Luther: "Affliction is the best book in my library"

Here's a popular Martin Luther quote making the cyberspace rounds, even finding it's way into Christian History Magazine:
"Affliction is the best book in my library." Another version says, "The best book in the library of my life is the Book of Affliction." Did Luther say it? I don't think so.

Documentation
Since this quote often appears undocumented throughout cyberspace, let's use Christian History Magazine as the source. While entertainingly written, Christian History is often lacking in regard to precise documentation. This particular quote is included in their section, "Colorful Sayings of Colorful Luther: A sample of the reformer's wit and wisdom" (Issue 34, Vol. XI, No. 2, pp.27-28), compiled by Mary Ann Jeffreys (apparently, a freelance writer if this is the same person).

What's interesting about Ms. Jeffreys is that a simple Google search of her name + "Christianity Today" (the publisher of Christian History) puts forth a number of hits to articles on or by Charles Spurgeon.  A basic Google book search of this Luther quote also puts forth a number of hits to books by Charles Spurgeon. Coincidence?  Probably not! It appears to me that the basic English form of this quote originated from a Charles Spurgeon sermon published in the nineteenth-century. Spurgeon preached,

Another reason for this discipline is, I think, that in heaviness we often learn lessons that we never could attain elsewhere. Do you know that God has beauties for every part of the world; and he has beauties for every place of experience? There are views to be seen from the tops of the Alps that you can never see elsewhere. Ay, but there are beauties to be seen in the depths of the dell that ye could never see on the tops of the mountains; there are glories to be seen on Pisgah, wondrous sights to be beheld when by faith we stand on Tabor; but there are also beauties to be seen in our Gethsemanes, and some marvelously sweet flowers are to be culled by the edge of the dens of the leopards. Men will never become great in divinity until they become great in suffering. “Ah!” said Luther, “affliction is the best book in my library;” and let me add, the best leaf in the book of affliction is that blackest of all the leaves, the leaf called heaviness, when the spirit sinks within us, and we can not endure as we could wish.

Context
I could not locate anything exactly like "affliction is the best book in my library" from Luther.  The closest I could locate was the following Table Talk utterance:

To have Patience in Suffering.

On the 8th of August, 1529, Luther, together with his wife lay sick of a fever; then he said, God hath touched me sorely, and I have been impatient: but God knoweth better than we whereto it serveth. Our Lord God doth like a printer, who setteth the letters backwards; we see and feel well his setting, but we shall see the print yonder, in the life to come: in the mean time we must have patience.

The tribulations of God-fearing christians are strong and profitable. Tribulation is a right school, and an exercise of flesh and blood: whoso is without them, the same understandeth nothing. Therefore the Psalms, almost in every verse, speaketh of nothing but tribulations, and perplexities, sorrows, and troubles: it is a book of tribulations.

Conclusion
That Table Talk quote was taken from one of the oldest modern English versions, a version published in the nineteenth-century. Included in this volume is a lengthy anthology of quotes on "Temptation and Tribulation." Did Spurgeon have this edition? During Spurgeon's time period, there was only a limited pool of Luther's writings available in English, so it's highly likely he had a copy. It was a very popular book!  It certainly would make sense that he would gravitate to those Table Talk topics that expounded on suffering. Spurgeon's sermon is about spiritual "heaviness," or rather despair. It's a fairly uncontested fact that Spurgeon suffered from bouts of depression, as did Luther.

I suspect though, Spurgeon had a flair for using the phrase, "best book," and he was not citing Luther at all.  Elsewhere, Spurgeon says:

Let me yet further observe, that YOUR FAITH WILL BE TRIED FOR AN ABUNDANTLY USEFUL PURPOSE. The trial of your faith will increase, develop, deepen, and strengthen it. “Oh,” you have said, “I wish I had more faith.” Your prayer will be heard through your having more trial. Often in our prayers we have sought for a stronger faith to look within the veil. The way to stronger faith usually lies along the rough pathway of sorrow. Only as faith is contested will faith be confirmed. I do not know whether my experience is that of all God’s people; but I am afraid that all the grace that I have got out of my comfortable and easy times and happy hours, might almost lie on a penny. But the good that I have received from my sorrows, and pains, and griefs, is altogether incalculable. What do I not owe to the hammer and the anvil, the fire and the file? What do I not owe to the crucible and the furnace, the bellows that have blown up the coals, and the hand which has thrust me into the heat? Affliction is the best bit of furniture in my house. It is the best book in a minister’s library. We may wisely rejoice in tribulation, because it worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope; and by that way we are exceedingly enriched, and our faith grows strong.

