose reform but that they should be used to fill vacant cures.27 Calvin absolves Somerset from personal responsibility for this abuse but urges him to work for its eradication.
Whether Calvin sensed it or not, and he does appear to feel that it is wasted paper to send detailed suggestions to Somerset, the erstwhile Protector’s days were numbered. He was rearrested on October 11, 1551, and on January 22, 1552, he left this life with Christian dignity. Francis Bourgoyne, who regularly corresponded with Calvin from London and whom we shall meet in connection with Calvin’s relationship with Edward VI, wrote on the day of execution to tell Calvin of Somerset’s last deeds and words. Quite indecorously he also reported that Somerset’s ardor for service to Christ had waned, “although [Burgoyne wrote] I think that you never knew any of these
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 12
things or could have any suspicion of them.”28 To add insult to injury he further reported that Somerset’s good will toward Calvin had been a pose designed more to please man than God.
We do not know Calvin’s direct response to this blatant disregard of the just convention to say nothing but good of the dead, but there is indirect evidence that Bourgoyne’s scandalmongering was disregarded. On March 7, 1552, Valerand Poullain, an expatriate Genevan serving a French congregation in Glastonbury, wrote to Calvin. Poullain had heard of Calvin’s great distress at Somerset’s fall and that Calvin was even planning to write something or other “against our people [i.e., the English] respecting his death, and even to the king himself.”29 Poullain knew that Calvin had more sense than that, but his informant had insisted he write, so Poullain had taken it upon himself to remind Calvin gently to consider “God’s Providence and the severity of his judgments,” and to commit the church to God in prayer.30
Calvin’s solicitation for Somerset extended to the Protector’s family. During the winter of 1552 Calvin received a letter from Thomas Norton, the tutor of Somerset’s sons, who said he had heard through the pastor of the French church in London that Calvin desired information about Somerset’s children.31 Norton was happy to report that the children were well cared for. Thus Calvin’s concern for Somerset seems to have been deep. His failure to strike up correspondence with Northumberland or even to write very frequently to Edward VI after Somerset’s death may be attributed to Calvin’s conviction that, once Somerset had been removed, there remained no competent champion for true Christianity among English officialdom. In any case, Calvin probably had some intimation of the insecure state of the country now that Northumberland was in charge, a condition which T. M. Parker describes aptly:
For the rest of Edward’s reign the pace of religious change quickened, and was too mixed up with political intrigue and a sordid spoliation of the Church either to win popularity or to be conducted with much regard to purely theological con-
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 13
siderations. Somerset had worked with the reforming bishops, and upon principles shared with them. Warwick … was a man singularly devoid of sincere principles of any kind and more given to drive both ecclesiastics and laymen than to lead them.32
In summarizing Calvin’s relationship with Somerset, we must observe the strong and continued concern which Calvin showed on Somerset’s behalf, even after his death. The letters which Calvin sent to Somerset constitute the single most impressive contact between Calvin and a leader of the English Reformation before the Marian reaction. Yet we must concede that this relationship did not lead to a specifically “Calvinistic” reform under Somerset. In all likelihood it did contribute to the reformation in England for which many Englishmen and foreigners were striving, but Calvin’s work was part and parcel of the entire push for reform; it did not lead the reform nor was it distinct from the pressure which many Continental reformers and native Englishmen applied to the English church. It may even be said that the complete fulfillment by Somerset of all the reforms which Calvin urged upon him would have led to “Calvinism” only insofar as “Calvinism” embraces the common heritage of the major reformers. As a matter of fact, Somerset’s own activity on behalf of reform was limited by his casual interest in theological matters and the nature of the changes he could accomplish. Jordan presents a nicely balanced picture of his activity although he again employs the term “Calvinism” quite loosely:
Somerset was an undoubted Protestant of moderate and Erastian persuasion. Without any particular interest in theological matters and in no way disposed toward precision of doctrinal definition, either for the church or for himself, his views were probably very close to those of Cranmer, though his thinking was more directly influenced by Calvinism than was that of the Archbishop.33
Calvin’s relationship with Edward VI, though not as sustained or as direct as that which he had with Protector Somerset,
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 14
included several direct communications as well as a general interest in the young king’s spiritual well-being and his direction of the kingdom. This relationship is important not so much for what it actually produced as for its great potential in the religious life of England. Had Edward survived, had he shown the dogged strength of the other Tudors, and had Calvin been the lodestar of his theological and ecclesiastical firmament, the history of England would have been greatly altered. Martin Bucer had written to Calvin from Cambridge in June, 1550, that Edward was “making wonderful progress both in piety and learning” and that Calvin should pray with doubled energy for Edward because of the danger he was in from the papists.34 The degree to which Edward’s efforts were effective is problematic, for when Bucer wrote, Edward had not yet attained his thirteenth birthday and the Duke of Northumberland, still in the first flush of his power, was spreading his influence wide. Nevertheless the news from Bucer augured well for the state of the true church in England, and it gave Calvin reason to trust that his efforts at influencing Somerset for Christ’s truth had not been in vain.
