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

Here'a tidbit about John Calvin's Geneva floating around cyberspace:

Children were to be named after Old Testament characters. A rebellious father served four days in prison for insisting on naming his son Claude instead of Abraham (source).

Simply search the phrase "insisting on naming his son Claude" to see the extent of the spread of this information. Of the hits I came across, none were claiming John Calvin himself had a man put in prison for naming his son "Claude." Typically, it's presented as something like, "Laws and facts about Geneva Under Calvin’s Authority" (source). That is, the "Tyrant of Geneva" sent out his troops make arrests.  Let's take a close look at this fact and try to determine it's truth and John Calvin's involvement.

Documentation
I suspect the popularity of this fact finds its genesis in pop-historian Will Durant's book, The Reformation. Durant says,

To regulate lay conduct a system of domiciliary visits was established: one or another of the elders visited, yearly, each house in the quarter assigned to him, and questioned the occupants on all phases of their lives. Consistory and Council joined in the prohibition of gambling, card-playing, profanity, drunkenness, the frequenting of taverns, dancing (which was then enhanced by kisses and embraces), indecent or irreligious songs, excess in entertainment, extravagance in living, immodesty in dress. The allowable color and quantity of clothing, and the number of dishes permissible at a meal, were specified by law. Jewelry and lace were frowned upon. A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an immoral height.34 Theatrical performances were limited to religious plays, and then these too were forbidden. Children were to be named not after saints in the Catholic calendar but preferably after Old Testament characters; an obstinate father served four days in prison for insisting on naming his son Claude instead of Abraham.35 Censorship of the press was taken over from Catholic and secular precedents, and enlarged (1560): books of erroneous religious doctrine, or of immoral tendency, were banned; Montaigne’s Essays and Rousseau’s Emile were later to fall under this proscription. To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime.36 A first violation of these ordinances was punished with a reprimand, further violation with fines, persistent violation with imprisonment or banishment. Fornication was to be punished with exile or drowning; adultery, blasphemy, or idolatry, with death. In one extraordinary instance a child was beheaded for striking its parents.37 In the years 1558-59 there were 414 prosecutions for moral offenses; between 1542 and 1564 there were seventy-six banishments and fifty-eight executions; the total population of Geneva was then about 20,000.38 As everywhere in the sixteenth century, torture was often used to obtain confessions or evidence.

35 Schaff, 492.

Durant provides a footnote, "Schaff, 492." This refers to Philip Schaff's multi-volume History of the Christian Church, specifically the volume on the Swiss Reformation. Schaff does record this incident:

A person named Chapuis was imprisoned for four days because he persisted in calling his child Claude (a Roman Catholic saint) instead of Abraham, as the minister wished, and saying that he would sooner keep his son unbaptized for fifteen years."1

1  Registers for April 27, 1546. Henry II. 429.

Earlier and related, Schaff noted the following also:

Parents were warned against naming their children after Roman Catholic saints who nourished certain superstitions; instead of them the names of Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel, Zechariah, Jeremiah, Nehemiah became common. (This preference for Old Testament names was carried even further by the Puritans of England and New England.)

Schaff provides a reference: "Registers for April 27, 1546. Henry II. 429." I'm uncertain which source he's using for the Registers of Geneva. I suspect he simply took information from the second source, "Henry II, 429." This refers to Paul Henry, Das Leben Johann Calvins des grossen Reformators, Volume 2, p. 429. The text states, 

An English translation of this text can be found here. The text states, 

The feeling of popular indignation was still further increased by an order which forbade the naming of children after the Roman catholic saints; among the most favorite names were those of Claudius and Balthazar, with which the people had associated certain superstitious ideas.t To heap insult on morality and religion was the order of the day.

t Picot, T. ii. pp. 413, 414. Regis. 1546, Av. 27. Chapuis was put in prison for having persisted in naming his child Claude, which the minister did not wish, but desired to call him Abraham.

"Picot, T. ii, pp. 413-414" appears to be a bibliographic error. The actual reference should be to volume 1, pp. 413-414. Picot mentions that the particular names in question were superstitiously believed to give long life ("...ils croyoient par là procurer une longue vie à ces enfans"). This appears to be the "superstitious ideas" mentioned by Paul Henry. 

Conclusion

It is true that particular names for newborns were outlawed in Geneva during the Reformation period. The reason is alluded to above in the documentation. Negatively, in Geneva's reforming efforts, there was a concerted effort to have a complete rejection of Romanism and superstition. Positively, there was to be a concerted effort to promotion reformation. 

The name "Claude," particularly, was a troubling name. Here is the exact rule which was issued on November 22, 1546:

"Claude" was viewed as the name of an "idol," because, as the footnote states, "Claude was a name that had been popular in Geneva because of devotion to St. Claude, bishop of Bassancon and patron of the neighboring abbey of St. Claude, which attracted numerous Pilgrams." Picot and Henry state the name was superstitiously thought to bring long life.  But what of the person arrested? Scott Manetsch provides more information:

Here we find a few more details. The precise date was not April 27, 1546 (Schaff), but rather August 1546. A godparent requested the name "Claude" during a baptism ceremony. The minister though refused, and gave the child the name Abraham. The father then caused a public disruption during the ceremony, going as far to question the validity of the baptism.  Manetsch goes on to say, 

It's interesting that this severe rule the pastors of Geneva put in place was not arbitrary. They had an intended theological purpose, and took it quite seriously. The actual event that caused the arrest of Ami Chapuis was not simply a knock on his door placing him under arrest. Rather it was a disturbance at a public ceremony. Did the ministers of Geneva go too far with this rule? From a theological perspective given the time period, I'm not convinced they did. On the other hand, placing Chapius in prison for a few days does seem too harsh and too far, at least from my modern perspective. 

It's important to note specifically that the minster officiating the baptism ceremony was not John Calvin. Was Calvin in agreement with this rule? Certainly. As noted above in the legal document, Calvin was in favor of it, but the law  "only came into being after three months of vigorous discussion." So much for the power of the "Tyrant of Geneva." Yes, Calvin influenced this rule, yes there was an arrest, but it wasn't because Calvin declared it and everyone simply obeyed.  

I've not put forth a complete exhortation of Calvin. He did influence the rule on the the naming of children. Did he seek to have people arrested who violated this rule? I don't know. It appears to me that whichever minister was involved may have played a major part in the arrest.  One other thing that I'm not sure of: while Manetsch notes there were a number of "name" disputes, I've not come across any other child naming disputes that resulted in imprisonment.  The tendency is to view this imprisonment of Ami Chapuis as typical and daily in the life of Reformation Geneva. I've not come across any other similar Genevan cases.  

John Calvin Had 58 People Executed in Geneva?

Here's a John Calvin tidbit found on a number of web-pages:

From 1541 to 1546, John Calvin caused 58 people to be executed and seventy six were exiled. His victims ranged in age from 16 to 80 (source).

In this snippet, John Calvin is painted as being the direct cause for fifty-eight executions, including young adults as well as the elderly. Various versions of these facts can be found across the Internet. For instance, a web-page hosting Fr. Leonel Franca's Calvin the Tyrant of Geneva states these statistics were the result of the "the religious persecutions of Calvin." A website dedicated to biographies states the executions and banishments were all due to religious beliefs: "In the first five years of John Calvin's rule in Geneva, 58 people were executed and 76 exiled for their religious beliefs." Encyclopedia.com says Calvin "acted as a virtual dictator from 1541 until his death," then shows the following results of this dictatorship:

There were some ugly moments in theocratic Geneva. During these years 58 people were executed and 76 banished in order to preserve morals and discipline. Like most men of his century, the reformer was convinced that believing wrongly about God was so heinous a crime that not even death could expiate it.

These are only a few examples of the dissemination of this information. Many more could easily be provided. Did Calvin actually have fifty-eight people executed? Was Calvin having people executed due to his religious intolerance? Were the Genevans being lined up like a row of Servetus's, being executed at the whim of the dictator John Calvin, simply because they defied his theology? Let's take a closer look.