Notice also this comment from Spurgeon:

We learn more true divinity by our trials than by our books. The great Reformer said, "Prayer is the best book in my library." He might have added affliction as the next. Sickness is the best Doctor of Divinity in all the world; and trial is the finest exposition of Scripture. This is so inestimable a mark of the love of our blessed Lord that we might almost desire trouble for the sake of it.

Notice also this comment from Spurgeon:

LUTHER has well said that the experience of the minister is the best book in his library. I am persuaded it is so, and that God often leads his servants through peculiar states of mind, not so much for their own benefit as for the sake of those to whom they may afterwards minister.

The similarities are apparent, but no mention of Luther in the first quote, and referring to the "great Reformer" in the second, and "Luther" in the third. I suspect the "best book" was Spurgeon's phrase, not Luther's.

If Spurgeon was citing Luther, he was probably working from memory in his sermon and not citing Luther directly, perhaps summarizing the Table Talk's extensive quotes on suffering. The quote, as has been popularized, may simply also be Spurgeon's recollection of what he recalls reading Luther to have said, perhaps by Luther, or perhaps a book about Luther. Interestingly, elsewhere in the Table Talk, Luther does mention the "best book" in regard to suffering:

The Holy Scriptures are full of divine gifts and virtues. The books of the heathen taught nothing of faith, hope, or charity; they present no idea of these things; they contemplate only the present, and that which man, with the use of his material reason, can grasp and comprehend. Look not therein for aught of hope or trust in God. But see how the Psalms and the Book of Job treat of faith, hope, resignation, and prayer; in a word, the Holy Scripture is the highest and best of books, abounding in comfort under all afflictions and trials. It teaches us to see, to feel, to grasp, and to comprehend faith, hope, and charity, far otherwise than mere human reason can; and when evil oppresses us, it teaches how these virtues throw light upon the darkness, and how, after this poor, miserable existence of ours on earth, there is another and an eternal life.

Transcendental Luther: "God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees and flowers and clouds and stars"

Did Luther say "God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees and flowers and clouds and stars"?  If one bases their proof on the number of hits from a quick Internet search for this quote, he most certainly did! But as the axiom should go: something isn't true simply because a bunch of people in cyberspace say it is.  One blogger rightly questioned the quote, classifying it as "more stuff that Martin Luther didn't say." There was also a discussion here which  questioned the veracity of the statement.

I offer below my own investigation of the quote. It's fascinating to try and uncover if Luther actually said something. It's even more fascinating to investigate how a particular quote was attributed to Luther, or how it took on the current form it has. We'll see with this quote, Luther probably didn't say it, though he said something similar.

Documentation

Most often the quote has no meaningful documentation, if any at all. The earliest usages I could find  in its current popular form stem from the late 1800's. By searching texts on Google Books from the nineteenth-century, the quote seems to simply spring into literary existence during that period. The appearance of the quote increases in the twentieth-century books.

The earliest nineteenth-century attribution I could find of this precise English wording was from a historical novel,  or rather, "historical fiction" about the life of Martin Luther entitled, The Schonberg-Cotta Family (1862) written by Elizabeth Rundle Charles.  This author fictionally "examined the life and personal influence of the young Martin Luther on the family of his printer." In one passage, Rundle-Charles describes Luther speaking to his wife:

In spring he loves to direct her attention to the little points and tufts of life peeping everywhere from the brown earth or the bare branches. "Who," he said, "that had never witnessed a springtime would have guessed, two months since, that those lifeless branches held concealed all that hidden power of life? It will be thus with us at the resurrection. God writes His Gospel, not in the Bible alone, but in trees, and flowers, and clouds, and stars."  [source]

According to the reviews I've read of Rundle-Charles, she was a prolific author, her Luther novel though being her most popular book. Some years back I found a copy of it in a pile of disorganized books in an antique store.  I've since come across a number of copies in the same sort of setting. Her book apparently was popular enough that cheap copies are still laying around in junk stores. My copy states the following just previous to the contents page:

The portions of these Chronicles which refer to Luther, Melancthon, Frederic of Saxony, and other historical persons, can be verified from Luther’s “Tischreden;” Luther’s “Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken;” edited by De Wette; the four volumes called, “Geist aus Luther's Schriften,” edited by F. W. Lomler, C. F. Lucius, Dr. T. Rust, L. Sackreuter, and Dr. Ernst Zimmermann; Tutschmann’s “Friedrich der Weise;” the “History of the Reformation,” by Ranke; and that by D'Aubigné; with the ordinary English historical works relating to the period.