In early December of the same year, 1550, Calvin received a letter from Francis Bourgoyne, the French minister who had been forced to flee from his homeland in the persecution of 1547. Bourgoyne had had an audience with Edward and was pleased to report to Calvin that “both by his countenance and his words” Edward indicates “that he takes great interest in you, and in everything belonging to you.”35 Furthermore, Edward mentioned that he had seen a prior letter which Calvin had written to his uncle, Somerset,36 and that he was very pleased with it. Bourgoyne took it upon himself to suggest that further communication from Calvin directed specifically to Edward might be a very profitable undertaking.37 Whether or not it was this suggestion by Bourgoyne that was the specific impetus or not, his letter to Calvin was followed within less than two months by a remarkable literary outpouring from Calvin to the King.
On December 25, 1550, Calvin dedicated his commentary on the book of Isaiah to Edward VI. On the 24th of January, 1551,
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 15
by another preface he dedicated to Edward his commentary on the catholic epistles. And accompanying these two works as they were sent to the King, Calvin added a covering letter to Edward, addressed more directly than either of the dedicatory epistles to the religious situation in England.
The dedicatory letter to the Isaiah commentary makes no specific requests of the young King, but it is obvious that Calvin holds him and his role in reviving the English church in high regard and that he has no doubts about the necessity for Edward to lead the church in the way that it should go. Calvin begins the dedication by reminding Edward that the prophet Isaiah labored long in Israel for the truth of God, mostly under kings who scorned him and his message. In their own time as well kings and princes were rising up to strike at the Gospel which had so recently been proclaimed anew in its purity. But in England, there is hope, for:
It may justly be regarded as no ordinary consolation amidst the present distresses of the Church, that God has raised you up and endowed you with such excellent abilities and dispositions for defending the cause of godliness, and that you so diligently render that obedience to God in this matter which you know that he accepts and approves.38
The counselors of England, particularly the Duke of Somerset, are known for their zeal in religion, but, said Calvin, Edward outstrips them all. Through Edward, along with the others, God is beginning to revive “the true temple, in which God should be worshipped with purity, and according to the requirements of the Gospel.”39 Calvin is clear in his admonition that Edward should not stand idly by as this renovation proceeds:
And here I expressly call upon you, most excellent King, or rather, God himself addresses you by the mouth of his servant Isaiah, charging you to proceed, to the utmost of your ability and power, in carrying forward the restoration of the Church, which has been so successfully begun in your kingdom.40
Edward is to remember that Isaiah promises woe- to kings and
38
39 40
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 16
nations who do not follow God, and that when the church is in distress, Isaiah commands righteous kings to stretch forth their hands to lead it back onto the right way. Calvin ends the dedication by promising to pray for Edward as he seeks to implement God’s commands and reassures him of the divine blessing which attends the work of the servants of God.
The letter, taken as a whole, is not a particularly noteworthy document except for the fact that Calvin enunciates a duty for kings which in its tendency toward Erastianism is somewhat incongruous with Calvin’s more usual treatment of the churchstate nexus. There is also a hint in the letter of the position, usually associated with Zwingli’s name, of restricting doctrine and practice to only those things specified in the Bible when Calvin speaks of the “purity and … requirements of the Gospel” as the means of restoring the church.