Documentation
The majority of web-pages using these facts do not provide documentation. Many are simply of the "I hate John Calvin" ilk. There are though a few reputable English sources that do mention these facts. For instance, the old Catholic Encyclopedia repeats the same facts, but does not provide helpful documentation.  Probably the most reputable English source (and perhaps that which helped popularize the information) is Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church. Schaff states,

The official acts of the Council from 1541 to 1559 exhibit a dark chapter of censures, fines, imprisonments, and executions. During the ravages of the pestilence in 1545 more than twenty men and women were burnt alive for witchcraft, and a wicked conspiracy to spread the horrible disease. From 1542 to 1546 fifty-eight judgments of death and seventy-six decrees of banishments were passed.4 During the years 1558 and 1559 the cases of various punishments for all sorts of offences amounted to four hundred and fourteen — a very large proportion for a population of 20,000.

4. According to Galiffe, as quoted by Kampschulte, I. 425.

First, Schaff  says his information came from "The official acts of the Council from 1541 to 1559." What was "the Council"? That's not an easily explained answer, for Geneva's legal system was complicated. Schaff explains it here. I have an explanation of it here. On a fundamental level: the "official acts of the Council" does not mean the official acts of the Genevan church or John Calvin. Certainly religion was infused into Genevan polity, but the "Council" does not mean "church council." Second, it does not appear that Schaff actually consulted this source. Rather, he provides a footnote to his chosen source: "According to Galiffe, as quoted by Kampschulte." Since it appears that the later was that which Schaff ultimately utilized, let's treat it first. According to Schaff, "Kampschulte"refers to:

F. W. Kampschulte (a liberal Roman Catholic, Professor of History at Bonn, died an Old Catholic, 1872): Joh. Calvin, seine Kirche und sein Staat in Genf.  Leipzig, 1869, vol. I. (vols. II. and III. have not appeared).  A most able, critical, and, for a Catholic, remarkably fair and liberal work, drawn in part from unpublished sources. (source)

Here then is Kampschulte's comment which Schaff utilized:

This appears to be Schaff's primary source for this information. It's basically a repeat of the bald facts of fifty-eight executions and seventy-six banishments. What is revealing is that Kampschulte does not go as far as saying Calvin directly caused the execution of fifty-eight people (as if Calvin was in a courtroom looking at the accused and passing the verdict: "take him away for execution"). Rather, Kampschulte insinuates it was Calvin's overall preaching influence on the Genevan judicial system which caused it. Schaff, a careful scholar, made sure to document where the information originated from, noting that Kampschulte himself relied on a source for this information: Galiffe-

"Galiffe" refers to Jean-Barthelemy Galiffe. Interestingly, particularly in light of his favorable comments about Kampschulte,  Schaff notes Galiffe was a Protestant scholar "but very hostile to Calvin and his institutions, chiefly from the political point of view").  "Nouvelles" refers to his book, Nouvelles pages d’histoire exacte soit le procès de Pierre Ameaux, Genève. Page 97 states,

This text basically says the same thing, that during the period in question there were fifty-eight executions and seventy-six banishments. There is an admission though that the statistics in questions were compiled by Galiffe, using the Registers of the Council of Geneva from the period in question. The bones are finally gaining some meat: Galiffe  goes on to provide actual data to back up his statistics. The data for the executions begins on page 100.  He says thirty were men, twenty-eight were women. Of these, thirteen people were hanged, ten were decapitated,  and thirty-five burned alive. Of these fifty-eight executions, twenty were for ordinary crimes: murder, robbery, counterfeit money, forgery, political offenses, etc.  These twenty people were men. The other thirty-eight did involve women, and they were cases involving questioning through torture, most notably in regard to the spread of the plague. There were also some involving witchcraft and divination, but almost all of them were in regard to the spreading of the plague.

Conclusion
The statistic of fifty-eight executions strongly appears to find its genesis from Galiffe. It was he that went through the old Genevan registers and counted. Galiffe was no fan of Calvin. Read Schaff's description of Galiffe here. See also this description.  Richard Stauffer points out that Galiffe was from an "old Genevese family" extremely bitter towards Calvin "not only as a foreigner, but also as an intruder and usurper in the life of the old city." Stauffer includes him as presenting a picture of Calvin in which the Reformer isn't recognizable. Schaff notes that the Galiffe's (father and son scholars) viewed Geneva as "independent and free" until Calvin came along.  In Galiffe's presentation, the emphasis is that whatever evils may have been present in Geneva, Calvin made them much worse once he arrived.

It appears to me that Galiffe's research suffers from the logical error of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Everything that happened in Geneva once Calvin arrived was the fault of John Calvin. As far as I can tell from going through Galiffe's research, there is not a direct line of evidence that Calvin "caused fifty-eight people to be executed." Nor is their a direct line of evidence that those executed suffered for theological reasons or for some disagreement with Calvin's theology. Most telling is that twenty of the number were executed for the ordinary sort of crimes that were punishable during this time period. These executions were not something out of the ordinary in western Europe during this time period.

But what about those other thirty-eight who died as the result of questioning through torture?  The Genevan judical system operated like other sixteenth century judicial systems: through the process of inquisition. Robert Kingdon explains,

The basic principle of this system is a procedure known as inquisition process. It assumes that the real truth of any criminal charge is most likely to emerge from intensive, and repeated questioning of the parties involved.  

Kingdon details the entire process that operated in Geneva, much of which preceded Calvin's arrival. He points out that during the progressive process of questioning, the Genevan system allowed for torture along with the interrogation. It was a detailed horrible process, a process not invented by Calvin, but not repudiated by Calvin either. it was the established judicial system of the day, a system that Calvin accepted as being part of the government, not the church. One would wish that Calvin repudiated the system, but he did not. That he didn't repudiate it settles the matter for many that are opposed to Calvinism. Others, like myself, try to put people in their historical contexts and understand them in the world they lived in. 

Most interesting is that the event of the plague in Geneva appears to play a strong factor in many of these executions, not Calvin's theology.  There was a pervading fear that swept through Geneva when the plague hit, causing hysteria. Why was the plague here? Who is causing it? There were accusations against people of being deliberate plague spreaders, and these people wound up as victims of the inquisition process. Satan and those who were his sorcerers in Geneva were said to also actively be spreading the plague. Calvin, of course, was certainly in favor of having these people stopped as well.  A helpful overview can be found in Bernard Cottret's, Calvin, a Biography, pp. 178-181. He points out:

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

Here's a tidbit from a blog entry entitled, John Calvin: Heresy Hunter with an Axe to Grind:

In addition to Servetus, Jerome Bolsec was arrested and imprisoned for challenging Calvin during a lecture, then banished from the city. Calvin wrote privately about the matter saying that he wished Bolsec were “rotting in a ditch.”

Documentation
The documentation provided is, "Quoted in History of the Christian Church Volume VIII. p. 137 See online here. " This link doesn't go to the exact spot where Schaff discusses this. Here is the discussion in Schaff. 

Historical Context Via Schaff
Schaff explains that Jerome Bolsec actually interrupted John de St. André who was speaking that day (hence, a public disturbance), and challenged this minister, not Calvin. According to Schaff,

On the 16th of October, 1551, Bolsec attended the religious conference, which was held every Friday at St. Peter's. John de St. André preached from John 8: 47 on predestination, and inferred from the text that those who are not of God, oppose him to the last, because God grants the grace of obedience only to the elect. Bolsec suddenly interrupted the speaker, and argued that men are not saved because they are elected, but that they are elected because they have faith. He denounced, as false and godless, the notion that God decides the fate of man before his birth, consigning some to sin and punishment, others to virtue and eternal happiness. He loaded the clergy with abuse, and warned the congregation not to be led astray.

Calvin was in attendance, though Schaff says he “entered the church unobserved.” Calvin waited until Bolsec was finished, then had an impromptu debate with Bolsec, and refuted him. Schaff does not say Calvin had Bolsec arrested, nor was Bolsec arrested for challenging Calvin. Other church leaders were in attendance (for instance, Schaff says William Farel was also present). Schaff says, “The lieutenant of police apprehended Bolsec for abusing the ministers and disturbing the public peace.”

Schaff says the ministers of Geneva "drew up seventeen articles against Bolsec." Yes, Bolsec was eventually banished, but only after a number of other churches were asked to weigh in on what should be done with Bolsec (and not all of those churches were favorable to Calvin). Because of the collected work of all these churches, the milder sentence of banishment was imposed.