I don't question that Rundle-Charles actually read these sources and utilized them for her fictional Luther account. One biography says Rundle-Charles was instructed in "numerous languages" so perhaps she really did utilize these sources for her Luther citations. Interestingly, Rundle-Charles went on to put out another Luther book: Watchwords for the Warfare of Life From Doctor Martin Luther (1869). The preface posts the same sort of bibliographical information.  In another edition the preface states Rundle-Charles did indeed do the translation work,

The selections in this volume have all been freshly translated from Luther’s own German or Latin, with the exception of the extracts taken from the sixteenth century translation of the Commentary on the Galatians. The majority of the extracts are from the Letters and the Tischreden.-The Author.

Included in this follow-up volume, Rundle-Charles includes the following excerpt:

In the year 1539, on the 11th of April, Doctor Martin Luther was in his garden, and with many a deep thought, he looked at the trees - how fair and lovely they were, budding and blossoming and growing green; he said,” Praised be God the Creator, who in the springtime out of dead creatures makes all living again. Look at the little twigs,” he said, “so sweet and full; pregnant with new life. There we have a beautiful image of the Resurrection of the dead. The winter is death; the summer is the Resurrection of the dead, for then all live again and grow green.”

I  suspect Rundle-Charles was using the same source as the quote we're searching for. Notice the similarities: both describe Luther in the springtime, both describe bare branches that begin the blooming cycle again,  both link this to the resurrection. In this later volume she mentioned the majority of her selections were from letters or the Tischreden (Table Talk). Even though a date is included leading one to assume the source was a letter, (April 11, 1539), the way it unfolds sounds much more like a Table Talk statement.

I don't know which edition of the Tischreden Rundle-Charles had, but there is a Table Talk entry dated April 11, 1539 that says:

This comment can be found in : WA 4:337 (4484) in a mixed German / Latin form. This would be a comment recorded by Anthony Lauterbach. Lauterbach was careful with his dates (LW 54:253), so it appears he was the Genesis of "April 11,1539."  The content of this Table Talk entry is very similar  to that put forth by Rundle-Charles in her 1569 book.  There's also another a Table Talk comment that has a similar thrust,   WA 4:369. This comment is from April 28-29 1539. There Luther says,

No. 4542: Pleasures of a May Day in Late April April 28, 1539
 Afterward he gave thought to the pleasant weather of the month of May, whose blooms are a parable of the resurrection of the dead. “How pleasant the trees are! How delightfully green everything’s beginning to be! It’s like a charming day in May. I don’t recall one like it. If it continues this way it will be a very fruitful year and the world will be crammed full. Ah, would that we could trust God! If God can take such delight in our earthly sojourn, what must it be like in the life to come?”) (LW. 54:351).

Conclusion
Did Luther say,  "God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees and flowers and clouds and stars"? If the source for this English quote is indeed Elizabeth Rundle Charles, I don't think he did say it. It appears that it was her literary license with the sources she utilized to create her fictional account of Luther. In other words, she embellished Luther's comments.  Interestingly though I came across a sermon from Luther that says the following:

Such comfort is also imparted in the beautiful parable of the budding trees, which He gives them that they may all the better appropriate to themselves this consolation. In spring, He says, when winter ceases and the whole earth becomes new; when the cold departs and the warmth takes its place; when the dry trees become green and blossom again, tell me, how does all this begin? Is it not true that buds first begin to swell, then to open? Then every one says that winter is past and summer will soon be here. Let this parable be your teacher, and the trees in the field your book, that you may learn to know how to await the last day. For God has written this article of the last day and resurrection of the dead not only in books, but also in trees and other creatures. As summer surely will follow when the sap rises in the trees, and they put forth leaves; so when the earth shall quake, the heavens tremble, and the sun and moon look dark and gloomy, then be no more afraid than you are when the young leaves appear and summer is about to come. Such signs shall be to you like the sap and leaflets on the trees, that you may with joy look for the eternal summer, and know that there shall now be an end of your distress and anguish. For this wretched life on earth is like the unfruitful winter when everything dries up, dies and decays. But it shall then have an end, and the beautiful, eternal summer shall come, namely, the kingdom of God, by which the kingdom of the devil shall be destroyed, on account of which you have had to suffer so much in this world. For in this world you must live among ungodly, wicked, false, penurious people, who blaspheme and slander the gospel, and seek to bring about all manner of misfortune. This you must see and hear every day, and may expect it to become still worse. From this I will redeem you by my coming, that you may no more see nor suffer such things. 