The dedicatory preface to the Catholic Epistles is a more unusual document, for Calvin’s direct address to Edward is restricted to two thin slices enclosing a lengthy denunciation of the practice and pronouncements of the Council of Trent. The fulminations against Trent, furthermore, are merely the customary denial of the pope’s divine authority and the defense of salvation by faith in Christ’s blood alone. The only sophisticated point of doctrine touched is Calvin’s denial of any capacity for good works in non-believers, but this, of course, was a standard position of the major reformers:41 Calvin elaborates his Erastiansounding statements of the Isaiah commentary by saying in regard to the current cacophony of interpretations of Scripture: “You must bear in mind that it is a duty which belongs to your Majesty, to vindicate from unworthy calumnies the true and genuine interpretation of Scripture, so that pure religion may flourish.”42 It is interesting, thus, to note that Calvin assigns to Edward the same kind of responsibility for a community’s spiritual well-being as he did to godly magistrates in his last edition of the Institutes.43 In spite of this, however, the dedication is
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 17
more a vehicle for Calvin’s convictions about Trent than a real communication to Edward VI.
When we come to the letter which accompanied the two commentaries, however, Calvin outlines much more specific matters for Edward’s attention. After the de rigeur comparison of Edward to the young Josiah, Calvin articulates a means for treating “things indifferent” which reveals clearly that Calvin, at least in principle, is hardly the inflexible tyrant beloved by facile historical dilettantism:
True it is, Sire, that there are things indifferent which one may allowably tolerate. But then we must always carefully insist that simplicity and order be observed in the use of ceremonies, so that the clear light of the Gospel be not obscured by them, as if it were still under the shadows of the law.44
In the particular application of the principle Calvin states that such things as prayers for the dead and prayers to the saints go beyond the pale of doctrinal tolerance. Both these practices had been retained in the First Book of Common Prayer, and it has been thought that Calvin is here referring specifically to these practices.45 Calvin goes on to urge Edward to arrange for even the poorest congregation to have its own pastor, to root out venomous weeds from the universities, and to prohibit the use of church revenues by those at the universities who scorn the true faith. He praises Edward for granting church buildings to the foreigners’ church under John a Lasco in London and urges him once again to heed his learned counselors, particularly the Duke of Somerset :46 The letter, like the two dedications, is friendly and does not browbeat the King to support any particular doctrine or practice which could with justice be labelled “Calvinistic,” such as predestination, presbyterianism, or even for that matter Calvin’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper.
It is possible that the weight of Calvin’s influence induced Edward to do whatever his youth and limited authority were capable of in reforming the First Prayer Book. The lever of Calvin’s influence had been applied in this direction once before.
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 18
Bishop Hooper, in a Lenton sermon preached before the King in 1550, had cited Calvin as an authority urging Prayer Book revision.47 In attempting to assess Calvin’s direct influence in the matter of Prayer Book revision, however, it is necessary to remember that although Edward had twice heard from Calvin about the Prayer Book, through Hooper and directly, he had been personally visited by Bucer, Peter Martyr, and John Knox to the same end.48 And it must not be forgotten that even in the explosion of theological discussion enveloping Edward, and even granting his precocity, it was still Cranmer who bore final responsibility for the revision of the Book of Common Prayer.
There are several indirect reports indicating that Edward VI was quite pleased to receive these three communications. Calvin wrote to Farel, June 15, 1551, that Nicholas des Gallars had returned to Geneva from London with very good news indeed: Duke Somerset himself had personally presented the letters to the King, and Calvin said: “If I am not deceived, the work not only greatly pleased the Royal Council, but also filled the King himself with extraordinary delight.”49 Beyond this, Cranmer wanted Calvin to know that nothing would be better than for Calvin to address himself often to the King. Calvin goes on to relate to Farel that he fears some of the evils in England will have to wait for a solution until the King attains his majority, particularly the voracious usurpation of church monies by the nobility and the consequent inability to support worthy pastors. Yet in spite of this Calvin promises “not [to] cease to goad the whole of them.”50 The King had been even more expansive in his thanks than Calvin would admit for, according to Viret, who also wrote to Farel in June, 1551, Edward had sent 100 crowns to Calvin as well as a pamphlet from his own hand against the pope, with which Calvin was pleased.51
And yet it was more than a year before Calvin wrote again to Edward, a circumstance which would be surprising were it not