Rotting in a Ditch?
I’m not sure where the exact form of "Calvin wrote privately about the matter saying that he wished Bolsec were 'rotting in a ditch'" comes from. It’s similar to this from Called to Communion:

In 1551, Bolsec, a physician and convert to Protestantism, entered Geneva and attended a lecture on theology. The topic was Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, the teaching that God predetermines the eternal fate of every soul. Bolsec, who believed firmly in “Scripture alone” and “faith alone,” did not like what he heard. He thought it made God into a tyrant. When he stood up to challenge Calvin’s views, he was arrested and imprisoned.

What makes Bolsec’s case interesting is that it quickly evolved into a referendum on Church authority and the interpretation of Scripture. Bolsec, just like most Evangelicals today, argued that he was a Christian, that he had the Holy Spirit and that, therefore, he had as much right as Calvin to interpret the Bible. He promised to recant if Calvin would only prove his doctrine from the Scriptures. But Calvin would have none of it. He ridiculed Bolsec as a trouble maker (Bolsec generated a fair amount of public sympathy), rejected his appeal to Scripture, and called on the council to be harsh. He wrote privately to a friend that he wished Bolsec were “rotting in a ditch.”2

2 Letter to Madame de Cany, 1552.

This Called to Communion snippet is fascinating. Notice how the author, David Anders, restates the facts to give off the appearance that Bolsec interrupted Calvin's lecture. It was also not simply "Calvin's view's," but rather, the view of  John de St. André (the person lecturing), and the collective ministers of Geneva. Anders also leaves out that the entire affair was presented to a number of churches to weigh in on. Anders also presents the straw-man argument that Protestants have no right to church authority or discipline without an infallible church.

Anders does though provide a reference, "Letter to Madame de Cany, 1552." This letter can be found here. Calvin writes,

Madame,—I am very sorry that the praiseworthy act which you did about half a year ago, has met with no better return. This is because no good and true servant of God found himself within reach of such help, as that received by as wicked and unhappy a creature as the world contains. Knowing partly the man he was, I could have wished that he were rotting in some ditch; and his arrival gave me as much pleasure as the piercing my heart with a poniard would have done. But never could I have deemed him to be such a monster of all impiety and contempt of God, as he has proved himself in this. And I assure you, Madame, that had he not so soon escaped, I should, by way of discharging my duty, have done my best to bring him to the stake. 

Note the actual English translation is,  “I could have wished that he were rotting in some ditch.”  Note also, Bolsec is not named in this private correspondence. Bonnet, the translator of this letter, says

Who is the personage to whom these words refer, stamped at once by the inflexible spirit of the time and the stern rigour of the Reformer? The historian can only offer conjectures: can it be Jerome Bolsec? But a regular sentence had banished him from Geneva, and Calvin himself does not appear to have called for a more severe judgment against this innovator whom resentment bad transformed into a vile pamphleteer. "That fellow, Jerome, is driven out into perpetual exile by a public sentence. Certain revilers have spread abroad the falsehood, that we earnestly desired a much severer punishment, and foolishly, it is believed."—(Calvin to Bullinger, in the month of January 1552.) In that age of inexorable severity against unsound doctrine, Servetus only appeared at Geneva to expire at the stake, and Gentili only escaped the scaffold for a time, by the voluntary retraction of his opinions. To name Gentili, Servetus, Bolsoc, is to recall the principal victims of Calvinistic intolerance in the sixteenth century, but not to solve the mystery which attaches to the personage designated in the letter of Calvin to Madame de Cany.

Bonnet says that “The historian can only offer conjecture” as to who is meant. Bonnet then goes on to say, "… can it be Jerome Bolsec? But a regular sentence had banished him from Geneva, and Calvin himself does not appear to have called for a more severe judgment against this innovator whom resentment had transformed into a vile pamphleteer.”

Conclusion
In this age of "fake news" is it any surprise that the internet is filled with fake history as well? A closer look at the facts show that Bolsec was not "arrested and imprisoned for challenging Calvin during a lecture." Yes, Bolsec was banished, but it was not simply at the whim of Calvin. Nor is it a certainty that Calvin "wished Bolsec were 'rotting in a ditch'.'"

It is shocking to our modern scruples that a person could be banished for a perceived heretical view. Calvin and Bolsec were part of a world in which this happened. There are still churches to today (though few probably few in number!) that practice a form of banishment: excommunication. While a person is not ostracized from an entire society, they could be ostracized from certain aspects of a spiritual community.

Yes, Calvin had an important influence in Geneva, yes he could be intolerant, yes, there were tragedies in Geneva that Calvin played a part in.  While Calvin had his faults, flaws, and sins, this closer look shows there are those who wish to vilify Calvin and make him the tyrant of Geneva. The question though is... why? Why is it so important to characterize Calvin as a blood-thirsty dictator?  That's a topic for a future blog entry!

Addendum
For further reading, see: Robert Godfrey, Calvin, Bolsec and the Reformation. Godfrey says:

Jerome Bolsec, who was a Carmelite monk and doctor of theology in Paris, was drawn to the Reformation and so forced to leave France. By early 1551 he had settled in the canton of Geneva working as a physician. From early on he became a critic of Calvin's doctrine of predestination in a variety of ways and settings.

And also:

The trial of Bolsec proceeded despite such advice, especially charging Bolsec with attacking the religious establishment of Geneva and bringing scurrilous charges against its doctrine. On December 23, 1551 he was banished permanently from Geneva. He eventually returned to the Roman Church and in 1577 wrote a vicious biography of Calvin which propagated many false stories about Calvin. Bolsec died in 1584.

Calvin Beheaded a Child in Geneva?

I  recently came across a detailed description of Calvin's Geneva from historian Will Durant's book, The Reformation. Durant doesn't pull any punches. He provides  a number of pages describing Geneva as an horrific place to reside, unbearable terrors that resulted from the despotic tyrant, John Calvin.

If anyone is under the illusion that Durant's vague belief in God and rejection of organized religion equipped him to provide a fair and unbiased historical account of the life of John Calvin, this historian concluded his coverage of Calvin with,  "...we shall always find it hard to love the man who darkened the human soul with the most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense" [Will Durant, The Reformation: The Story of Civilization (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), 490]. That conclusion sums up well Durant's treatment of Calvin. Later in his Dual Autobiography, he and his wife jab the Reformation's seeming rejection of the Renaissance "as pagan" and a reversion "to the gloomy theology of saint Paul and Saint Augustine, leading to the predestinarianism of Calvin and Knox, the Puritan regime, and the replacement of papal authority with the authoritarianism of the state in religion in Germany and Great Britain." Durant did not hide the fact that he was not sympathetic to either Calvin or the Reformation.

It's not that every fact or tidbit offered by Durant on John Calvin is suspected erroneous due to inherent bias. There were unfortunate, oppressive, and deadly results from the strict morality imposed by the Genevan church and state while Calvin was in residence. While every societal atrocity that occurred cannot necessarily be linked to the Reformer,  Calvin cannot be completely exonerated from his role or place in that society (nor would he probably want to be). Calvin, despite his intellectual greatness and piety, was still a man with faults, flaws, and sins. He did have influence in Geneva (at least at certain times), and he was in favor of strict societal discipline. But Durant's Calvin comes off more like a left-over inquisitor from the golden era of the Inquisition, a power-hungry ruthless mogul who transformed Geneva into one of the most oppressive societies in history. Durant's basic tendency is to make Calvin worse than he was by necessarily linking him to a number of historical events (which he may, or may not have been a part of), and also by describing him in an overly negative and lopsided way. Here's a brief snippet of evils attributed to Calvin from Durant to demonstrate this point:

To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime. A first violation of these ordinances was punished with a reprimand, further violation with fines, persistent violation with imprisonment or banishment. Fornication was to be punished with exile or drowning; adultery, blasphemy, or idolatry, with death. In one extraordinary instance a child was beheaded for striking its parents (link).

Notice how Durant's thoughts flow: from the crime of speaking words against Calvin, linked to  severe punishment for sexual crimes, then to the beheading of a child, all the direct result of John Calvin. While the last statement will be our main focus, of the sentences here selected leading up to it, Durant provides documentation only for the first, citing this secondary source, which says only, “…to laugh at Calvin’s sermons, or to have spoken hot words of him in the street, was a crime…” This source provides no documentation for the assertion. That's typical of Durant's historical work. Often, primary materials allude his conclusions. He simply cites some other historian making an undocumented assertion. Here, Durant's historical trail dead-ends at a secondary source merely making an undocumented claim.