So perhaps Luther didn't say ""God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees and flowers and clouds and stars," rather, he preached "God has written this article of the last day and resurrection of the dead not only in books, but also in trees and other creatures."

Addendum: Other References to Luther's Comment from April 11,1539

It was really touching to witness the manner in which the most common occurrences would arouse in Luther reflections of piety on the goodness of God, on the state of man before the fall, on the life to come, and other serious topics. Thus, a beautiful bough loaded with cherries, brought and put on the table by doctor Jonas, a few fishes from the little pond in his garden, that his wife placed joyfully on the board, the mere sight of a rose, or any other equally simple incident would rouse these pious sentiments in him. On the 9th of April, 1539, the doctor was walking in his garden, attentively looking at the trees and flowers, then in all the brilliancy of spring verdure ; he exclaimed with admiration, "Glory to God, who, from the dead creation, thus raises up life again in the spring-time. Behold these branches, how strong, how beautiful they are! Already they teem, and are big with the fruit which they will bring forth. They offer a beautiful image of the resurrection of all men. The winter season represents death; the summer-tide, the resurrection. Then all things live again, all is verdant. [source]

Addendum #2
CARM discussion. 

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.

Luther: "God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us, and as He saves us without any merit on our part. He also damns us through no fault of ours. All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity"

Here's some anti-Protestant commentary and an obscure Luther quote I recently came across:

A Protestant is not obliged to follow the 10 Commandments or practice what he reads in the Scriptures. The founders of the Protestant revolt teach that works are useless and even injurious to salvation. Every action is a sin. 

Luther and Calvin deny the existence of free-will in man. Luther wrote a book called ''Slave Will," in which he states: ''God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us, and as He saves us without any merit on our part. He also damns us through no fault of ours. All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity." (Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435.)

This was put together by someone, as far as I can tell, is a defender of Roman Catholicism. The points being made are: 1) Protestants don't believe in or practice good works; 2) if free will is denied, there is no such thing as human responsibility. Let's track down this Luther quote and see what's going on.

Documentation
The source provided is the ambiguous, "Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435." A quick search though reveals the entire two paragraphs are a reworking (a.k.a. plagiarism) of an old Roman Catholic book entitled, Christian Apologetics: A Defense of the Catholic Faith By Walter Devivier. A comparison of what this author states and what's posted above demonstrate the similarities:

Finally (it is hardly credible), a Protestant is not obliged to practise what he reads in the Scriptures, however clear it may be. For the founders of the Reformation teach that works are useless and even injurious to salvation; that faith suffices to make us the friends of God; that man once justified before God is sure of being saved, whatever crimes he may afterward commit. What is more, that it is even impossible for man to sin since he is not free. Luther and Calvin go so far as to deny the existence of free-will in man. Luther wrote a book called “Slave Will,” which may be summed up thus: “God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us, and as He saves us without any merit on our part, He also damns us through no fault of ours. . . . All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity.” (Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435.)

The "Works of Luther, vol. ii., p. 435" appears to be a reference to the vol. 2 of the Wittenberg edition of Luther's writings. Here is page 435. The text being cited appears to be:

This is an old Latin text dating back to the sixteenth century. A clearer image can be found here.

The quote comes from Luther's De Servo Arbitrio, known in English as The Bondage of the Will. It has been translated into English in LW 33. The place where this quote is located is LW 33:70.

Context

But if we are unwilling to let this term go [free will] altogether—though that would be the safest and most God-fearing thing to do—let us at least teach men to use it honestly, so that free choice is allowed to man only with respect to what is beneath him and not what is above him. That is to say, a man should know that with regard to his faculties and possessions he has the right to use, to do, or to leave undone, according to his own free choice, though even this is controlled by the free choice of God alone, who acts in whatever way he pleases. On the other hand in relation to God, or in matters pertaining to salvation or damnation, a man has no free choice, but is a captive, subject and slave either of the will of God or the will of Satan. [LW 33:70]

Conclusion
In response to the original anti-Protestant comment which began this entry: first, there's nothing in the immediate context of Luther's words that he suggested acting against the Ten Commandments, that works were useless, and that all action is a sin. True, Luther abhorred the pseudo-works perpetuated by allegedly devout Roman Catholics. Pilgrimages, idolatry, monkery, self-denials, etc., which were considered good works one does for oneself on the road to eventual salvation. Luther plainly teaches that saving faith is a living faith,  a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. Luther says,

We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us. Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope and patience.[Sermons of Martin Luther (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 1:34]

Second,  in regard to the Luther quote: it is true though that Luther spoke out against the concept of free will (his entire book the quote was purportedly taken from is about this subject). For Luther, the will is either enslaved by Satan or set free by God.  It is true also that Luther rejected performing works in order to achieve salvation: a rejection of personal merit to achieve salvation.

