Four Surprising Facts About John Calvin and the “Apocrypha”?

I came across an interesting John Calvin article written by one of the apologists from Catholic Answers: Four Surprising Facts About John Calvin and the “Apocrypha”. Let's take a look at their first surprising fact: "Calvin Implicitly Concedes that the Deuterocanon Supports Catholic Teachings."

Quoting a section from Calvin's Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote (Acta synodi Tridentinae cum antidoto), the author explains Calvin believed the Apocryphal books clearly taught: purgatory, the worship of saints, satisfactions, and exorcisms. Calvin of course, rejected the Apocrypha as canonical scripture. Despite this rejection, Rome's defender states Calvin realized the clarity of these doctrine in the Apocrypha. He states, "John Calvin: Admitted the Deuterocanon teaches Purgatory, veneration of the Saints, exorcisms, and other doctrines denied by Protestants." Therefore, this implies:

...if Catholics are right about the Deuterocanon, then we’re also right about Purgatory, praying to (not worshipping) the Saints, exorcisms, and so on. That’s pretty huge.

Let's take a closer look at Calvin's text to see if he admits the Apocrypha (Deuterocanon) validates Rome's unique doctrines. I contend that the context demonstrates no such thing. Rather, Calvin was of the opinion that the Papacy would read into any portion of the Bible (canonical or not) to make it say what they wanted it to say. The passage below from Calvin is lengthy, and only slightly edited. 

Context

First, they ordain that in doctrine we are not to stand on Scripture alone, but also on things handed down by tradition. Secondly, in forming a catalogue of Scripture, they mark all the books with the same chalk, and insist on placing the Apocrypha in the same rank with the others... Lastly, in all passages either dark or doubtful, they claim the right of interpretation without challenge...for whatever they produce, if supported by no authority of Scripture, will be classed among traditions, which they insist should have the same authority as the Law and the Prophets. What, then, will it be permitted to disapprove? for there is no gross old wife’s dream which this pretext will not enable them to defend; nay, there is no superstition, however monstrous, in front of which they may not place it like a shield of Ajax. Add to this, that they provide themselves with new supports when they give full authority to the Apocryphal books. Out of the second of the Maccabees they will prove Purgatory and the worship of saints; out of Tobit satisfactions, exorcisms, and what not. From Ecclesiasticus they will borrow not a little. For from whence could they better draw their dregs? I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books; but in giving them in authority which they never before possessed, what end was sought but just to have the use of spurious paint in coloring their errors?...

...they devise a most excellent remedy, when they adjudge to themselves the legitimate interpretation of Scripture. Who can now imagine any improvidence in them? By one article they have obtained the means of proving what they please out of Scripture, and escaping from every passage that might be urged against them. If Confession is to be proved, they are ready with — “Show yourselves to the priests.” If it be asked, Whether recourse should be had to the intercession of the dead? the passage will immediately occur, “Turn to some one of the saints;” also, “For this every holy man will pray to thee.” Nor will Purgatory be left without a sure foundation, for it is written, “He shall not come out thence till he shall have paid the uttermost farthing.” In short, anything may be made of anything! When they formerly produced such passages they made themselves ridiculous even to children. Now, if credit is given them, the right of authorized interpretation will remove every doubt. For what passage can be objected to them so clear and strong that they shall not evade it? Any kind of quibble will at once relieve them from difficulty. Against opposing arguments they will set up this brazen wall — Who are you to question the interpretation of the Church? This, no doubt, is what they mean by a saying common among them, in that Scripture is a nose of wax, because it can be formed into all shapes. If postulates of this kind were given to mathematicians, they would not only make an ell an inch, but prove a mile shorter than an ell, till they had thrown everything into confusion.

What, then, are we to do with this victorious and now, as it were, triumphal Session? Just stand and let the smoke clear away. In regard to Traditions, I am aware that not unfrequent mention of them is made by ancient writers, though not with the intention of carrying our faith beyond the Scriptures, to which they always confine it. They only say that certain customs were received from the Apostles. Some of them appear to have that origin, but others are unworthy of it. These touch only upon a few points, and such as might be tolerated. But now we are called to believe, that whatever the Romanists are pleased to obtrude upon us, flowed by tradition from the Apostles; and so shameless are they, that without observing any distinction, they bring into this class things which crept in not long ago, during the darkness of ignorance. Therefore, though we grant that the Apostles of the Lord handed down to posterity some customs which they never committed to writing; still, first, this has nothing to do with the doctrine of faith, (as to it we cannot extract one iota from them,) but only with external rites subservient to decency or discipline; and secondly, it is still necessary for them to prove that everything to which they give the name is truly an apostolical tradition. Accordingly they cannot, as they suppose, find anything here to countenance them either in establishing the tyranny of their laws, by which they miserably destroy consciences, or to cloak their superstitions, which are evidently a farrago gathered from the vicious rites of all ages and nations. We especially repudiate their desire to make certainty of doctrine depend not less on what they call agrafa, (unwritten,) than on the Scriptures. We must ever adhere to Augustine’s rule, “Faith is conceived from the Scriptures.”

Of their admitting all the Books promiscuously into the Canon, I say nothing more than it is done against the consent of the primitive Church. It is well known what Jerome states as the common opinion of earlier times. And Ruffinus, speaking of the matter as not at all controverted, declares with Jerome that Ecclesiasticus, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Judith, and the history of the Maccabees, were called by the Fathers not canonical but ecclesiastical books, which might indeed be read to the people, but were not entitled to establish doctrine. I am not, however, unaware that the same view on which the Fathers of Trent now insist was held in the Council of Carthage. The same, too, was followed by Augustine in his Treatise on Christian Doctrine; but as he testifies that all of his age did not take the same view, let us assume that the point was then undecided. But if it were to be decided by arguments drawn from the case itself, many things beside the phraseology would show that those Books which the Fathers of Trent raise so high must sink to a lower place. Not to mention other things, whoever it was that wrote the history of the Maccabees expresses a wish, at the end, that he may have written well and congruously; but if not:, he asks pardon. How very alien this acknowledgment from the majesty of the Holy Spirit! [source]

Conclusion

Granted, Calvin's main argument against the Apocrypha rests on the fact of its spurious canonicity in church history; but the context demonstrates Calvin thought the Council of Trent was interpreting the passages of the Bible the way it needed to in order to substantiate their unique doctrines. Why would Calvin be admitting the Deuterocanon proved Trent's unique doctrines, and then go on to say that Trent treated the text of the Bible like a wax nose ("Scripture is a nose of wax, because it can be formed into all shapes") bending a passage any way it wanted to? It isn't consistent. 

But maybe Calvin was inconsistent... maybe he really did think the Apocrypha taught purgatory, the worship of saints, satisfactions, and exorcisms, etc.? Let's take one example, Purgatory, by popping over to Calvin's magnum opus (and that which ultimately defines his theology): The Institutes of Christian Religion. There we find Calvin going through all the popular Roman Catholic Biblical proof texts for purgatory. In his treatment of 2 Maccabees 12, Calvin writes of what the passage is actually addressing... and it isn't Rome's doctrine of purgatory:

...[T]he piety of Judas is praised for no other distinction than that he had a firm hope of the final resurrection when he sent an offering for the dead to Jerusalem [2 Macc. 12:43]. Nor did the writer of that history set down Judas’ act to the price of redemption, but regarded it as done in order that they might share in eternal life with the remaining believers who had died for country and religion. This deed was not without superstition and wrongheaded zeal, but utterly foolish are those who extend the sacrifice of the law even down to us, when we know that by the advent of Christ what was then in use ceased. [Institutes III.5.8].