Given that it's almost impossible in our modern age to examine the subject, "John Calvin" without immediately being bombarded with Calvin's involvement with the execution of Michael Servetus, how is it that, according to Durant, there was an "extraordinary instance" in which Calvin had a child beheaded, and that account isn't center-stage, usurping the Servetus incident?  It sounds outrageous: Calvin had a child executed for simply striking their parents, and that's not more despicable than Calvin having a grown man executed for heresy?  Doesn't the execution of a child typically have more societal emotional capital? Something doesn't add up here.

Documentation: Durant
Durant does document the child's beheading. He first mentions it's from the same source as the previous documentation mentioned above, Charles Beard, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century in its Relation to Modern Thought (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1885), 250. That source states,

Two things are especially to be noticed in the holy reign of terror which Calvin established and left behind him as a legacy to Geneva: first, the vast extension given to the idea of crime, and next, the worse than Draconian severity of the punishments inflicted. Adultery was repeatedly punished with death. A child was beheaded for having struck father and mother. Banishment, imprisonment, in some cases drowning, were penalties inflicted on unchastity.

Similar to the previous assertions, this author does not document his claims. It may be Beard relied on the "Registers of the city of Geneva" (which is mentioned in a footnote at the bottom of the page), or it may be this author simply borrowed the fact from another secondary source. Durant may have realized this lack of  primary evidence and actually provided another source, one of a much better pedigree: Phillip Schaff's History of the Christian Church. In describing "the most striking cases of discipline" in Geneva, Schaff  launches into numerous examples, including, "A girl was beheaded for striking her parents, to vindicate the dignity of the fifth commandment" (link). Schaff though doesn't document this either. Later on in the same section Schaff mentions the Genevan Registers, but it appears to be for a different example. Once again, Durant's trail of facts reaches a dead-end for anyone venturing deep into history.

Documentation: Edward Babinski
This story of Calvin and the beheaded child is peppered throughout the Internet.  One of the best hits comes from Edward Babinski, a self-professed former fundamentalist who is now some sort of agnostic with an ax to grind against Calvin. Babinski came upon the same sentence from Schaff and states,

Schaff does not footnote the “beheading” incident, though he does provide on that page and the next a few footnotes regarding other incidents of prohibitions and their penalties in Geneva. He also lists the sources he consulted when writing his book (sources are listed at the beginning of each section). In this case, judging by nearby footnotes and by his source list for that particular section, he most likely obtained his information from either the Registers of the Council of Geneva, or, “Amedee Roget: Lʼeglise et lʼetat a Geneve du vivant de Calvin. Etude dʼhistoire politico-ecclesiastique, published in Geneve, 1867 (pp. 92). Compare also his Histoire du people de Geneve depuis la reforme jusquʼa lʼescalade (1536-1602), 1870-1883, 7 vols.”

Notice Babinski made an effort to track down where Schaff got his information from. Babinski says Schaff may have taken the information directly from the Registers of the Council of Geneva (more on this source later).  In the literature of source material section, Schaff doesn't directly cite the Registers (but he does reference them in his footnotes). The next source, Lʼeglise et lʼetat a Geneve du vivant de Calvin. Etude dʼhistoire politico-ecclesiastique is available here. Babinski mentions specifically "pp. 92" of the 1867 edition, but there doesn't appear to be anything remotely relevant to the story in this book, nor specifically on page 92. Babinski simply is repeating the reference as Schaff  noted it, that the book is 92 pages long.  Babinski then directs his readers to compare this source with seven volumes of "Histoire du people de Geneve depuis la reforme jusquʼa lʼescalade." I'm not sure how comparing a 92 page book to seven volumes is supposed to make this child's beheading more clear. The reason why is Babinski's "Compare also his..." is what Schaff wrote in his literature on the subject section, "Comp. also his..." Even though Babinski is quoting Schaff directly, the narrow focus of this beheaded child is getting obfuscated by Babinski's presentation of Schaff's basic bibliography of the literature about sixteenth century Geneva.

Despite this bibliographic rabbit trail, Babinski does provides some other interesting clues about this story: the year of the execution and the child's name. Quoting an old book from Paul Henry, he states, "Another child in 1568, for having struck his parents was beheaded," but again, documentation from this source is lacking. Then Babinski quotes an unknown English translation of Jean Picot who states, "Philippe Deville was beheaded in 1568 for having beaten his father and step-mother." This is documented, "Jean Picot Professeur dʼhistoire dans la faculte des lettres de lʼAcademie de cette ville] Histoire de Geneve, Tome Second (Published in Geneva, i.e., A Geneve, Chez Manget et Cherbuliez, Impreimeurs-Libr. 1811) p. 264." Here is page 264 from the 1811 edition. The text reads, "Philippe Deville fut décapité en 1568, pour avoir battu son- père et sa belle-mère." Babinski then states,

Picot and Schaff do not agree on the gender of the beheaded child, and my first source, Dr. Henry, only mentions that it was a “child,” not specifying its gender. Picotʼs History of Geneva provides the most complete information concerning the incident, including the childʼs name and the date of the beheading. The archives of Geneva are vast and include not only the Registers of the Council and the Registers of the Consistory, but many other records as well (that the Calvin scholar, Robert Kingdon, lists by category in Vol. 1 of his English translation of the Registers of the Consistory). Though massive, the Genevan archives could probably be searched by focusing on the year of the beheading and the childʼs name that Picot has given, and they could probably supply more information, such as the childʼs age when s/he was beheaded. — E.T.B.]

Babinski is correct, some of these massive archives can be searched. He's correct that Robert Kingdon  released the detailed Registers of the Consistory of Geneva in the Time of Calvin Volume 1: 1542-1544 (Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans Publishing company, 1996). It's an invaluable English reference, but unfortunately, I don't think the English version ever made it past volume one after Kingdon's death in 2010. Hathi Trust though lists thirteen volumes of the Genevan registers in French. The relevant volume would be volume 3 which covers the years 1565-1574. I  searched a number of key terms  (including, "Philippe Deville," "Philippe de Ville," "Philippe de la Ville, Philippe la ville" "décapité," to name a few).  I did not come across anything relevant. In full-disclosure, I do not have physical access to these French volumes. I'm relying on online search engines from Google Books and Hathi Trust.

Conclusion
I appreciate that Babinksi mentions the discrepancy in the accounts, that it could either be a boy or a girl (this source claims Philippe Deville was female). There are though some other interesting details if one combines the accounts presented (and also assumes all the accounts are of the same historical  event). Schaff adds the beheading took place "to vindicate the dignity of the fifth commandment." While this may have been the actual reason, it also could simply be Schaff's added comment or inference rather than something specifically noted in the Genevan records about this incident.

The (unknown) English translation of Picot says it was not simply striking of the parents, but rather a beating of a father and step-mother. It makes one wonder exactly how old this child was that it beat both parents. This "beating" should  at least rule out that it was a young child having a temper tantrum "striking" the parents in adolescent defiance. Even if it was an older teenager, it would not justify the death penalty in our day and culture,  but it does make one wonder exactly what the other details may have been to provoke such a harsh sentence in that time period. How severe was this beating?

If all these historians are describing the same event, there is one blatant fact mentioned by Paul Henry and Jean Picot that, for some unknown reason, Will Durant, Charles Beard, and Philip Schaff left out. It was also a fact mentioned but downplayed by Mr. Babinski: the year of the incident: 1568, in which some of the accounts say the beheading took place. What was John Calvin, the despotic tyrant doing in 1568?  Was he staring down the child in Genevan court as a prosecutor, boldly proclaiming God's law was broken and the child must be punished with death? Was he watching the beheading of a child for breaking God's law? No, Calvin was at rest in his grave. He died May 27, 1564. If 1568 is the correct year, the best Calvin's detractors can do with this event is to argue the beheading was the result of Calvin's earlier influence in Geneva. This connection would need to be proven as a necessary connection from the historical record, not simply assumed (post hoc ergo propter hoc).

Did Geneva behead Philippe Deville in 1568? Despite not finding any specific corroborating primary evidence, I assume they did. As to the specifics, and why they invoked the death penalty, I don't know. Yes, I think Geneva went overboard with discipline, yes there were unfortunate atrocities committed by the state; yes Calvin played his part in both until his death in 1564. But, Geneva played its part in the progression of piety and practice away from Rome, and of eventually separating the church from the state (which took a long time!). There is a tendency to think that once the Bible was made central in the church and the Papacy was defanged, all of the medieval worldview and practices would immediately fall away. No, this took time. Geneva demonstrates the dissonance of a church seeking to reform according to the Bible and still function with aspects of the medieval structure of government. It didn't work.