Third, a comparison of the purported Luther quote and the actual context shows a severe discontinuity.  As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the immediate context in which Luther directly says, "God is the author of the evil as well as the good in us." Was this meant to be a synopsis of Luther's words, "a man should know that with regard to his faculties and possessions he has the right to use, to do, or to leave undone, according to his own free choice, though even this is controlled by the free choice of God alone, who acts in whatever way he pleases"? If so, that someone would translate Luther's words in such a crude way shows a profound bias in textual interpretation. It's quite possible though whoever originally put the quote together was citing a different section of  De Servo Arbitrio altogether (see my entry here).

The purported quote goes on to say, "and as He saves us without any merit on our part, He also damns us through no fault of ours. . . . All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity.”  
This seems to be similar to the lines, "On the other hand in relation to God, or in matters pertaining to salvation or damnation, a man has no free choice, but is a captive, subject and slave either of the will of God or the will of Satan." Notice in context, Luther says that humans have a limited freedom in regard to the daily things of life (but even that is subject to God's pure freedom) "a man should know that with regard to his faculties and possessions he has the right to use, to do, or to leave undone, according to his own free choice, though even this is controlled by the free choice of God alone, who acts in whatever way he pleases." This appears to have been presented as "All that we do is done, not freely, but through pure necessity"! That's certainly an abuse of Luther's words.

The main disconnect for Rome's defenders is Luther's insistence that human ability does not contribute in any meritorious way to salvation. For Luther, if the will is enslaved, it has no ability to do works pleasing to God unto salvation. Humanity, therefore is in total reliance on God's grace. Here is "ground zero" of the debate which requires one to simply read Luther's full argumentation.

Luther: I feel the old clinging dirt of wanting to deal so with God that I may contribute something

"Let anybody try this and he will see and experience how exceedingly hard and bitter a thing it is for a man, who all his life has been mired in his work righteousness, to pull himself out of it and with all his heart rise up through faith in this one Mediator. I myself have now been preaching and cultivating it through reading and writing for almost twenty years and still I feel the old clinging dirt of wanting to deal so with God that I may contribute something, so that he will have to give me his grace in exchange for my holiness. And still I cannot get it into my head that I should surrender myself completely to sheer grace; yet this is what I should and must do. The mercy seat alone must prevail and remain, because he himself has established it; otherwise no man can come before God."

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 51: Sermons I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 51, pp. 284–285). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

50 Years After Death, St. Pio's Body Has Not Decomposed?

This picture and title was linked to this web-page.  The web-page has a plenteous supply of adds and click-bait (beware!). The hosting site "Francis Mary" uses the same picture and title here.

I admit, other than knowing the name, I don't know all that much about Padre Pio. The article though fills in some of the gaps:

"The corpse is held in such high regard due to the fact that before death the monk was able to cure the sick. He also had received visions and suffered stigmata -- bleeding from the hands mimicking the wounds of Christ. Pio could also tell the future and be in two places at once."

While the web-page doesn't document any of this, I was curious if they at least commented on their claim that Padre Pio's body "has not decomposed." Was this non-decomposition before or after the silicone mask "was placed over his face to conceal the decay" as the Washington Post mentioned?  

Luther Was counseled by the Devil to Stop Celebrating Holy Mass?

A participant on the Catholic Answers Forums asked about Martin Luther's interaction with the Devil:

Hello, does anybody have Luther's book “De missa privata et unctione sacerdotum” (1521) in english? I read here and in another source (a book about Holy Mass written by a Bishop in 1899) that Luther wrote about how he was counseled by a Devil to stop celebrating Holy Mass. I want to use this argument in a conversation with a protestant, however I don’t want to use argument which might be fake. Therefore I would be really glad if someone could look it up. If it was there then I would love to have a photo of that page.Thanks a lot!