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 19
for Calvin’s increasingly intense quarrel with the libertines of Geneva and the time and the energy required by that struggle. Calvin, it appears, resumed his epistolary efforts at the insistence of Jean Belmain, an individual favorably situated to turn Edward’s thoughts to Calvin, for Belmain was not only a dedicated follower of Calvin but was also employed by the Regency Council as French tutor to Edward. Belmain wrote to Calvin on May 29, 1552, that the King was very pleased with Calvin’s works and that it would be good to write to him again.52 Belmain sent a little book which the King had written against the pope, perhaps the same one Calvin had seen the year before, and said of it: “These are only flowers of which the fruit will be ripe in their season, as I hope, and that also God will water them and strip away the obstacles which would be able to harm them.”53 Furthermore, he was happy to report that Prayer Book revision was going on apace, as was the general reformation also. Belmain closed his letter by advising Calvin to write to Sir John Cheke, who was responsible for the over-all education of Edward.54
Calvin did not delay in writing to the King. On July 4, 1552, less than two months after receiving Belmain’s letter, he sent to Edward a book containing four sermons on Psalm 87 with a dedicatory preface to the King. It is a short letter, composed of Christian exhortations and encouragement, but altogether lacking in the particular injunctions and strong admonitions of his earlier letters. The following is a typical example of this letter’s tone and content:
It is indeed a great thing to be a king, and yet more, over such a country; nevertheless, I have no doubt that you reckon it beyond comparison better to be a Christian.55
Calvin delayed until February, 1553, in writing to Cheke, and when he did write, he apologized for his laxness in writing to one so important in guiding the King. It is a short and direct letter devoid of any proselytizing effort for any doctrinal or
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 20
practical point of his theological program. Calvin simply urges Cheke to encourage the King and to let Calvin know if Edward would ever benefit by any letters from him.56 Neither of these last two letters are much more than courteous solicitations for the advancement of the general religious well-being of the King.
Nor is Calvin’s last letter to Edward any more important for identifying Calvin’s specific influence on the course of the English Reformation. On March 12, 1553, Calvin addressed a few lines to Edward on behalf of a Frenchman imprisoned in Paris for his Protestant beliefs. Calvin entreats Edward to ask the King of France to allow this man a free exit from France with his family and property. It is couched in friendly terms, full of the obsequious formalities of the day, but showing no direct concern by Calvin for the state of the King’s Christian development.57
Yet it would be wrong to conclude that Calvin had lost interest in Edward’s role in shaping the Reformation of England, for Calvin was deeply smitten by news of Edward’s death. In early August, 1553, a month after Edward’s death but before official confirmation had reached Geneva, Calvin wrote to Bullinger:
We are … mourning him just as if we were already certain of his death, or rather mourning over the fate of the Church, which has met with an incalculable loss in the person of a single individual. We are held at present in anxious suspense as to whether matters are to go to confusion.58
Calvin realized how important the Protestant King had been for the cause of reform in England and how sincerely the King’s half-sister and successor clung to her Roman Catholic beliefs. He knew her succession boded only ill for the Church in England.
In evaluating Calvin’s direct relationship to Edward and the importance of this relationship to the furthering of “Calvinism” or a “Calvinistic climate” in England, we must conclude that, although there is important evidence of a lively and reciprocated interchange between Calvin and Edward, the influence of Calvin on Edward was more the influence of a benevolent and paternalistic great-uncle than a stern and demanding father. Calvin’s interest in Edward is perfectly natural in light of the momentous
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 21
role of the monarchy in English affairs, and it is only natural as well that, when he was apprised of Edward’s enjoyment of and interest in his works, Calvin should address himself to the King.
His program of instruction for the King, and it scarcely qualifies as a program, included almost no doctrinal teaching with which any of the reformers from Luther to Conrad Greble would have quarrelled:59 Calvin gave no specific suggestions concerning any of the doctrines, such as the nature of the Lord’s Supper, which divided the mainstream of reforming Protestants. Nor in the matter of the correction of abuses did he urge Edward to anything more than common Reformation practice, and in certain cases such as the nobility’s appropriation of church revenues he even echoed reform-minded Roman Catholics. The most striking feature of Calvin’s “instruction” of the King is the great responsibility he gives to the King in shepherding religious developments and deciding between various interpretations of Scripture.