While Calvin wrote commentaries on almost every book of the Bible, he did not write commentaries on the Apocrypha.  Therefore, extracting out Calvin's interpretations of passages from the Apocrypha will be slim. What we find though in the rare instance in which Calvin exegetes an Apocryphal passage, he denies Trent's interpretation.  Thus, the first "surprising fact about John Calvin and the Apocrypha" turns out not to be a fact, and therefore not surprising.

Addendum

Many years ago, I picked up a "four views" book on hell. The person defending the Roman Catholic view ("The Purgatorial view") was Zachary J. Hayes. As to Rome's popular prooftext 2 Maccabees 12:41-46, Hayes notes, The Council of Trent maintained this passage provides a scriptural basis, but they were reading the passage with "the mindset of late medieval people" (p. 103). He contrasts this with contemporary Roman Catholic exegetes, and see these verses differently, as "evidence for the existence of a tradition of piety which is at least intertestamental and apparently served as the basis for what later became the Christian practice of praying for the dead and performing good works, with the expectation that this might be of some help to the dead" (pp. 104-105). Hayes says modern Roman Catholic exegetes conclude:  

"Since the text seems to be more concerned with helping the fallen soldiers to participate in the resurrection of the dead, it is not a direct statement of the later doctrine of purgatory" (p. 105).

Calvin's Antisemitism: "Their rotten and unbending stiff-neckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.”

 Here's a hostile quote against the Jews from John Calvin circulating cyberspace:

John Calvin: (Speaking of the Jewish people) Their rotten and unbending stiff-neckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.”

This John Calvin quote seems to be saying the "rotten" Jews should be actively oppressed to the point of death. While it's true that the sixteenth century (and all centuries!) have been hostile to the Jewish people, I was unfamiliar with strong antisemitic statements like this from the pen of John Calvin. We'll see with this quote, while John Calvin was not ecumenical towards the Jews (nor was he sympathetic to them), he was not advocating killing them. The quote appears to be a mistranslation of the original Latin source.   

Documentation

There are a number of websites using this quote without any documentation (I found one website misattributing the quote to Calvin's Commentary on Daniel). There are also a few Christian and Jewish apologetic sites that use the quote as part of a cumulative case argument demonstrating antisemitism by important personages of the Christian church. The quote made its way to the ever-popular disseminator of context-less factoids, Wikiquote. They correctly identify the quote as originating from Calvin's Response to questions and Objections of a Certain Jew (in its original Latin, Ad Questiones et Obiecta Iudaei cuisdam Responsio). They do not provide where this source can be found, nor a page number.

If the original written source is in Latin, who translated this quote into English? The earliest usage I could find of this English rendering comes from a book entitled, The Jew in Christian Theology, by Gerhard Falk (McFarland and Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC and London, 1992), p. 84 (some websites use this book for documentation without a page number and incorrectly date the book "1931" ...the year Falk was born). Falk, in essence, admits to not using the original source. He documents the quote coming from a secondary German source: Rudolf Pfisterer, Im Schatten des Kreuzes (Hamburg, Evangeliscer Verlag, 1966), p. 72. (At the time of writing this entry, I do not have a copy of this secondary source). Falk documents that while he took the quote from Pfisterer's book, Pfisterer was actually quoting Jacques Courvoisier's article, "Calvin et les Juifs"! That article is from an old scholarly periodical: Judaica Beitrage zum Verständnis des jüdischen. Schidcsals in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart 2 (1946): 203-8. That periodical can be found here. The Latin text this quote is based on is found on page 206:

Without having Pfisterer's book, it seems likely that Falk either translated Courvoisier's Latin Calvin quote into English, or perhaps Pfisterer translated Calvin's Latin into German, and then Falk translated the quote into English. Either way, it seems that it's likely Falk provided the English translation currently circulating in cyberspace. 

The Latin treatise the quote comes from is found in CR 37:653–74 (The Corpus Reformatorum ).  The popular English version this quote appears to be based on can be found in the last paragraph in the right hand column on page 674.  The text is a fictional dialog between a Jewish apologist and John Calvin. Calvin did not publish it (it was put out 11 years after he died). It is also incomplete (source). The treatise begins and ends abruptly.

To my knowledge, there are only two complete English translations of this treatise available, from two very different people. The most scholarly was done by Rabbi Susan Frank in M. Sweetland Laver, “Calvin, Jews, and Intra-Christian Polemics” (PhD diss, Temple University, Philadelphia, 1987), 220–61. Her complete translation is included as an appendix toward the end of this dissertation. Up until recently, this appears to be the only complete English translation in circulation. That translation is available here for purchase.   

The other translation is self-published and freely available on the Internet Archive. While this translation may be accurate, the author appears to be blatantly and approvingly antisemitic. How ironic: the previous translation was done by a scholarly Rabbi and is accessible for purchase, the other by an antisemite (seemingly without meaningful publishing credentials)... for free. What I found curious about this antisemitic translator was that he suspected Rabbi Frank's earlier translation would not be accurate because she was a Rabbi! He concluded though it was:

I must admit that the fact that a rabbi was responsible for this translation led me to suspect its accuracy. However, I have closely compared the Frank translation to my own, and while it differs in some very minor points, the Frank translation is on the whole quite accurate. 

I mention this antisemitic translator because he actually includes a section of his translation dedicated to the Calvin quote in question: 

There is a quote about the Jews attributed to Calvin that is found on several different websites (for an example, see the John Calvin page on Wikiquote). The quote is as follows: "Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone." The Wikiquote page, as well as other online postings, claim that this quote comes from the Response. However, this exact quote is not found in the text. It seems to be a mistranslation of a sentence that appears in the twenty-third section of the work. Below is the original Latin and my translation of this sentence:

"Primo meretur eorum perdita obstinatio et indomabilis, ut immensa miseriarum congerie sine fine et modo oppressi omnes exhilarent suis malis, nemo autem eorum misereatur."

"First of all, their depraved and indomitable obstinacy merits that none of them be pitied, as they all delight in their evils while being oppressed by a great mass of miseries without end or measure."

In the popular online version, it sounds as if Calvin is saying that the Jews should be oppressed and that they deserve to die, while the actual text says that the Jews are foolish to persist in their rejection of the Messiah in the face of the oppression that they have experienced. The sentiment that the Jews should not be pitied certainly is found in Calvin's original words, and while the mistranslation does not in the least stray from the overall tenor of the Response, it is still desirable to correct an inaccurate rendering that has been repeated so many times.

 

Context

Conclusion

In context, the Jewish apologist asks Calvin, why are the Jews in exile because they killed Jesus when Jesus himself prayed that those killing him be forgiven, since they didn't know what they were doing? It is to this question Calvin claims the Jews have "indomitable obstinacy" delighting in evil, even while being subjected to years of misery in exile. It is to this Calvin claims the hardship of the Jews should not provoke pity. While he is not advocating murdering Jews (as the quote in question insinuates), it is nonetheless hostile to the Jews and promotes typical sixteenth century antisemitic views. 