Despite the fact this Roman Catholic wants to "use this argument in a conversation with a protestant," one can appreciate the caution that the story may be "fake." There are two basic affirmatives to answer this historical question.  Yes, there is a recorded conversation between Luther and the Devil about the Mass (documented and described by Luther himself), particularly, private masses, and yes, the dialog is in essence, fake.

Documentation
Let's start with the clues given in the Catholic Answers discussion, particularly the link provided. When I first visited the link, there was little content, now it has magically reappeared (if it disappears again, try accessing it via Google Cache). The link is to an article written by Anne Barbeau Gardiner, "A Colloquy with Satan, or The Spirit of Martin Luther" found in the July 14, 2016 issue of The Latin Mass: The Journal of Catholic Culture and Tradition. Gardiner's article is not an actual reading of Luther, but rather someone else's reading of Luther. Gardiner presents a review of a section from an old pro-Roman Catholic book, Abraham Woodhead's, Two discourses: the first concerning the spirit of Martin Luther, and the original of the Reformation; the second, concerning the celibacy of the clergy (1687).  Summarizing Woodhead, Gardiner says,

The core of The Spirit of Martin Luther is Woodhead's analysis of Luther's colloquy with Satan in 1522. It is unforgettable. Luther had engaged in many previous "negotiations" and "familiar disputes and conferences" with the "Enemy of mankind," but this one was crucial. In De Missa Privata and Sacerdotum Unctione (1533), he wrote of his "long experience" with Satan's "arts and practices" and of "many a sad and bitter night" spent in talks with him, but the colloquy on the Mass that took place in 1522 had such an effect on him that he never offered another Mass.  On that occasion, Satan in a "grave and strong voice" persuaded him that he had committed "idolatry" for fifteen years by adoring, and causing others to adore, "naked bread and wine."

The phrases "negotiations," "familiar disputes and conferences," "Enemy of mankind," and  "arts and practices," are not Luther's words, but rather, Woodhead's. The phrases "many a sad and bitter night," "grave and strong voice," and "naked bread and wine" are ascribed by Woodhead directly to Luther.  Gardiner has created confusion with her dates, mingling both 1522 and 1533 together. As far as I can tell, everything cited in the paragraph above appears to refer only to Luther's 1533 treatise, De Missa Privata and Sacerdotum Unctione. Furthering the confusion, I have not ascertained why the person at Catholic Answers ascribes the incorrect date 1521 to this treatise.

The Catholic Answers participant asked for the actual sources. De Missa Privata and Sacerdotum Unctione is the Latin version of Luther's 1533 treatise, Von der Winckelmesse und Pfaffen Weyhe (WA 38: 195-256). Yes, this treatise is available in English: The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests. It can be found in LW 38:139-214.

Context

Here is an excerpt from LW 38. The entire story of Luther's conversation with devil goes on for multiple pages and is too long to post. I placed phrases used by Gardiner / Woodhead in bolded text:

I want to begin with myself and make a short confession before you sainted fathers. Grant me a good absolution which will not be injurious to yourselves. Once I awakened at midnight and the devil began the following disputation with me in my heart (for he is able to make many a night bitter and troublesome for me): “Listen, you very learned fellow, do you know that you said private masses for fifteen years almost daily? Did you not in reality commit sheer idolatry with such a mass and did you not worship there simply bread and wine, rather than Christ’s body and blood, and enjoin others to worship them?” I reply: “But I am a consecrated cleric; I have received chrism and consecration from the bishop, and, in addition, have done all this because of the command to do so and in obedience to it. Why have I not performed the consecration validly, since I have spoken the words in earnest and said mass with all possible devotion? You certainly know this.” “Yes,” he said, “that is true; but the Turks and the heathen also perform everything in their churches because of the command to do so and in earnest obedience to it. The priests of Jeroboam at Dan and Beersheba performed everything perhaps with greater devotion than the true priests at Jerusalem [I Kings 13:33]. What if your consecration, chrism, and consecrating are also unchristian and false like those of the Turks and the Samaritans?”

At this point I truly broke into a sweat and my heart began to tremble and throb. The devil knows how to muster his arguments well and to make an impression with them, and he possesses a convincing, powerful way of speaking. Such disputations do not permit time for lengthy and numerous deliberations, but the answers come in quick succession. At such times I have seen it happen that one finds people dead in bed in the morning. He can kill the body. This is one thing; but he can also scare the soul with disputes so that it almost departs from the body, as he has quite often very nearly done to me. Now he had challenged me in this dispute, and I did not really want to be guilty of such a great number of abominations in the presence of God but wanted to defend my innocence. So I listened to him to hear the grounds on which he opposed my consecration and my consecrating.