Addendum
Here were some other sources mentioning the 1568 beheaded child. More will be added as I come across them.

 "Le manque de respect aux parents constitue alors une atteinte à la loi sur laquelle il n'est pas question de transiger :un enfant du village de Genthod, Damian, fou de colère, insulte sa mère: «Diablesse! diablesse!» en lui jetant des pierres. Il est fouetté publiquement, pendu à une potence et n'échappe à la mort qu'en raison de son jeune âge.Son aîné, Philippe de Ville, est décapité pour avoir battu père et mère. Son aîné, Philippe de Ville, est décapité pour avoir battu père et mère" (link).

"En 1568, Philippe Deville fut décapité pour avoir battu son père et sa belle-mère" (link).

"In 1568 Philippe Deville was beheaded for striking his father, and the year before Antonia Sambuzide was condemned to prison for taking her husband by the beard" (link).

"To understand what the word 'severity' means, let it be added that certain men who laughed during a sermon were imprisoned for three days; another person had to do public penance for neglecting communion on Whit-Sunday; a girl was beheaded for striking her parents; several women were imprisoned for dancing; and a lady was expelled from the city for expressing sympathy with the 'libertines,' and abusing Calvin and the Consistory" (link).

"Calvin allowed a girl to be beheaded (for the heinous crime of striking her parents) during his reign of terror in Geneva 400 years ago. This atrocity is not exactly a secret; it is soberly reported by leading historians; but it is the sort of fact that is not taught." (link).

Luther: Augustine has Often Erred, He is Not to be Trusted

Here's a comment left under one of my old blog entries:

Luther did in fact exalt himself above the Fathers,if Protestant theologian/historian Philip Schaff is to be believed (though he doesn't express it in those terms). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm You will find the relevant citation in the 4th paragraph under "The dominating qualities of his doctrine" in the article "Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo."

Who would care if  "Luther did in fact exalt himself above the Fathers"? Typically, this line of argumentation is put forth by Rome's defenders. The argument goes: Luther showed a lack of respect for those in church history who preceded him. One of Luther's failures, or flaws, therefore, was his pride and arrogance: the Catholic church, in all her history, awaited him as its savior. Everyone before him was theologically incompetent, expressing a false gospel. When Luther is charged with exalting himself above the Fathers, it's his alleged heretical arrogance Rome's defenders have in mind. How dare a heretic criticize a respected doctor of the church.

The person who left this comment did so anonymously (see their blogger description). I'm going to assume based on this argumentation (and the link provided) that the person is some sort of Roman Catholic. Here though is an example of someone using the same newadvent.org source (and quote) who appears to not be a defender of Rome, so who knows?  It's up to this mystery person to set the record straight.

The "relevant citation in the 4th paragraph" from the newadvent.org link appears to be the comment attributed to Luther, "Augustine has often erred, he is not to be trusted. Although good and holy, he was yet lacking in true faith as well as the other Fathers," so says Luther via Protestant historian, Philip Schaff. Of the same Luther quote, the great Reformed theologian B.B. Warfield refers to it as a "well-known assertion." While there are quite a number of comments Luther made about Augustine, we'll see below that finding the context for this "well known assertion" is not all that easy. We'll also take a closer look at the newadvent,org link provided, Philip Schaff's actual comment, and this particular Luther quote to see if it demonstrates "exalting himself above the fathers." As it stands now, Luther's overall opinion appears to be that Augustine was so incompetent, he shouldn't be trusted on anything.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Philip Schaff: Luther's Exhalation Above the Fathers
While church historian Philip Schaff is referred to as the deciding voice demonstrating Luther's arrogance, he isn't cited directly, he's alluded to via a link that leads back to the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It's admitted that Schaff "doesn't express it in those terms" that being, "Luther did in fact exalt himself above the Fathers." So, Schaff wasn't exactly saying what this mystery person is trying to prove. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Attempts to monopolize Augustine and to make him an ante-Reformation reformer, were certainly not wanting. Of course Luther had to admit that he did not find in Augustine justification by faith alone, that generating principle of all Protestantism; and Schaff tells us that he consoled himself with exclaiming (op. sit., p. 100): "Augustine has often erred, he is not to be trusted. Although good and holy, he was yet lacking in true faith as well as the other Fathers."

The Catholic Encyclopedia cites Schaff's Luther quote as "op. sit., p. 100." "op. cit." means "in the work cited." What they are referring to is found in their documentation: "Schaff, Saint Augustine, Melanchthon, Neander (New York: 1886)." Here is page 100 from that source. Schaff presents a number of comments about the fathers from Luther, and then states,

The Reformer was at times dissatisfied with Augustin himself, because, amid all his congeniality of mind, he could not just find in him his "sola fide." "Augustin has often erred, he is not to be trusted. Although good and holy, he was yet lacking in true faith as well as the other Fathers." But over against this casual expression stand a number of eulogies on Augustin. 

Luther's words must not be weighed too nicely, else any and everything can be proven by him, and the most irreconcilable contradictions shown. We must always judge him according to the moment and mood in which he spoke, and duly remember his bluntness and his stormy, warlike nature. Thus, the above disparaging sentences upon some of the greatest theologians are partly annulled by his churchly and historical feeling, and by many expressions, like that in a letter to Albert of Prussia (a.d. 1532), where he declares the importance of tradition in matters of faith, as strongly as any Catholic. In reference to the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, he says: "Moreover this article has been unanimously believed and held from the beginning of the Christian Church to the present hour, as may be shown from the books and writings of the dear Fathers, both in the Greek and Latin languages, which testimony of the entire holy Christian Church ought to be sufficient for us, even if we had nothing more. For it is dangerous and dreadful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, faith, and doctrine cf the entire holy Christian Church, as it has been held unanimously in all the world up to this year 1500. Whoever now doubts of this, he does just as much as though he believed in no Christian Church, and condemns not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but Christ Himself, and all the apostles and prophets, who founded this article, when we say, 'I believe in a holy Christian Church,' to which Christ bears powerful testimony in Matt, xxviii. 20 : 'Lo I am with you always to the end of the world,' and Paul in 1 Tim. iii. 15 : 'The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.'"

Schaff's actual view is certainly not the sentiment put forth by the anonymous comment which began this entry. The context of the remark concerns sola fide, not a blatant covering of everything either Augustine or the Church Fathers said or did. For Schaff, while Luther may have made disparaging comments directed towards the church fathers, these must be considered in the context in which they were made and be balanced with  his "churchly and historical feeling," i.e., those comments he made positively in regard to church tradition and the fathers. This is also hardly the view claimed by the old Catholic Encyclopedia: "Schaff tells us that he consoled himself with exclaiming..." Schaff does not say Luther "consoled himself." Here we see Rome's defenders treating the context of Luther's words as needed, to support... Rome.

Documentation:  "Augustine has Often Erred..."
In Fairness to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Schaff does not document the Luther quote in Saint Augustine, Melanchthon, Neander. Schaff uses the same undocumented quote in a few of his books, so perhaps it was he who popularized it (cf. this book, this book, this book). Schaff uses the quote in a an extended footnote in NPNF 1 with slightly different wording ("wanting in the true faith"), but similarly does not document it. In his History of the Christian Church series, he does though provide documentation:

Augustin did more than all the bishops and popes who cannot hold a candle to him (XXXI. 358 sq.), and more than all the councils (XXV. 341). If he lived now, he would side with us, but Jerome would condemn us (Bindseil, III. 149). Yet with all his sympathy, Luther could not find his “sola fide.” Augustin, he says, has sometimes erred, and is not to be trusted. “Although good and holy, he was yet lacking in the true faith, as well as the other fathers.” “When the door was opened to me for the understanding of Paul, I was done with Augustin” (da war es aus mit ihm. Erl, ed., LXII. 119).