It appears the popular English rendering of this quote includes elements of mistranslation. Note that Falk used the word, "rotten" for the Latin word "perdita." The meaning "rotten" appears to be a severe translating choice at best (or erroneous at worst) of the adjective "perditus" (Calvin did not use the word "putridum"). "Meretur" is a deponent verb that's passive but translated as active, so, while "deserves" is a proper English translation, it's meaning is not that people should actively oppress the Jews, but that what is happening to them is "deserved" because of past actions.  The part of Falk's translation that takes it a step a further is "that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone." I'm not entirely sure how he arrived at this from the Latin text, but taken as a whole, Falk's version has Calvin instructing his readers to oppress the Jews to the point of death.  Calvin is not saying this. 

In the same context of the Calvin quote Falk translated, he says, 

Calvin wrote very little about the Jews because he could not have ever met Jews in Geneva... It is true Calvin accepted common Christian teachings concerning the Jews as outsiders, enemies of God and Christ killers. But compared to the excesses of hatred which Luther spewed forth for years, Calvin's attitudes toward the only non-Christians permitted to live in Christian Europe seemed mild and ordinary (p. 83-84).

Whoever originally mined the Calvin quote out of this text appears to have missed these remarks from Falk.  In fact, there is debate as to exactly how one should interpret Calvin's attitude toward the Jews    ranging from those who say Calvin was not antisemitic, to typically antisemitic for his time period, to harshly antisemitic. Falk's analysis falls in the middle category (as does mine). True, Falk does present a mistranslated Calvin quote to make him seem worse than he was. Why did he do this? My take is he might have needed to do this for the overall argument of his book: Calvin may not have been bad enough, especially after Falk previously documented the things Luther had said about the Jews. There is also the question as to whether or not using an unfinished and unpublished work by Calvin himself is fair. Certainly the unpublished remarks Calvin made have meaning, but do they have precedent over his other published remarks? 

John Calvin: the Roman Catholic Church was the Mother church?

 John Calvin was a secret Roman Catholic? Here's an odd John Calvin quote utilized on a discussion forum:

Calvin on the RCC:
"the Roman Catholic church was the Mother church; that no one had the right to withdraw from the Mother church even if it were sinful; and that there was no salvation outside the walls of the Mother church."(Book 4, Institutes, Calvin)

If this quote seems awkwardly worded and suspicious... you're right! While there are some aspects of this quote that hint at some of Calvin's comments from Book Four of the Institutes, it's common knowledge that he was clearly opposed to Roman Catholicism. Rome's defenders overtly recognized him as an enemy of the Roman church. Let's take a closer look at this quote and see if it can be determined exactly how Calvin ended up supporting Roman Catholicism! 

Documentation

The person who posted this quote provided the vague reference, "Book 4, Institutes, Calvin." Granted, Calvin released different editions of the Institutes throughout his lifetime, but I did not come across any meaningful direct hits to this quote in the Institutes.  The only direct search hit that did occur was to a webpage entitled, Calvinism is a counterfeit Christian cult. It is actually carefully disguised Roman Catholicism. That webpage states, 

Not only is calvinism a counterfeit Christian cult, it is also largely based upon the Catholic heresies which were greatly influenced by Augustine. And, no great surprise, for Calvin’s Institutes were also greatly influenced by that same Augustine. Thus, calvinism is merely a counterfeit Catholic belief; Calvin was, all along, a closet Catholic. He declared that the Roman Catholic church was the Mother church; that no-one had the right to withdraw from the Mother church even if it were sinful; and that there was no salvation outside the walls of the Mother church. (Book 4, Institutes, Calvin)

As far as I could determine, the author of this link is anonymous. The website hosting the page states, 

"Hoppers Crossing Christian Church is a small home based church in the Western Suburbs of Melbourne. Over the past two to three years since inception, we have become concerned about the state of the Christian Church in western society and have therefore embarked on a mission to spread the truth about what we are seeing."

The website hosts an entire collection of articles under their category, "Calvinist heretics & heresies," with John Calvin taking many beatings. Someone (perhaps the author?) on the website claims to have been a "Calvinist" for 19 years... therefore now, of course, an expert! From reading the biographical information provided, this person admits to being born into a Presbyterian family and then had some sort of theological epiphany at age 19, I think it's disingenuous to claim a full 19 years of a well-researched and understood Calvinistic background. Rather, why not simply admit to being born into a family with particular theological leanings, and then later on questioning that upbringing in later teen years?   

Since an exact reference to the Institutes Book 4 was not provided, this following is a quick overview of Calvin's Institutes comments on Romanism and a speculative excursion into which texts from Calvin were misconstrued into the Reformer supporting Roman Catholicism.

Context

In Book 4 Calvin shows his deep criticism of the Roman Church (they are "Christ's chief adversaries"). For instance:

Instead of the ministry of the Word, a perverse government compounded of lies rules there, which partly extinguishes the pure light, partly chokes it. The foulest sacrilege has been introduced in place of the Lord’s Supper. The worship of God has been deformed by a diverse and unbearable mass of superstitions. Doctrine (apart from which Christianity cannot stand) has been entirely buried and driven out. Public assemblies have become schools of idolatry and ungodliness. In withdrawing from deadly participation in so many misdeeds, there is accordingly no danger that we be snatched away from the church of Christ. The communion of the church was not established on the condition that it should serve to snare us in idolatry, ungodliness, ignorance of God, and other sorts of evils, but rather to hold us in the fear of God and obedience to truth.

They indeed gloriously extol their church to us to make it seem that there is no other in the world. Thereupon, as if the matter were settled, they conclude that all who dare withdraw from the obedience with which they adorn the church are schismatics; that all who dare mutter against its doctrine are heretics. 

Surprisingly, Calvin did refer to Rome as the "mother church" In Book 4 he wrote, "Of old, Rome was indeed the mother of all churches; but after it began to become the see of Antichrist, it ceased to be what it once was" (4,7,24). He compares Rome to the "ancient church of Israel," meaning that in a similar way that Israel was corrupt /idolatrous, so also was Rome: "The Romanists, therefore, today make no other pretension than what the Jews once apparently claimed when they were reproved for blindness, ungodliness, and idolatry by the Lord’s prophets." In 4,2,20. Calvin discusses why one must separate from the corrupted church.

This does not mean though there is no such thing as "mother church" since Rome's corruption. Rather, there is a visible church that is the mother of believers and there is no salvation apart from her. Calvin writes,  

But because it is now our intention to discuss the visible church, let us learn even from the simple title “mother” how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels [Matthew 22:30]. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah [Isaiah 37:32] and Joel [Joel 2:32] testify. Ezekiel agrees with them when he declares that those whom God rejects from heavenly life will not be enrolled among God’s people [Ezekiel 13:9]. On the other hand, those who turn to the cultivation of true godliness are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem [cf. Isaiah 56:5; Psalm 87:6]. For this reason, it is said in another psalm: “Remember me, O Jehovah, with favor toward thy people; visit me with salvation: that I may see the well-doing of thy chosen ones, that I may rejoice in the joy of thy nation, that I may be glad with thine inheritance” [Psalm 106:4-5 p.; cf. Psalm 105:4, Vg., etc.]. By these words God’s fatherly favor and the especial witness of spiritual life are limited to his flock, so that it is always disastrous to leave the church. (4,1,4). 

Some years back I took a look at Calvin's adherence to the phrase that there is no salvation outside the church. In summary, I concluded that the extra ecclesiam nulla salus of Calvin and Rome are in essence quite different.