First, he said, you know that you did not rightly believe in Christ and as far as your faith was concerned you were no better than a Turk; for the Turk and I myself, along with all devils, also believe everything which is written about Christ (James 3 [2:19]), that is, that he was born, died, and ascended into heaven. However, none of us takes comfort in him or has confidence in him as a Savior; but we fear him as a stern judge. This kind of faith and no other is the one you also had when you were consecrated a priest and said mass; and all the others, both the consecrating bishop and his ordinands, also believed this. For this reason, too, all of you turned away from Christ and depended on Mary and the saints, who had to be your consolation and helpers in need rather than Christ. This you cannot deny, nor can any pope. That is why you were consecrated and have celebrated mass like heathen and not like Christians. How then were you able to effect conversion? For you were not the kind of persons who were to bring about this change [LW 38:149-150].

Conclusion

So it's true that Luther recorded a conversation with the Devil. But was it a real conversation? First, Luther says, "I want to begin with myself and make a short confession before you sainted fathers." In context, Luther's words are directed at his Roman Catholic detractors. He's making a sarcastic jab. Second, notice above, Luther says the conversation took place internally: "Once I awakened at midnight and the devil began the following disputation with me in my heart." Third, the actual conversation goes on for multiple pages in detailed arguments. How was Luther was able to transcribe such a lengthy internal conversation? None of these aspects of the dialog add up. I suspect Rome's defenders would say Luther was either deranged, a liar, or both. Woodhead's argument is that Satan deceived Luther into attacking the Roman Catholic Church. Case closed.

Perhaps though there is a much less dramatic solution. The editors of Luther's Works point out that three draft versions of  The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests are preserved.  They explain, 

The idea of a disputation with the devil occurred to Luther while he was working on this third draft. This verbal exchange with the devil does not reflect his personal experience but is employed as an effective literary device in the first part of the book. The fact that Luther’s plan for the book changed as he developed these three outlines in succession is reflected in the rather abrupt way in which he concluded his writing as well as the remark that the book had become longer than he had originally intended it to be [LW 38:144].

Martin Brecht also points out:

And also:

This banal solution may not convince Rome's defenders. Gardiner and Woodhead don't mention it all. Their solution is far more complicated and dramatic: Woodhead says that in 1522 Luther had a disputation with Satan, based on Luther's statement in 1533 that Satan confronted Luther after he had been a priest for fifteen years (Luther was ordained a priest in 1507). In 1523, Luther released a treatise entitled, de Abominatione Missae privata, quam Canonem vocant (Of the Abomination of Private Mass, commonly called the Canon). Gardiner and Woodhead say this book was inspired by Luther's encounter with Satan (only later admitted by Luther in 1533). According to these authors, once the world found out that the earlier book was inspired by Satan, a scandal ensued among the Protestants causing some of them to go back to the Roman Catholic Church. I've yet to find any evidence though that Luther claimed that the 1533 recorded dialog with the devil was the impetus for the 1523 book. It appears to be the connecting of dots to produce a conspiracy. Gardiner sums up the conspiracy aptly:

Woodhead reflects that it was surely by the "merciful providence of God" that Luther showed the world by his "own confession" in 1533 who was "the original Founder and Abetter of the Reformation."

One other aspect of this topic should not go without mention. The topic of Luther's 1523 and 1533 treatises was the private Mass. The Catholic Answers participant asked specifically about Luther being "counseled by a Devil to stop celebrating Holy Mass." They are not the same thing. Another participant on the Catholic Answers forums pointed out the obvious: "Luther celebrated the mass throughout his life." Another stated, "He called his liturgical reform the 'German Mass'."  Gardiner appears to miss this: "...the colloquy on the Mass that took place in 1522 had such an effect on him that he never offered another Mass." 

Preterist Archive: Martin Luther's Attitude Toward The Jews

The Preterist Archive has resurrected one of my old papers: Martin Luther's Attitude Toward The Jews (2005).  I appreciate that! for the last few years, the paper has only been available via the Internet Archive. No, I'm not a Preterist (as the term is popularly understood), but the Preterist Archive does in fact have some very useful research and materials available, whatever one's eschatological underpinnings may be. I stand amazed at how long the site has been going and how often it's updated. It certainly appears to be a true labor of love on behalf of the site's owner.

The paper was a personal research project. The materials used at the time were largely those found in a number of libraries, particularly Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia).  Originally, the paper was hosted on Eric Svendsen's NTR.Min.org (still available via the Internet Archive). Svendsen took his site down some time around 2009-2010 (see my comments here).