Schaff cites Erl LXII, 119. This source states:

Schaff is citing the Table Talk. The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death.  Schaff is relying on the later German version of the Table Talk. This particular statement was originally collected by Veit Dietrich, not in pure German, but rather German with Latin text mixed in. This text reads,

 Here is an English translation of  this older Latin / German version of this Table Talk statement:

No. 347: Augustine at First Devoured, Then Put Aside, Summer or Fall, 1532

“Ever since I came to an understanding of Paul, I have not been able to think well of any doctor [of the church]. They have become of little value to me. At first I devoured, not merely read, Augustine. But when the door was opened for me in Paul, so that I understood what justification by faith is, it was all over with Augustine. There are only two notable assertions in all of Augustine. The first is that when sin is forgiven it does not cease to exist but ceases to damn and control us. The second is that the law is kept when that is forgiven which does not happen. The books of his Confessions teach nothing; they only incite the reader; they are made up merely of examples, but do not instruct. St. Augustine was a pious sinner, for he had only one concubine and one son by her. He was not given much to anger. St. Jerome, like the rest of us—Dr. Jonas, Pomeranus, and me—we are all much more inclined to angry outbursts. Nor do I know which of our doctors today has Augustine’s temperament except Brenz and Justus Menius” [LW 54:49-50, WATR 1:140 (347); cf. alternate English translation of a version of this Table Talk statement].

There are some notable differences between these versions. In the pure German text relied on by Schaff, the entire first paragraph is missing. In this brief paragraph, Luther describes Augustine as an excellent teacher, presenting a defense against the heretical Pelagians, and faithfully teaching God's grace (cf. LW 54: 8, "In his controversy with the Pelagians, Augustine became a strong and faithful defender of grace"). Then comes the section about Paul, Augustine, the Confessions, etc., contained in both versions. The German version is then missing the final section beginning with, "St. Augustine was a pious sinner..."  This is the confusing nature of the Table Talk!

Schaff's documentation appears to only apply to the sentence, "When the door was opened to me for the understanding of Paul, I was done with Augustin" (da war es aus mit ihm). There is similar sentiment in this utterance, but it does not quite match up to what Schaff is citing Luther saying, particularly the quote under scrutiny. The original context nowhere says  "Augustin has often erred, he is not to be trusted." There is the possibility that Schaff did more of a dynamic equivalence sort of translation on the next sentence. If this was the case, Augustine being "good and holy" would correspond to the sentiment expressed in the first paragraph. This though is a stretch. The part about "lacking in true faith as well as the other Fathers" is a little easier to jive with what the text actually says, but this is still a stretch. Wherever Schaff got these two sentences from, they do not appear to be from the Table Talk utterance he's referring to (Erl LXII, 119).

It's interesting what some of Rome's defenders have done with this undocumented Luther quote from Schaff. Some have morphed it together with this other Table Talk utterance. Notice in the following example how Schaff's undocumented Luther quote is pasted together with the above Table Talk statement:

In this version, Schaff's original words "Augustin, he says, has sometimes erred, " have been turned  turn into Luther's direct words! Schaff has also been plagiarized: LW 54: 49 does not include "Augustine has sometimes erred and is not to be trusted. Although good and holy, he was lacking in the true faith, as well as the other fathers..." The English words appear to be Schaff's. The English translation appears to be unique to his writings.  Numerous examples of Rome's defenders cut-and-pasting this wrongly documented plagiarized mis-quote can be found all over the Internet (example #1, example #2, example #3, example #4, etc.).

Conclusion
As of the writing of this entry, I have not been able to locate exactly where Schaff's Luther quote comes from. It appears to be unique to Schaff.  While one may not always agree with Schaff's historical interpretation, he was indeed a well-respected historian. When my detractor above states, "Luther did in fact exalt himself above the Fathers,if Protestant theologian/historian Philip Schaff is to be believed," yes, Schaff is to be believed, but his opinion does not equal historical infallibility. Here we find a great historian using an undocumented quote in multiple books, and then when Schaff did provide documentation for the quote, it's incorrect.

One thing Schaff does say that makes a lot of sense pertinent to all this is,  "Luther's words must not be weighed too nicely, else any and everything can be proven by him, and the most irreconcilable contradictions shown." If one were to rely simply on the Table Talk, this is indeed the case. For instance, consider Luther's 1539 Table Talk statement:

None of the sophists was able to expound the passage, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live’ [Rom. 1:17], for they interpreted ‘righteous’ and ‘righteousness’ differently. Except only for Augustine, there was great blindness among the fathers. After the Holy Scriptures, Augustine should especially be read, for he had keen judgment. However, if we turn from the Bible to the commentaries of the fathers, our study will be bottomless (LW 54:352).

Here we find almost the exact opposite sentiment from the quote under scrutiny. There are quite a number of mentions of Augustine in Luther's writings, both negative and favorable. Yes, there were times Luther spoke negatively about Augustine and the Church Fathers, then there were times he did not. If one were step outside a Roman Catholic worldview, if only for a moment, Luther only considered the Scriptures to be infallible. The writings of everyone else, including his own, were not above criticism. This is not exalting oneself, this is placing the correct value on what is to be exalted; the Sacred Scriptures. Did not Augustine himself pen his own Retractationes (corrections)?

Addendum
Beyond Schaff, I located another historian who uses a similar Luther quote: J.M Audin, History of the Life, Writings, and doctrines of Luther, vol. 2 (1854). This hostile Roman Catholic source says,

"St. Augustine often erred: he cannot be trusted.(2) Many of his writings are worthless.(3) It was a mistake to place him among the saints, for he had not the true faith."(4)

(2) Op. Luth. tom. ii. Jen. Germ. fol. 103; tom. vii. Witt. fol. 353; tom. ii. Alt. fol. 142. Von Menschen-Lehre zu meiden.
(3) Coll. Mens. Lat. torn. ii. p. 34.
(4) 'Enarr. in xlv. cap. Genes, tom. ii. Witt. Germ. p. 227; Alt. p. 1382. 

Notice how Audin placed three sentences together from three different sources! The sentence pertinent to this discussion is the first. It is documented with three references, all pointing to the same section of the same primary source: Von Menschen-Lehre zu meiden. Audin appears to be referring to this section:

This text is from WA 10, II, 89 (cf., Audin's references, Opera 2, 103, Opera 7, 353, Alt 2, 142). This is a snippet from Luther's 1522 treatise, Avoiding the Doctrines of Men and a Reply to the texts Cited in Defense of the Doctrines of Men.  What Luther actually says is more involved than what Audin presented. In context, Luther was replying To King Henry's use of the popular quote "I should not  believe the gospel if I did not believe the church" (LW 35:149).  Luther states:

The third text is St. Augustine’s word in his book Against the Fundamental Letter of the Manicheans, which goes like this, “I should not believe the gospel if I did not believe the church [Kirche].”
“Look,” they say, “the church is to be believed more than the gospel.” I answer: Even if Augustine had said so, who gave him the authority that we must believe what he says? What Scriptures does he quote to prove this statement? What if he erred here, as we know that he frequently did, just as did all the fathers? Should one single sentence of Augustine be so mighty as to refute all the texts quoted above? God would not have that; St. Augustine must yield to them (LW 35:150).

A larger context of Luther's remarks can be found here. It does not appear to me that Schaff took his quote from this treatise because I could not find the next sentence, "Although good and holy, he was yet lacking in true faith as well as the other Fathers."

Luther Plagiarized His Translation of the Bible?

Here's one I went through late at night this week, sitting in a Bed and Breakfast in Bar Harbor Maine.

Over on the CARM boards, a Roman Catholic put up a lengthy post on Luther's translation of the Bible.  The basic argument is Luther's translation of the Bible was a plagiarization, based on something called the Codex Teplensis. A number of arguments were made to bolster this notion. I'd like to go through his major argument: the opinion of church historian Henry Clay Vedder.

1. The Opinion of Henry Clay Vedder, Protestant Scholar
The first bit of evidence put forth was the opinion Henry Clay Vedder, a Baptist historian.  Since Vedder falls under the umbrella of "Protestant" this is taken to mean he would be "prone to hide" embarrassing facts about Luther. But on the subject of Luther's translation, he admits Luther's liberal use of earlier German Bibles, and questions Luther's ability to even translate the New Testament in the way he claimed he did.

This is simply naive, particularly in regard to Baptists. Luther strongly opposed either re-baptism or denials of infant baptism. He would consider such beliefs heretical, and would've (and did) write polemically against such views. There is therefore no reason why a Baptist scholar would want to hide any embarrassing fact about Luther. In fact, Vedder held to a number of views Luther would probably have abhorred. So, simply because Vedder was a Protestant, it doesn't follow he would be more prone to hide information on Luther. Therefore, any alleged revelations Vedder makes against Luther aren't at all shocking admissions from a Baptist historian.