Conclusion

In fairness to whoever put the quote together, it is true that in Book 4 of the Institutes John Calvin applied the phrase "mother church" to Rome. It's also true that Calvin believed one had to be joined to the mother church, and it's also true he believed there is no salvation outside the church. However, these concepts are to be interpreted according to their immediate context, and when done, the exact opposite is discovered: for Calvin, Rome may have originally held an important maternal pedigree in a qualified sense, but it no longer did. Yes, there is a "mother church," but it was the visible church, not the visible Roman church.  One needed to be joined to that visible church as the normal means of salvation. 

This quote is a perfect example that one cannot simply assume a quote found on the Internet is accurate. In this case, what John Calvin actually wrote in Book 4 of the Institutes is directly opposed to the quote he's purported to have written! It appears to me that this the words "He declared that the..." were cut off of the original anti-Calvin webpage, thus creating a quote alleged to be directly from Calvin. Therefore, the key to this quote... is that it's not a direct quote from Calvin's Institutes. The author of the anti-Calvinist webpage appears to be erroneously summarizing some points from Calvin's Institutes, Book 4.

Calvin to Melanchthon: "It is indeed important that posterity should not know of our differences" and Melanchthon's Tears

From a discussion entitled, The ruinous Protestant Deformation of Catholic Christendom in Europe, comes the following alleged interaction between Protestant Reformers John Calvin and Philip Melanchthon:

"It is important" said the heretic Calvin in a letter to Melanchton [sic], "that posterity should not know of our differences. For it is indescribably ridiculous that we, who are in opposition to the whole world, should be, at the very beginning of the Reformation, at variance among ourselves." And Melanchton [sic] replied "All the waters of the Elbe would not yield me tears sufficient to weep for the miseries caused by the Reformation". The most regrettable Protestant Deformation of Catholic Christendom was a manifest tragedy from the very beginning.

This Calvin / Melanchthon pericope has been around for many years in various forms (typically perpetuated by Rome's defenders). The basic thrust is that Calvin and Melanchthon's lack of unification proves "the most regrettable Protestant Deformation of Catholic Christendom was a manifest tragedy from the very beginning."  In the quote above, Calvin appears as attempting to cover up his differences with Melanchthon for "posterity" (deliberate deception?), while Melanchthon is portrayed as responding distraught over the disunity and the overall results of the Reformation (severe regret).  In essence, Calvin appears to want a cover up which provokes Melanchthon to seek out an endless box of tissues to wipe his tears due to the "miseries caused by the Reformation." Let's take a closer look at this interaction:  it's basic Roman Catholic propaganda seeking to present the Reformers in the worst possible way.  

Documentation: Calvin's Letter to Melanchthon 

This particular bit of rhetoric has been around over one hundred years. I suspect it gained its cyber- popularity for English speaking audiences through Father Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther.  The book was originally published in 1916, then again by the Roman Catholic publisher Tan Books in 1987.  O'Hare states,

The other reformers were not a whit better than Luther in regard to toleration. The injury done their cause by their bickerings, disunions and hostilities did not escape their own notice. Calvin, for instance, fully aware of the disastrous results accruing from the specious principles of universal liberty by which the reformers had allured multitudes to their standard, wrote to Melanchthon: “It is indeed important that posterity should not know of our differences; for it is indescribably ridiculous that we, who are in opposition to the whole world, should be, at the very beginning of the Reformation, at issue among ourselves.” Melanchthon wrote in answer that "the Elbe with all its waters could not furnish tears enough to weep over the miseries of the distracted Reformation.” [source]

The 1987 reprint includes an ironic typo in this section: "It is indeed important that posterity should now know of our differences" (p. 293). That's quite a difference in meaning! One of Rome's more popular defenders appears to have noticed the error / difference when citing it and used brackets: "[not]". O'Hare's English rendering was probably not his own: the exact same English translation appears in this 1881 text.  O'Hare was a master at nineteenth-century cut-and-paste... the majority of citations in his book were taken from secondary sources.  

Contrary to most modern on-line occurrences of this pericope, O'Hare's main thrust was that Calvin made his comment because he was "fully aware of the disastrous results accruing from the specious principles of universal liberty by which the reformers had allured multitudes to their standard." That "universal liberty" which "allured multitudes" was, as he goes on to say, "the lawless anarchy into which Protestantism in its various forms had sunk...". For O'Hare, Calvin wanted a major cover-up because of moral failure perpetuated by those adhering to Protestantism. How ironic, given that Calvin is often chastised for being the disciplinarian tyrant of Geneva, beating people down when they violated the Genevan moral code!

O'Hare had many sources to choose from: Calvin's part of this pericope circulated heavily in English texts in the nineteenth century (typically without Melanchthon's reply), for example: "It is of great importance that the divisions which subsist among us should not be known to future ages: for nothing can be more ridiculous than that we, who have broken off from the whole world, should have agreed so ill among ourselves from the very beginning of the Reformation." That O'Hare utilized it is typical of Roman Catholic anti-reformation propaganda of that time period.    

This Calvin quote is genuine. It does indeed come from a letter written to Melanchthon (November 28, 1552). It can be found in the Corpus Reformatorum 14:415 (this scan is poor, this PDF download link here is better). The text reads, 

This Latin text has been translated into English in Dr. Jules Bonnet's Letters of John Calvin Volume 2, p. 375-381, with the quote occurring on pages 376-377. 

Context: Calvin's response to Melanchthon

Jules Bonnet points out that Melanchthon's correspondence to Calvin had gone through a period of "long silence" probably due to wars in Germany. The letter Calvin was responding to was written October 1, 1552. It's a short two-paragraph Latin letter (C.R. 7:1085).  Philip Schaff translates the relevant first paragraph:

“How often," wrote Melanchthon, Oct. 1, 1552, "would I have written to you, reverend sir and dearest brother, if I could find more trustworthy letter carriers. For I would like to converse with you about many most important matters, because I esteem your judgment very highly and know the candor and purity of your soul. I am now living as in a wasp's nest; but perhaps I shall soon be called from this mortal life to a brighter companionship in heaven. If I live longer, I have to expect new exiles; if so, I am determined to turn to you. The studies are now broken up by pestilence and war. How often do I mourn and sigh over the causes of this fury among princes." 

 Calvin's reply is much longer, the opening includes the quote:

Nothing could have come to me more seasonably at this time than your letter, which I received two months after its dispatch. For, in addition to the very great troubles with which I am so sorely consumed, there is almost no day on which some new pain or anxiety does not occur. I should, therefore, be in a short time entirely overcome by the load of evils under which I am oppressed, did not the Lord by his own means alleviate their severity; among which it was no slight consolation to me to know that you are enjoying tolerable health, such at least as your years admit of and the delicate state of your body, and to be informed, by your own letter, that your affection for me had undergone no change. It was reported to me that you had been so displeased by a rather free admonition of mine which, however, ought to have affected you far otherwise—that you tore the letter to pieces in the presence of certain witnesses. But even if the messenger was not sufficiently trustworthy, still, after a long lapse of time, his fidelity was established by various proofs, and I was compelled at length to suspect something. Wherefore I have learned the more gladly that up to this time our friendship remains safe, which assuredly, as it grew out of a heartfelt love of piety, ought to remain for ever sacred and inviolable. But it greatly concerns us to cherish faithfully and constantly to the end the friendship which God has sanctified by the authority of his own name, seeing that herein is involved either great advantage or great loss even to the whole Church. For you see how the eyes of many are turned upon us, so that the wicked take occasion from our dissensions to speak evil, and the weak are only perplexed by our unintelligible disputations. Nor, in truth, is it of little importance to prevent the suspicion of any difference having arisen between us from being handed down in any way to posterity; for it is worse than absurd that parties should be found disagreeing on the very principles, after we have been compelled to make our departure from the world. I know and confess, moreover, that we occupy widely different positions; still, because I am not ignorant of the place in this theatre to which God has elevated me, there is no reason for my concealing that our friendship could not be interrupted without great injury to the Church. And that we may act independent of the conduct of others, reflect, from your own feeling of the thing, how painful it would be for me to be estranged from that man whom I both love and esteem above all others, and whom God has not only nobly adorned with remarkable gifts in order to make him distinguished in the eyes of the whole Church, but has also employed as his chief minister for conducting matters of the highest importance. And surely it is indicative of a marvelous and monstrous insensibility, that we so readily set at nought that sacred unanimity, by which we ought to be bringing back into the world the angels of heaven.