The periodic frequency of Calvin’s letters to Edward lends itself to a hypothesis concerning Calvin’s general interest in English affairs. The three substantive letters (two dedications and a covering letter) were written at the turn of the year 1551. By this time Calvin would certainly have learned that Somerset’s power had been forever curtailed, even though the Duke had been released from prison and had resumed his activity in the Regency Council. It is possible that when Calvin realized his most favorable audience in England, Somerset, would never again exert the influence for reform which he felt necessary, he turned his attention to the next most likely instrument capable of being influenced by his thought, the King. Calvin probably knew of Northumberland’s shallow commitment to the doctrines of the Reformation and realized that if his efforts were to bear fruit, it would be with Edward. The ebbing of epistolary relations could be accounted for, in terms of this hypothesis, by Calvin’s realization that the King was simply too young to exert the power necessary to reshape the English church, even though his heart was in the right place. And thus if Calvin were to have any influence in England, it would have to come through other
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 22
channels. An alternative explanation would be that Calvin was simply too busy with the Perrinists and the snow-balling Servetus affair to pay much attention to England.
That Edward was thoroughly committed to Protestantism is beyond doubt.60 That he had a cordial relationship with Calvin is also clear. But that this cordial relationship resulted in a marked increase in Calvin’s influence in England during his reign is problematic. Edward’s untimely death removes into the sterile sphere of historical speculation the question of Calvin’s potential influence upon a mature Edward VI, devotedly committed to Reformed principles, leading England into a thorough reformation of doctrine and practice.
The nature of the relationship which Calvin sustained with Edward VI and the Duke of Somerset is instructive in terms of the historical and contemporary issues listed at the beginning of the paper.
(1) The rigoristic, unbending, tyrannical John Calvin portrayed by many historians and theologians simply fails to appear in these communications to England. He is throughout concerned that the Gospel should progress, that the Roman shackles which have hindered and smothered the Gospel in England should be cast aside, and the church life should be brought into harmony with Reformation doctrine. The picture of Calvin presented in these letters is of a concerned and benevolent advocate of reform rather than a haughty theological dictator.
(2) The reforms which Calvin desired for the English church were broadly evangelical reforms freed from the particular interests of theological or ecclesiastical parties. In tracing the further course and influence of “Calvinism” in English history, particularly during the Tudor-Stuart period, it would be well to recall these letters and not to presume to sanction blindly the specific political and ecclesiastical programs of individuals who made much of their fondness for the Institutes and Calvin’s general doctrinal position. For within the perimeter of Reformation thought and practice, Calvin’s own communications to
WTJ 37:1 (Fall 1974) p. 23
Edward VI and the Duke of Somerset revealed a flexible, nondoctrinaire attitude sensitive to the nuances of England’s particular character and needs. In addition, the breadth and charity of Calvin’s own responses to English situations should make us all the more aware of the nonsense that links “Calvinism” with pettiness and psychological imbalance.
(3) Calvin’s acceptance of the general course of theological reform under Edward VI is a healthy sign. If in fact later English theological “Calvinism” was in fact an indigenous product of the English Reformation and only used Calvin’s lucid writings to augment native theological commitments, then the appeal of Reformed theology is buttressed by the fact that it was of truly international dimensions and the product of many Christians who were led at different times and places to the same reflection of God’s revelation.61
(4) Finally, it would be well for those Christian leaders in our society who have access to leaders in high places to observe Calvin’s means of counseling the English leaders. He was unfailingly courteous, he eschewed theological jargon and vacuous moral platitudes, and he did not meddle in affairs of state of which he had no information or competence. The burden of his positive counsel was to impart a clear-eyed vision of Christian goals profitable for the Church, and by extension, society; he also stressed the necessity for these goals to be implemented through Christian means. He then offered suggestions for specific actions which the head of state might take to attain the desirable goals.
Such Christian advice as Calvin gave to the King of England and his Protector was sane, practical, and direct, and it was all an expression of Calvin’s life-long desire that, even in far-off England, the church might exist and function to the glory of God.
Nashville, Tennessee
1 Quoted in John Calvin’s Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, ed. by Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss (Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke & Sohn, 1875), XIV, 131. “Accepit Calvinus a multis Angliae proceribus mulras literas plenas humanitatis. Omnes testantur se eius ingenio et laboribus valde oblectari. Hortantur ut saepe scribat”
2 M. M. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939), p. 136. Knappen does add, however, p. 137: “Calvin’s power has been greatly exaggerated … . His international influence, though greater than that of any other Protestant clergyman, was by no means undisputed.”