Vedder's makes his anti-Lutheran comments (mentioning also the Codex Teplensis) on page 170- 171 of his book, The Reformation in Germany:

Authorities differ concerning the number of editions of the Bible in German before Luther's version appeared, but none enumerate fewer than fourteen in High German and three in Low German. Those in High German, which are all that we need consider here, are apparently reprints of a single MS. version, of which two copies are still preserved, one in a monastery at Tepl, Bohemia, the other in the library of the university at Freiburg in the Breisgau. The former, known as the Codex Teplensis, has recently been printed and is accessible to all scholars. As this MS. contains seven articles of faith that are evidently Waldensian, many have been led to attribute to this version a Waldensian origin. Others have pointed out that no more is proved by the MS. than a Waldensian ownership of it at some time, and have asserted a Catholic origin for the version. We need not enter into this controversy, which concerns a question of technical scholarship rather than the historic effect of the version; for, whatever theory of its origin may prevail, the fact of its frequent reprinting and wide circulation cannot be in any wise affected.

This version was certainly in the possession of Luther, and was as certainly used by him in the preparation of his version. This fact, once entirely unsuspected, and then hotly denied, has been proved to a demonstration by the "deadly parallel." It appears from a verse-by-verse comparison that this old German Bible was in fact so industriously used by Luther, that the only accurate description of Luther's version is to call it a careful revision of the older text. Just as the English Bible is the result of successive revisions, from the days of Wiclif to our own, so that our text has a demonstrable historic continuity, so the German Bible is the product of revision. This is not to detract in the least from the glory of Luther or to diminish the value of his version—it is merely to define with accuracy what he accomplished, and to distinguish his real achievement from the semi-legendary tales of Lutheran literature.

Vedder does not call Luther a plagiarizer, he refers to Luther's work as "a careful revision of the older text " and "This is not to detract in the least from the glory of Luther or to diminish the value of his version—it is merely to define with accuracy what he accomplished, and to distinguish his real achievement from the semi-legendary tales of Lutheran literature." In Vedder's opinion, Luther's translation is a "careful revision", not plagiarism.


2. The Codex Teplensis
Note also Vedder is saying the Codex Teplensis is one of two similar manuscripts deriving their origin from a previous manuscript. As far as I understand Vedder, He is not saying Luther had the actual "Codex Teplensis" in his possession, but a version of it, or a copy of the Bible translation. Notice he says, "old German Bible."

This charge gained popularity in the late 1800's and early 1900's. It is correct that during the 1600's to 1700's, it had become common and popular to think that Luther was one of the first people (if not the first) to translate the Bible into German. This started to be challenged more and more during the 1700's, and by the late 1800's the view was articulated forcefully by Wilhelm Krafft (Die deutsche Bibel vor Luther, 1883). Vedder actually appears to have taken this information against Luther's translation from Krafft (he cites him on page 171) and offers no other citations or proof of his historical statements. Nor does Vedder put forth any of the actual alleged plagiarisms that are supposed to exist. Vedder seems to have simply parroted the conclusions of Krafft. He does though provide a footnote reference to Schaff on the similarities, and mentions a work by Dr. Ludwig Keller.

The use of the "Codex Teplensis" was only one such argument against Luther, as a number of early German Bibles were compared and contrasted with Luther's translation. Codex Teplensis was an interesting comparison, because it was thought to be Waldensian, not Roman Catholic. If Luther could be linked with this early German version, it could be shown that Luther had sympathies with the Waldensians. Who would be interested in such a connection? Why, probably Roman Catholics, but interestingly, Roman Catholic scholars argued the translation wasn't Waldensian. Philip Schaff states:

The arguments for the Waldensian origin are derived from certain additions to the Codex Teplensis, and alleged departures from the text of the Vulgate. But the additions are not anti-Catholic, and are not found in the cognate Freiberger MS.; and the textual variations can not be traced to sectarian bias. The text of the Vulgate was in greater confusion in the middle ages than the text of the Itala at the time of Jerome, nor was there any authorized text of it before the Clementine recension of 1592. The only plausible argument which Dr. Keller brings out in his second publication (pp. 80 sqq.) is the fact that Emser, in his Annotations to the New Test. (1523), charges Luther with having translated the N. T. from a "Wickleffisch oder hussisch exemplar." But this refers to copies of the Latin Vulgate; and in the examples quoted by Keller, Luther does not agree with the Codex Teplensis.

Here Schaff notes the charge against Luther using a Waldensian German translation originated with Emser, but Emser is charging Luther took his translation from the Latin, not the German. He then says the argumentation put forth from Keller of Luther using using the German Codex Teplensis, "does not agree". Note as well, Vedder does not present any of alleged parallels between the Codex Teplensis and Luther's Bible. W.H.T. Dau notes "Catholics, in their efforts to belittle Luther's works, have claimed that he plagiarized a German translation already in existence, the so-called 'Codex Teplensis' and 'everybody who knows Greek can compare it with the original text. The Teplensian translation, too, can be looked into. In fact, all this has been done by competent scholars, and Luther's translation has been pronounced a masterpiece. Not only does it reproduce the original text faithfully but it speaks a good and correct German. Luther's translation of the Bible is now regarded as one of the classics of German literature."

Of the early German Bibles, Schaff states:

After the invention of the printing-press, and before the Reformation, this mediaeval German Bible was more frequently printed than any other except the Latin Vulgate. No less than seventeen or eighteen editions appeared between 1462 and 1522, at Strassburg, Augsburg, Nuernberg, Coeln, Luebeck, and Halberstadt (fourteen in the High, three or four in the Low German dialect). Most of them are in large folio, in two volumes, and illustrated by wood-cuts. The editions present one and the same version (or rather two versions, — one High German, the other Low German) with dialectical alterations and accommodations to the textual variations of the MSS. of the Vulgate, which was in a very unsettled condition before the Clementine recension (1592). The revisers are as unknown as the translators.

And also:

Luther could not be ignorant of this mediaeval version. He made judicious use of it, as he did also of old German and Latin hymns. Without such aid he could hardly have finished his New Testament in the short space of three months. But this fact does not diminish his merit in the least; for his version was made from the original Hebrew and Greek, and was so far superior in every respect that the older version entirely disappeared. It is to all intents a new work.

3. J.M. Reu on Luther's Use of Earlier German Bibles
The most extensive English treatment of Luther's German Bible was done by J.M Reu. Reu says:

Other literary aids were the Glossa Ordinaria, which, however, had little to offer, and the Postilla in Biblia of Lyra, though in what editions cannot be determined. Perhaps he also had the Epistolae Pauli of Faber Stapulensis, of 1512 or 1515, which he had used at other times. Then there were the necessary lexicons like Reuchlin's Rudimenta linguae Hebraicae of 1506, Aleander's Lexicon Graeco-Latinum of 1512 and perhaps, what was the newest work of its kind, the Dictionarium Graecum, that had been issued at Basel in 1519. Since his work of translating was to be into German he probably also consulted this or that Latin-German dictionary as, for example, the widely used Vocabidarium ex quo (edition of 1477 in Berlin) which he had learned to know in his school days, or one of the Vocabularii praedicantium (e. g. Strassburg, 1482 or Magdeburg, 1495). Whether in addition to the existing German translations he also used the translation of St. Matthew by his friend Lang, published in Erfurt in 1521, is to say the least questionable. We are fairly safe in assuming that he had at hand one of the many plenaria and consulted it. No matter how fine his memory, he would hardly have ventured to depend on it alone, especially with his consciousness of the extent and difficulty of the task before him. Facts that in a general way are probable have been made almost certain through the careful comparisons of Freitag. The plenarium published by Zainer at Augsburg in 1474 was that which Luther consulted in making his own translations of the pericopes from his second postil pericope (St. Luke 2:1-14) on. The translation of the first pericope of the Postil (Titus 2:11-15), that was completed on the 10th of June, does not yet show this influence, but on the same day Luther acknowledged the receipt not only of letters but also of omnia alia, and among these "other things" was probably the Zainer plenarium, so that he could consult it from that date onwards. So from the time of the writing of the Wartburg Postil this plenarium was also available for the translation of the New Testament, and here and there the translations of the Wartburg Postil, that were influenced by the plenarium, pass over into his New Testament.