Documentation: Melanchthon's Response to Calvin

Father O'Hare does not document Melanchthon's response to Calvin that "the Elbe with all its waters could not furnish tears enough to weep over the miseries of the distracted Reformation." This book which preceded his by a year or so uses a different wording for the Calvin quote followed by the exact Melanchthon quote (also noting it was a response to Calvin). 

The two quotes appear to have originally been placed together for polemical reasons but not as a written correspondence between the two Reformers. This 1874 Roman Catholic source uses both quotes but does not indicate Melanchthon was responding to Calvin. This book from 1895 uses both quotes, but similarly does not indicate the words are a response to Calvin (and also places a quote from Beza in-between). Note the following example of Roman Catholic propaganda from Our Sunday Visitor, March 19,1916:

Nineteenth century English texts have a number of instances of Melanchthon's tears and the Elbe. This text from 1849 reads, "Could I but shed as many tears as our Elbe pours of waves when in full stream, my grief would not be drawn dry." This nineteenth century book attributes the quote from Melanchthon to Luther: "The Elbe with all its waters, wrote Melanchthon, to his dear master Luther, would not supply me with tears enough to lament all the evils of the Reformation." This text has "the Elbe with all its streams..." weeping over "the divided reformation." In an 1828 text, the quote is put forth as "The Elbe (wrote he in confidence to a friend) 'the Elbe with all its waves could not furnish tears enough to weep over the miseries of the distracted reformation.'" Was Calvin 'the friend"? That a defender of Rome would pass up Calvin's name seems unlikely! This 1828 text was originally in French (1824), put forth as "l'Elbe avec tous ses flots ne sauroit me fournir assez de larmes pour pleurer les malheurs de la réforme divisée." The translation of this French text may be the the English source of this quote that ultimately wound up in O'Hare's book. 

It's difficult to locate an exact reference for Melanchthon's quote as presented by Father O'Hare. Often nineteenth century texts document versions of  the quote as "Epist. lib. ii, EP 202" (I've yet to find this).  The reason the reference and original source are so elusive is that Melanchthon used the "Elbe + tears" imagery a number of times. Johannes Janssen says that in a September 1545 letter Melanchthon said, "Had I as many tears as the waters of the Elbe... still they would not cease to flow." Janssen's source appears to be this 1545 letter to Dr. Theodore Vitus, "Si tantum lacrymarum fundere possem, quantum undarum noster Albis pleno vehit alveo, non posset exhauriri meus dolor ortus ex hac dissensione."  In 1548 Melanchthon wrote to  Archbishop Cranmer, 

I do not, however, desire in this letter to do any thing more than express my grief, which is so great, that it could not be exhausted, though I were to shed a flood of tears as large as our Elbe or your Thames.

In in a letter from September 1, 1554, Melanchthon writes: 

This source cites this letter, saying that Melanchthon "wrote to Joannes Timannus (c.1500-c. 1577) in Amsterdam that he wished that he had as many tears as there was water in the Elbe to cry grief about the dispute regarding the Lord's supper." In a letter dated September 5, 1555, Melanchthon says, 

In a letter dated April 18, 1556, Melanchthon writes:

Note that Melanchthon's Elbe tears are linked to "propter dissensionem in Ecclesia."

Conclusion

I came across this bit of propaganda back in 2006, then questioning where the letter from Melanchthon back to Calvin could be found. Now, with so many sources available, it has been much easier to solidify my suspicion that no such letter exists. In its popular form, the pericope is not a back and forth dialog between Calvin and Melanchthon, but appears rather to be the result of English anti-Reformation rhetoric from the nineteenth and early twentieth century that placed the two comments together. 

While Calvin and Melanchthon did have written correspondence,  Melanchthon did not respond back with this comment. While Calvin and Melanchthon did have disagreements, they did have mutual respect for each other. Calvin was not advocating or perpetuating a cover-up, and whatever regret Melanchthon did have over aspects of the Reformation, it was not regret that it ever happened.  

John Calvin, Tyrant of Geneva?

Was John Calvin the tyrant of Geneva, a cruel dictator, persecuting all those who stood in his way? A few years ago I did fact-checking research for an author agreeing with this historical conclusion. I was provided with a number of "facts" about Calvin's Geneva and requested to either verify or dispel them before a book was sent to the publisher.  Below is a sampling of some of the material I went through, along with a few other related entries.

Lest there be any confusion of my view of the man, John Calvin was a fallible person, a man of his times. He had moral shortcomings and sins, but he did not kick cats and steal candy from children while he walked the streets of Geneva, nor was a "dictator."

The goal of going through particular facts is not to defend John Calvin as a Protestant saint. I see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do we love our neighbors in the study of church history? We do so with our words: If we bear false witness against our neighbors, even if they've been dead for hundreds of years, we are not loving them. I say let the people in church history be exactly who they were, warts and all.


Calvin was the Cruel and Unopposed Dictator of Geneva?

John Calvin Had 58 People Executed in Geneva?

Calvin Beheaded a Child in Geneva?

Calvin's Geneva: A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an “immoral height"

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

Calvin's Geneva: A rebellious father served four days in prison for insisting on naming his son Claude instead of Abraham 

 
Calvin: Arrested and Imprisoned Jerome Bolsec, Then Wanted Him “Rotting in a Ditch"?

Calvin's Own Step-Daughter and Son-in-Law Were Among Those Condemned for Adultery and Executed in Geneva

Calvin's Geneva: A High Percentage of Illegitimate Children, Abandoned Infants, Forced Marriages, and Sentences of Death

Did Calvin Murder Servetus? by Standford Rives

Calvin: I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.

Calvin Killed Servetus? Before Servetus Killed Calvin? 

Calvin: We admit therefore, that ecclesiastical pastors are to be heard just like Christ himself

Church and State Government in Calvin's Geneva

Calvin and the Death Penalty For Roman Catholics

Bucer: "Calvin is a true mad dog. The man is wicked, and he judges of people according as he loves or hates them"

Luther: "Oecolampadius, Calvin . . . and the other heretics have in-deviled, through-deviled, over-deviled, corrupt hearts and lying mouths."

Luther's High Regard for John Calvin?

Luther and Calvin... Friends or Enemies?

John Calvin: Luther was a Madman and a Beast?

Luther: "Oecolampadius, Calvin . . . and the other heretics have in-deviled, through-deviled, over-deviled, corrupt hearts and lying mouths."

Here's a Martin Luther quote that's made the cyber-rounds for a number of years. For instance, it appears in an eighty-seven page "conversion story" opus entitled, "Why I'm Catholic.":

In response to John Calvin's particular brand of Protestantism, Luther stated: "Calvin ... and the other heretics, they have in-deviled, through-deviled, over-deviled, corrupt hearts and lying mouths." (Werke (Walch), XX, 223, in Cath. En. IX, 456d). 