3 F. M. Powicke, The Reformation in England (London: Oxford University Press, 1941), p. 19.
4 Cf. the excellent chapter in A. G. Dickens, The English Reformation (New York: Shocken, 1964), pp. 197-229. Also valuable on Somerset are T. M. Parker, The English Reformation to 1558 (London: Oxford University Press, 1950), p. 124; and W. K. Jordan, Edward hl (2 vols.; London: George Allen & Unwin, 1968 & 1970), particularly vol. 1.
5 Knox, for example, lamented the fact that Somerset enjoyed watching the masons working on his sumptuous new house more than listening to sermons. Dickens, p. 204.
6 Ibid., p. 202. As we shall see shortly, it is doubtful if Calvin himself intended a “Calvinist theocracy” for England.
7 Commentaries On the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, trans. by William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), p. ix.
8 Ibid., p. x.
9 Ibid., p. xi.
10 Calvin’s Letters, trans. by Jules Bonnet (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858), II, 183.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid., pp. 188-189.
13 Ibid., p. 189.
14 Ibid., p. 191.
15 Ibid., pp. 192, 193.
16 Ibid., p. 193.
17 Ibid., p. 196.
18 Jordan, I, 201; cf. Jordan, I, 126, for a further insinuation about the “severity” of Calvin’s approach to Somerset.
19 The letter in fact is not harsh. Nor is it incredible for Calvin to address a head of state in such terms, for Somerset was not himself the monarch, and Calvin exhibited a fair degree of self-abasing obsequiousness in spite of that. Calvin may have been a forceful and direct person, but he was certainly no boor.
20 Calvin’s Letters, II, 238.
21 June 17, 1549; ibid, pp. 237-238.
22 June, 1549; ibid, p. 233.
23 February or March, 1550; ibid., pp. 257 260.
24 Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation, (Parker Society; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1847), II, 546.
25 Ibid., p. 548.
26 Viret to Farel, Calvin’s Opera … Omnia, XIV, 131. “Protector scripsit nominatim.” Unfortunately this is not extant.
27 Calvin’s Letters, II, 316-316.
28 Original Letters, II, 734.
29 Ibid.; p. 738.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid., I, 339.
32 Parker, p. 134. On Northumberland, cf. Dictionary of National Biography, XVI, 109-11; and Jordan, vol. II.
33 Jordan, I, 124.
34 Original Letters, II, 548.
35 Ibid., p. 930.
36 Probably that of October 22, 1548, which we have treated above.
37 Original Letters, II, 730.
38 Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), I, xx.
39 Ibid., p. xxii.
40 Ibid., p. xxiv.
41 Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, trans. John Owen (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1855), p. xvii. It is interesting to note that Article XII of the Forty-two Articles echoes this general position.
42 Ibid., p. xx.
43 Cf. Institutes, IV.xx. 9-10.
44 Calvin’s Letters, II, 302.
45 Cf. G. Constant, The Reformation in England, trans. by E. I. Watkin (London: Sheed & Ward, 1941), II, 173.
46 Calvin’s Letters, II, 303-304.
47 Constant, II, 173. (Cf. John Hooper, Early Writings of John Hooper [Parker Society; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1843], p. 479.)
48 Constant, II, 180.
49 Calvin’s Letters, II, 311.
50 Ibid., pp. 311–312.
51 Opera … Omnia, XIV, 131. The little booklet was entitled, “A l’Encontre les Abus du Monde.”
52 Ibid., pp. 324-325.
53 Ibid., p. 324. “Car ce ne sont que fleurs dont les fruitz seront veuz en leur saison, ainsy que jespere, et que Dieu les arrosera et arrachera les empeschementz qui y pourroient nuire.”
54 Concerning this letter, see Jordan, II, 21–22, n. 21.
55 Calvin’s Letters, II, 355.
56 Ibid., pp. 389-390.
57 Ibid., pp. 393-394.
58 Ibid., p. 415.
59 Greble would have objected, it is true, to Calvin’s insistence on a specific religious function for the King.
60 Cf. Jordan, II, 532.
61 Cf. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Theology of the English Reformers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), for a thorough portrayal of the solidly reformed character of English Reformation theology.