It is an old matter of dispute as to whether Luther utilized one of the medieval Bibles for purposes of comparison. For only that and nothing more could have been involved. In Luther's books and letters there is only one reference to these medieval Bibles. It is in the letter to Amsdorf which we have given in note 6, where he writes: "Now I know what translating means and why no one before me has attempted it under his own name." There he is evidently thinking of the medieval Bibles in which the name of the translator is nowhere given. He refers to them but it does not follow that he used them, yet it is a significant fact that just at the time when he was engaged in the work of translating the Bible and when the difficulty of his undertaking weighed heavily on his heart, he should refer to them.

As late as 1917 it seemed to me that their use was excluded from consideration and I then collected all the facts that could be mustered against this supposition, but subsequently I have been converted to the other view, not so much by Roethe as by Freitag. It was the Zainer Bible of 1475 that Luther had before him. The tremendous difference that still exists between the medieval translation of Zainer and Luther's New Testament does not preclude his use of the former. The difference is sufficiently, explained by his use of the original text, through his unique mastery of language that so far excelled the abilities of the translator of the Mentel Bible and the later reviser who prepared it for Zainer's edition, and by his own inner experiences that had given him a new understanding of the text.

Roethe gives his opinion concerning the relation between Zainer's Bible and Luther's translation in these words: "The connection is closest in the Apocalypse, it is freer in the Gospels and particularly free in the Pauline Epistles, where, in the interest of clear teaching, many new renderings, of deeper understanding, appear." The first of these assertions is entirely untenable since the Apocalypse offers so few difficulties to the translator that if two translators went to work, the one translating from the Vulgate, and the other familiar with it and consulting it regularly, they would produce almost similar translations. The single examples that have been pointed out to prove the supposed dependence are by no means of a conclusive character. The other observation that the consideration of Zainer is much less evident in the Pauline Epistles than in the Gospels is truer, but it is also easily explained as both the medieval Bibles and Zainer were most inadequate and unserviceable in this portion of the New Testament. Whoever really translated from the original and had grasped the inmost heart of the Epistles, as Luther had done, would be forced to produce a translation that might here or there be reminiscent of the medieval version, but that, as a whole, would be far above it. With the Gospels the case was different. Here the difference between the Greek original that Luther was using and the Vulgate which the medieval Bibles had followed was not nearly so great as it was in the case of the Epistles and furthermore, as Luther stood at the beginning of such a tremendous undertaking he must have felt much oftener the need of comparing what others had translated before him than he would a little later after he had become more accustomed to his task. We could more properly say that the influence of the Zainer Bible decreased in the same proportion that Luther became more expert in his task. It can be observed in the Gospels and Acts, is very faint in the Epistles and ceases in the Apocalypse. As he went along Luther became more and more independent, more and more free, even of the Zainer Bible. It had aided him occasionally to secure the appropriate phrase, to find a popular expression more readily and to strengthen him in his choice of words and construction of clauses, but no more than that. That he made use of this aid is nothing in the least discreditable nor does it diminish his accomplishment, for in spite of all this his translation towers far above the medieval attempts and it is a credit to his conscientiousness and scholarliness that he passed by no aid without first ascertaining whether or not it had something to contribute towards his great undertaking.

As little as Luther simply modernized the medieval Bible but created something that was completely new, even allowing for his occasional use of the medieval Bible, just as little did he, "taking it all in all, carry over the Vulgate." That Sandvos could make this assertion betrays both a bad spirit and unbounded ignorance. Adsuredly, in his younger years Luther had acquired the language of the Vulgate so completely that it could not be forgotten, and we know how even at his dying hour Bible verses from the translation of the Vulgate came into his mind. So it would be very strange if his translation of the Bible did not show some dependence on the Vulgate. As a matter of fact such dependence can be shown in many places. But it is just as certain that Luther instead of merely modernizing the medieval Bible or translating according to the Vulgate version, made his own translation independently from the Greek text. That this was the case with the later translation of the Old Testament is evident from Luther's original draft, which has been partly preserved and which furnishes indubitable evidence of the fact. "It is evident from his handwriting that while he already had his pen in hand his eyes were still fixed on the Hebrew copy."

Reu's opinion echoes and expands on some of the Lutherans scholars at that time, that while Luther may have utilized an earlier German Bible, it is not the case that he simply plagiarized the earlier Bibles. Wilhelm Walther vehemently argued that Luther did not rely on the earlier German versions. Later in the mid 1900's some argued Luther relied solely on the Greek text put out by Erasmus for the New Testament. An interesting overview of this topic can be found here.

4. Reu vs. Vedder
However good of a scholar Henry Clay Vedder was, J.M. Reu was a Luther expert, specifically on Luther and his translation of the Bible. In his book Thirty-Five Years of Luther Research, Reu actually comments on one of the very sections from Vedder quoted above. First, Reu cites Vedder:

We refer to "Vedder, The Reformation in Germany" (1914). Here we read on page 171 not only: "This version was certainly in the possession of Luther and was certainly used by him in the preparation of his version. This fact, once entirely unsuspected, and then hotly denied, has been proved to a demonstration by the 'deadly parallel.' It appears from a verse by verse comparison that this old German Bible was in fact so industriously used by Luther, that the only accurate description of Luther's version is to call it a careful revision of the older text," but on page 170 we also read: "It would be difficult in any case to believe that a complete translation of the entire New Testament could have been made by a man of Luther's limited attainment in Greek, and with the imperfect apparatus that he possessed in the short space of ten weeks. . . . Any minister to-day who has had a Greek course of a college and seminary is a far better scholar than Luther. Let such a man, if he thinks Luther's achievement possible, attempt the accurate translation of a single chapter of the New Testament—such a translation as he would be willing to print under his own name—and multiply the time consumed by the 260 chapters. He will be speedily convinced that the feat attributed to Luther is an impossible one."

Reu then responds to Vedder's arguments:

And just this we pronounce childish argumentation. We could call attention to the fact that R. P. Olivetan completed his French translation of the entire Bible, printed 1536, in one year; that Luther finished his writing against Sylvester Prierias, that in Walch's edition fills 80 columns, in two days; that Luther was in fact a linguistic genius; that an educated man in the thirties acquires a dead language much faster and more thoroughly than a youth from 16 to 20, and this all the more, the dearer and more valuable, yes, even decisive for his whole life, the contents of a book written in that language is to him; that Luther since 1519 had been a careful reader of Homer, writing many marginal notes into the copy which Melanchthon had presented to him (this copy is extant at London, cf. Pr. Smith, Notes from English libraries, Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. 32, pp. 111-115; compare also: O. G. Schmidt, Luther's Bekanntschaft mit den alten Klassikern, 1883). We also could emphasize the important fact that Luther for more than ten years was well versed in the contents of the New Testament through the Vulgata. But aside from this we would like to ask Vedder whether he has forgotten that Luther, as can be proved, since 1516 used the Greek original in the preparation of his lectures, and certainly not seldom also when he prepared his sermons, and that it more and more became the foundation for his whole theological work; that he, before his stay at the Wartburg, had treated the Epistle to the Romans, Hebrews, Galatians, perhaps also the Epistle to Titus and the first to the Corinthians in lectures, the Epistle to the Galatians beside this also in a voluminous commentary; in short, that Luther lived and moved in the New Testament, and, finally, that the printing of his translation had not begun for two months after his return from the Wartburg, and that it was not completed before six months had passed? During this time he, together with Melanchthon and other occasional helpers, once more revised the whole in a most painstaking manner.

Conclusion
From my laptop here on the coast of Maine I'm somewhat limited as to researching this. I didn't find a lot of information on the Codex Teplensis. Nor did I have a chance to sift through more recent sources and studies on this issue.

I've never studied the alleged parallels between Luther's translation of the Bible and earlier German versions. Nor do I have the linguistic abilities to do so. It seems plausible to me Luther probably did consult earlier German versions in the way Reu explained, and I also wouldn't have any problems with Schaff's view, that "Luther could not be ignorant of this mediaeval version" and "He made judicious use of it, as he did also of old German and Latin hymns. Without such aid he could hardly have finished his New Testament in the short space of three months." 

On the other hand, The CARM Romanist hasn't really offered any evidence of any sort of plagiarism on Luther's part. Quoting Vedder without any evidence, who parroted a conclusion from Krafft from a work done in 1883, is not convincing argumentation. In fact, it isn't anything.