Another version from "Why I Converted to Catholicism" reads:

"Oecolampadius, Calvin . . . and the other heretics have in-deviled, through-deviled, over-deviled, corrupt hearts and lying mouths." 

While these converts use the quote intentionally to highlight disagreements among the original Reformers, the quote is also unique because Luther directly (and most negatively) singles out John Calvin. I know of no theological writings in which Luther directly wrote harshly against John Calvin. Some years back I looked at the "relationship" of Luther and Calvin, pointing out Calvin is mentioned in second-hand Table Talk statements and in a letter, but other than that, the older Luther doesn't appear all that all that interested in John Calvin. Have Rome's defenders located the key that determines Luther's perception of John  Calvin?

Let's look a little deeper into history and determine if Luther said Calvin was a lying corrupt-hearted heretic, thoroughly "in-deviled, through-deviled, over-deviled." Certainly there were differences and disagreements between Luther and the Reformed, and yes, he consigned them off to eternal judgment on more than one occasion.  With this quote though, we'll see that Luther never made this particular comment in reference to John Calvin.

Documentation

Sparing the tedious details to prove it,  these two cyber-converts, whether they knew it or not, received this quote from historian Will Durant's volume on The Reformation.  Durant writes, 

Luther took no direct part in the pacific conferences of these his declining years; the princes rather than the theologians were now the Protestant leaders, for the issues concerned property and power far more than dogma and ritual. Luther was not made for negotiation, and he was getting too old to fight with weapons other than the pen. A papal envoy described him in 1535 as still vigorous and heartily humorous (“the first question he asked me was whether I had heard the report, current in Italy, that he was a German sot” 27); but his expanding frame harbored a dozen diseases—indigestion, insomnia, dizziness, colic, stones in the kidneys, abscesses in the ears, ulcers, gout, rheumatism, sciatica, and palpitation of the heart. He used alcoholic drinks to dull his pain and bring him sleep; he sampled the drugs that the doctors prescribed for him; and he tried impatient prayer; the diseases progressed. In 1537 he thought he would die of the stone, and he issued an ultimatum to the Deity: “If this pain lasts longer I shall go mad and fail to recognize Thy goodness.” 28 His deteriorating temper was in part an expression of his suffering. His friends increasingly avoided him, for “hardly one of us,” said a saddened votary, “can escape his anger and his public scourging”; and the patient Melanchthon winced under frequent humiliations by his rough-hewn idol. As for “Oecolampadius, Calvin .... and the other heretics,” said Luther, “they have in-deviled, through-deviled, over-deviled, corrupt hearts and lying mouths.”29

29 Werke (Walch), XX 223, in Cath. En., IX, 456d.

Durant first provides a reference to the Walch edition of Luther writings. His bibliography says he used the St. Louis version of Walch.  Here then is Walch XX 223, (St. Louis edition). There isn't though any mention of Oecolampadius or Calvin on the page. There is mention of "Karlstadtians," Dr. Karlstadt, and Peter Rültz (a fictional character).  That being referenced by Durant is Luther's Against the heavenly Prophets in the Matters of Images and Sacraments (1525). Checking that reference, not only is Oecolampadius not mentioned on page / column 223, he isn't mentioned in this particular writing.  Calvin isn't mentioned either, for an obvious reason: in 1525, Calvin was sixteen years old! The only thing remotely similar on page 223 to what Durant is citing is the line in which Luther says, in reference to the "Karlstadtians," that they exhibit a "lying tongue" (LW 40:166), but this seems more like a coincidence than the actual intended source.

Durant says the "Werke XX 223" reference came from the Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. IX, 456. This source states:

It was this "terrible temper" which brought on the tragedy of alienation, that drove from him his most devoted friends and zealous co-labourers. Every contradiction set him ablaze. "Hardly one of us", in the lament of one of his votaries, "can escape Luther's anger and his public scourging" (Corp. Ref., V, 314). Carlstadt parted with him in 1522, after what threatened to be a personal encounter; Melancthon in plaintive tones speaks of his passionate violence, self-will, and tyranny, and does not mince words in confessing the humiliation of his ignoble servitude; Bucer, prompted by political and diplomatic motives, prudently accepts the inevitable "just as the Lord bestowed him on us"; Zwingli "has become a pagan, Œcolampadius . . . and the other heretics have in-devilled, through-devilled, over-devilled corrupt hearts and lying mouths, and no one should pray for them", all of them "were brought to their death by the fiery darts and spears of the devil" (Walch, op. cit., XX, 223); Calvin and the Reformed are also the possessors of "in-deviled, over-devilled, and through-devilled hearts"; Schurf, the eminent jurist, was changed from an ally to an opponent, with a brutality that defies all explanation or apology; Agricola fell a prey to a repugnance that time did not soften; Schwenkfeld, Armsdorf, Cordatus, all incurred his ill will, forfeited his friendship, and became the butt of his stinging speech.

Durant utilized the Catholic Encyclopedia rather than Walch XX. The Catholic Encyclopedia though isn't helpful with documentation either. In fact, it makes it more confusing! There are a number of quotes being utilized. Some of the quotes are from Luther's Brief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament ("nor pray for them," Zwingli has become a "heathen" LW 38:291). One of the quotes is from The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests ("...fiery darts and spears of the devil" LW 38:156).  In none of these writings is John Calvin mentioned.

The main aspect of the quote, the harsh sentiment about "in-devilled, through-devilled, over-devilled" and"corrupt hearts and lying mouths" is unique in that the Catholic Encyclopedia uses the "devilled" part twice in the same paragraph without actually providing a helpful reference. This comment comes from Luther's Brief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament (1544), also in Walch XX (pp.1764-1791), found specifically on page /column 1771, paragraph 17. This writing has been translated into English in LW 38:279-319. The quote can be found at LW 38:296. An older partial English translation can be found here.

Context

Even if the impossible were true, and they were right that mere bread and wine are in the Lord’s Supper, should they for that reason rage and thunder thus against us with such hideous blasphemies, “baked God,” “God of bread,” etc.? Should they not spare the sacred words of Christ (which we have not invented), “This is my body,” by which he clearly calls the bread, that is being offered, his body? Thus they might also blaspheme him as being a God of cloths or made of cloths, or a woven or a sewn-up God because he went about in a robe and garments that were sewn and woven. Likewise they might call him a watery God because he was baptized in the Jordan, a God wrapped in clouds because he ascended into heaven in the clouds.

I, too, would have been able to designate their God in a corresponding way and I could still do it, if I would not want to spare the name of God. I could also give them their true name and say that they are not only devourers of bread and drinkers of wine but devourers of souls and murderers of souls and that they possess a bedeviled, thoroughly bedeviled, hyper-bedeviled heart and lying tongue. Thereby I would have spoken the truth because it cannot be contradicted that they have shamelessly lied by means of such blasphemies of theirs against their own consciences. Yet they are not repentant; in fact, they boast about themselves in their malice.

Therefore, no one among the Christians should and can pray for the fanatics or receive them. They have incurred their penalty and are committing “sin which is mortal” [1 John 5:16], as St. John says. I am talking about the leaders; may the dear Lord Christ deliver the poor people who are among them from such murderers of souls. They have (I say) been admonished sharply and often enough. They do not want to have anything to do with me; therefore, I do not want to have anything to do with them either. They have received nothing from me, they boast, for which I am thankful to God. Likewise, I have received much less from them, for which God be praised. Let that be as it may; the truth will come to light, if it has not already done so with a vengeance. (LW 38:295-296).

Conclusion
When the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions "Calvin and the Reformed," it appears they simply added "Calvin" in. Durant, simply copied from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and did not check Werke XX 223. The reference is not accurate in regard to the quote either. Perhaps the Catholic Encyclopedia's use of "op. cit" gives them a pass, for the bulk of the quote is found much later in Werke XX. Why they used "in-deviled, over-devilled, and through-devilled" twice doesn't make sense. Durant combined both of them together. 

Luther wrote his Brief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament in 1544. Luther did not mention John Calvin. Rather, Luther had Caspar Schwenckfeld, Zwingli, and Karlstadt, Oecolampadius,  directly in his line of fire (some of them were dead at the time he wrote it) when he said, "in-deviled, through-deviled, over-deviled, corrupt hearts and lying mouths" (sondern Seelfresser und Seel mörder wären, und sie ein eingeteufelt, durch teufelt, überteufelt, lästerlich Herz und Lugen maul hätten). Maybe one could argue by extension that because Calvin was in the "Reformed" camp, he likewise falls under Luther's condemnation. Some have said at this point Luther was agitated by Melanchthon and Bucer over the same issue, but chose not to include them in this writing, so if we're just speculating, let's throw Calvin in their as well.

I certainly understand how this historical exploration may seem trivial or tedious. Why bother? I do so to point out that Rome's defenders often claim to be deep into history. When it comes to Reformation history, the Internet is riddled with misinformation and mis-citation, often coming from their side of the Tiber.  

Bucer: "Calvin is a true mad dog. The man is wicked, and he judges of people according as he loves or hates them"

Here's a John Calvin tidbit that's made the cyber-rounds for a number of years:

Despite theological affinities, Bucer had quite a low opinion of Calvin: "Calvin is a true mad dog. The man is wicked, and he judges of people according as he loves or hates them."  (113;v.1:467)

This quote popped on my radar recently when it was presented in an on-line discussion group focusing on "debate" between Rome's defenders and the Reformation. The quote has traveled around the Internet for a number of years (at least twenty). Previous to that, it was very popular in nineteenth-century Roman Catholic polemical writings.

The quote is historically intriguing: it purports some sort of animosity between two prominent sixteenth century Reformers, Martin Bucer and John Calvin.  Basic Reformation history paints a much different picture: Bucer and Calvin had a cordial relationship,  a close and friendly relationship, especially during the period in which Calvin was on hiatus from Geneva, living in Strasbourg in the direct company of Bucer.

Which historical narrative is correct? Did Bucer criticize Calvin as "a true mad dog" judging people "as he loves or hates them," or did he have an amiable relationship with him? Or was it... both? Did Bucer think negatively on Calvin even while having a cordial relationship with him? Did he happen to disagree with Calvin on something, if only temporarily? Was Bucer having the proverbial "bad day"?  Let's trace back this quote for some answers. We'll see there's a good possibility Martin Bucer never said it. We'll see specifically there's no credible primary source that historically documents this Bucer comment. Rome's defenders have once again, not gone deep into history.

Documentation

The documentation I was provided with was "113;v.1:467." A basic Google search leads to the probable cyber-source: a Roman Catholic apologetics web-page documenting, in part, the sixteenth century "intolerance" aspect of the Reformers against each other.  "113" corresponds to an entry in a web-page bibliography:  "Spalding, Martin J. {Archbishop of Baltimore}, The History of the Protestant Reformation, 2 vols., Baltimore: John Murphy, 1876." This information is accurate, as far as it goes, but unfortunately, it doesn't go that far to the actual primary source. Here is volume 1:467.

Spalding, a Roman Catholic,  included it as part of a litany of character assaults against Calvin. That's not such a strange occurrence: Spalding lived during a period of deep polemical interactions between Protestants and Roman Catholics. It's not uncommon to find books from both sides during that period attempting to point out the atrocities and inconsistencies of the other, coupled with character assaults (has anything really changed?).

As with many books from this period, documentation is sparse. It isn't odd then that Spalding does not document his source for the quote in question. A careful reader will notice that Spalding goes on to glowingly mention one of Calvin's enemies (Baudouin) immediately after citing the quote we're examining.  François Baudouin (1520–1573), will play a major role in the authenticity of this quote as we go on in our investigation.

One source that Spalding does cite elsewhere in his text is Jean François Marie Trévern, An Amicable Discussion on the Church of England and on the Reformation in General. This was an immensely popular book(s) at the time, particularly used by many Roman Catholic polemical writers. The quote we're examining is also found in Trévern's book in the exact English form, but also without documentation.  I suspect the English form of this quote may have directly come from the translation of Trévern's book from French into English (even if Spalding didn't utilize Trévern for it). The earliest use of the English version I located in my cursory search was an 1828 English edition of Trévern. It's not possible to know precisely, but that the English renderings are so consistent leads me to suspect this popular source as ground zero for the English-speaking world.

Trévern's book was originally in French. The edition I checked also did not document the quote. What's interesting is that searching the French phrase "chien enragé" ("mad dog") along with "Calvin" provides deeper historical roots into the seventeenth century for our quote. Here was one of the interesting hits:

What's fascinating about this excerpt is this old writer mentions a source for the quote we're looking for: the quote is said to come from a letter from Bucer to Calvin, but, according this author, the only person to have actually physically seen the letter is Calvin's enemy, François Baudouin! This old biography of Calvin explains that Baudouin was initially friendly with Calvin and was granted access to his library and papers. He then is said to have taken some of Calvin's papers, particularity a letter from Martin Bucer that was supposedly harsh toward Calvin. He ran off with the documents to France. Baudouin then used the documents to attack Calvin.  This contemporary source states that Baudouin eventually admitted he had never seen Bucer's letter, only a reply of Calvin to Bucer.  This old source similarly says Baudouin admitted to not actually seeing Bucer's letter, and adds a lot of detail, including Calvin's denial of Bucer's words:

Francis Baudouin, who lodged with Calvin, gave out, that, in Bucer's judgment, Calvin kept no measure either in his love or hatred; or that he either raised people above the heavens, or sunk them down to hell. But Calvin solemnly protested, that Bucer had never censured him in that manner. "I call GOD and his angels to witness, (says Calvin,) that what Baudouin recites of that matter, is a wicked fiction of his own. May GOD so prosper me, as I never heard any such thing from Bucer: On the contrary, Bucer, whom I revere as a father, cultivated a mutual brotherly friendship with me, with so much affection, that it grieved him very much when I left Strasburg. It is certain, he strove to the utmost to retain me by any means whatsoever. There is also a letter of his to our senate, wherein he complains that I was recalled hither to the great loss of the whole church; and in short goes so far, that he says, I am inferior to none of the ministers of sound doctrine, and have but few equals." Baudouin confesses, in his answer, that he had not seen what Bucer had wrote to Calvin; but he brags he had Calvin's answer to Bucer. Theodore Beza wrote to Baudouin, and made the following apology for Calvin; "You say Calvin cursed himself if ever he heard any such thing from Bucer: But why do you omit what is most to the purpose? For these are Calvin's words: "Baudouin says, that Bucer once told me that I kept no measure in my hatred or love; but was a man of that vehemence, that I either extolled a man above the skies, or debased him to hell." You see manifestly, though you are so blind with rage or hatred that you can see nothing, that what you wrote obscurely of Bucer's rebuke, Calvin under'stood as of some conversation; and, therefore, remembering the sweet and uninterrupted friendship that had been between him and Bucer, did not rashly break out into that expression; so that this is nothing at all to the letter, which you have corrupted too; for Bucer, whose letter I have in his own hand-writing, did not write, you judge as you love,  but we judge as we love, whereby he comprehended himself in the number, and deplored a  common fault of mankind.' Beza also remarks, that those two great men soon altered their style in writing to each other; and that there are letters of Bucer to Calvin of a later date, and full of mildness.

The above synopsis closely follows that done in Bayle's Dictionary. Bayle says, "There has been much Talk of a Letter which [Bucer] wrote to Calvin." Similarly, Bayle records that Calvin vehemently denied the contents of the alleged Bucer letter. Again, Baudouin is indicted for admitting he had actually not seen Bucer's letter, but only Calvin's letter to Bucer. Then Bayle similarly puts forth Beza's remarks.

Bayle cites only, "You judge according as you love, or according as you hate; or you love and hate from meer Fancy." Many of the older citations of this quote focus more on the sentence "he judges of people according as he loves or hates them" rather than the "mad dog" line.  As Beza implied above, the line from Bucer was actually,  "Our judgment depends on our love or our hate," but this line is only known through the debates back and forth between Calvin,  Baudouin, and Beza's testimony.


Conclusion
It appears some of the English quote in which Bucer calls Calvin a "mad dog" et al. does date back to the sixteenth century, but not to an actual verifiable context from Bucer.  To my knowledge, no such letter has ever been recovered in which Bucer is said to have written, "Calvin is a true mad dog. The man is wicked, and he judges of people according as he loves or hates them." It was the unproven and eventually retracted statement from Calvin's polemical enemy, François Baudouin. Only his testimony serves as the basis of this quote in the historical record.

There are some loose ends to this brief investigation. First, I've not come across any helpful information of how the words "true mad dog" entered the historical record. Second, I've not actually located exactly which source Baudouin originally claimed to know the contents of Bucer's letter.  Third, I've not actually provided any actual assessments of the relationship between Bucer and Calvin. According to this source,  there was disagreement, but not of the personal animosity level  that the polemical quote suggests. 

Regardless of these loose ends,  I'm confident that Roman Catholic polemicists are those ultimately responsible to substantiate the claim that "Bucer had quite a low opinion of Calvin." The proof they've used thus far, a spurious quote devoid of context, put forth by Calvin's known enemy, fails as evidence. 

Calvin Cites Augustine: "The Will of God is the Necessity of Things"

In chasing down a John Calvin quote, I came upon a citation of Augustine. In Institutes III.23.8, Calvin says,

Here they have recourse to the distinction between will and permission. By this they would maintain that the wicked perish because God permits it, not because he so wills. But why shall we say “permission” unless it is because God so wills? Still, it is not in itself likely that man brought destruction upon himself through himself, by God’s mere permission and without any ordaining. As if God did not establish the condition in which he wills the chief of his creatures to be! I shall not hesitate, then, simply to confess with Augustine that “the will of God is the necessity of things,” and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass, as those things which he has foreseen will truly come to pass.

Calvin's comment here enters that controversial place many theists fear to go, God's absolute unchangeable will, God's permissive will, predestination, reprobation, and Adam's fall into sin. I was curious to see Augustine's citation in context, to see if Calvin either mis-cited or misused Augustine. Granted, this may seem in some sense like an invitation to debate or discuss God's sovereignty, but my goal is primarily academic, focusing on how Calvin cited Augustine.

Augustine: Documentation
The version of Calvin's Institutes I utilized was that translated by Ford Lewis Battles and edited by John T. McNeill. This text provides a reference:  Augustine, On Genesis in the Literal Sense VI. 15. 26 (MPL 34.350). MPL refers to Migne Patrologia Latina. Here is 34:350. The text reads:

Calvin appears to have cited last part of  the last sentence:

An English translation is available. For context, I've also included VI.14.25.

Augustine: Context

Conclusion
Calvin's comments occur in his overall discussion on predestination and reprobation primarily, but he ventures into the fall of Adam into sin. Did God permit man's fall into sin or did he ordain it? Calvin affirms the later and says, "I shall not hesitate, then, simply to confess with Augustine that 'the will of God is the necessity of things,' and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass, as those things which he has foreseen will truly come to pass." Later in the same section Calvin states, "Accordingly, man falls according as God's providence ordains, but he falls by his own fault." If this sounds tricky, Calvin goes on to say that we should spend our time contemplating Adam as the evident cause of the fall rather than "seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God's predestination":

Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity—which is closer to us—rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God’s predestination. And let us not be ashamed to submit our understanding to God’s boundless wisdom so far as to yield before its many secrets. For, of those things which it is neither given nor lawful to know, ignorance is learned; the craving to know, a kind of madness.

What was Augustine writing about? His comments were not addressing predestination and reprobation. His comments are from a book entitled, The Literal Meaning of Genesis. His concerns are with creation and origins. in VI.14.25 tackles whether or not things were created fully formed or whether or not they developed. Augustine says "they were created with an aptitude for each mode." In the next section, Augustine applies this to the creation of Adam and says whichever way God did it, it would be his absolute will that determined it. If the creation of man was an instantaneous creation of a fully formed man, that happened by God's imposed necessity. If the creation of man was through a process of some sort, whether it be formed into the mud "in that primordial establishment of causes," that happened by God's imposed necessity. If the creation of man has the potentiality to be created either way, the way it happened is by God's imposed necessity.

Did Calvin mis-cite Augustine? I don't think so. Both Calvin and Augustine in essence agree that all things that God created conform to His sovereign necessity, however each applied it in different areas. The overarching point is God's necessity.  I see some overlap with Calvin the continuation of Augustine's comments in the next section. Augustine says we don't know if a person will grow old, but if he does, it was God's will, "who established all things" because "the hidden formula of old age is there in the youthful body" (VI.16.27). The necessity of the man growing old is because of God, "For if he wills that will of necessity be in the future, and it is those things that he has foreknown which will really be in the future" (VI.17.28). "The one who foreknows them [God] cannot be mistaken" (VI.17.28). He further refers to God adding fifteen years to the life of Hezekiah, something God knew he was going to do "before the foundations of the world (Eph 1:4) that he was going to do, and which he reserved to his own will" (VI.17.28).  "God's foreknowledge cannot be mistaken. And this is why what he foreknew would of necessity come to pass in the future" (VI.17.28).  Augustine further says that God "deliberately predetermined" Adam according to His will (VI.18.29).

Did Calvin misuse or misapply Augustine here? That's a little less clear to me.  I expected that when I tracked down the Augustine reference, the context would be directly related in some way to the issues of predestination or the fall into sin.  I was surprised to find a discussion about whether or not creation is created fully formed or whether it developed! I can certainly see how someone could be critical of Calvin's use of Augustine here, particularly since Augustine does attempt to tackle the implications of sovereignty and the fall in his writings, but not in this particular section Calvin referred to.

Addendum
For an interesting discussion of Augustine's view on man's fall into sin, see: Robert F. Brown, "The First Evil Will Must be Incomprehensible: A Critique of Augustine," JAAR 46, no. 3 (1978) 315-329. While critical, the author helpfully lays out Augustine's various answers to the origin of the fall.
This author says that Augustine came up with various explanations, including that the fall was incomprehensible to human intellect, but at times moved beyond that to  causal explanations.