Since 2005, there's been quite an online information explosion! I wonder what my paper would be like now if I were to compose it again. My position on Luther's attitude towards the Jews is still basically the same as that presented in 2005. However, over the years my position has changed as to whether or not Luther himself was an anti-Semite.

There have been a number of researchers who conclude Luther's later anti-Jewish tracts were written from a position different than current (or modern-day) Antisemitism. Luther was born into a society that was anti-Judaic, but it was not the current anti-Judaic type of society that bases it racism on biological factors. Luther had no objections to integrating converted Jews into Christian society. He had nothing against Jews as “Jews.” He had something against their religion because he believed it denied and blasphemed Christ. If one frames the issues with these categories, Luther was not Antisemitic.

Post World War II though, there has been much discussion about the nuances and etymology of the term Antisemitism. The contemporary use of the word "Antisemitism" does not typically have its distinction from anti-Judaism considered. The word now has a more broad meaning including anti-Judaism. The debate centers around whether the evolved use of the term is a significant step towards describing previous history or if it's setting up an anachronistic standard for evaluating previous history [see my entry here in regard to Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012)]. As I've looked at this issue from time to time, I'm thinking more along the lines of Gritsch's revised view rather than what I wrote back in 2005. I accept the modern definition of Antisemitism, and I think that it does include anti-Judaism. While Luther may have been primarily against the religion of Judaism, his harsh recommendations could have effected Jewish people as human beings as well. 

Dr. Nathan Busenitz' course on Historical Theology from a Protestant/Reformation Viewpoint

This is the first of 25 lectures on Historical Theology from the early church up to the Reformation.  I have not listened to them all, but jumped around some; and still have a long way to go.  Overall, it looks really good.  See the side-bar on You Tube for the rest of the 25 lectures.  He also has a Part 2 of Reformation and forward Historical Theology course.  (see under the You Tube Page of The Master's Seminary)  I look forward to working through them.

Dr. Busenitz also has a book on Sola Fide, showing the earlier aspects and elements of the doctrine in church history before Luther.  Called "Long Before Luther".

Long Before Luther

PS. There is a also a course by Carl Trueman on the Reformation, there at the Master's Seminary (Founder: John MacArthur) You Tube Page, that even a Roman Catholic like Alan Ruhl admitted was excellent.

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.  

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

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

A woman was JAILED FOR ARRANGING HER HAIR to an "immoral height" (source).

This fact can be found in some weird places. The Jehovah's Witnesses say: "John Calvin enacted laws specifying the color and type of clothing his followers might wear. Jewelry and lace were frowned upon, and a woman could be jailed for arranging her hair to an 'immoral height.”" On the opposite end of the spectrum, popular Christian author Philip Yancy references it in his best-seller, What's So Amazing about Grace?: "A father who christened his son Claude, a name not found in the Old Testament, spent four days in jail, as did a woman whose hairdo reached an 'immoral height'." Yancy directly links this incident to Calvin as an example of what occurs  "When the church has occasion to set rules for all society, it often veers towards the extremism Jesus warned against."

Most often though, the quote serves the "I hate all things John Calvin and Calvinism" movement. This contingent is not only cross-denominational, it includes heretical sects, world religions, atheists, humanists, etc. It appears to be something opposing groups agree on: John Calvin was an awful individual, in essence, a dictator,  proven by the fact that under his "rule," a woman was jailed for her the "immoral height" of her hair (whatever that means, as if Calvin was measuring hair height!). Let's take a close look at this fact and try to determine it's truth and John Calvin's involvement.

Documentation: Will Durant, The Reformation
I suspect the popularity of this fact finds its genesis in pop-historian Will Durant's book, The Reformation. The key phrase which distinguishes Durant as ground zero is the use of the phrase, "immoral height." As far as I can tell, he's the first to use this phrase in regard to this historical nugget. Durant says,

Durant provides a footnote right after the "immoral height" of the woman's hair:  "Villari, Savonarola, 491." Durant says this refers to "VILLARI, PASQUALE, Life and Times of Girolamo Savonarola, N.Y., 1896." Here is Page 491 of that text. In context, Villari is not doing an in-depth study on Calvin or Geneva. He's simply mentioning Calvin in passing as a comparison to Savonarola. The comparison is intended to show (according to him) both suffered from fanaticism and intolerance. Villari states, 

Did not John Calvin live in the age of Leo X. and Francis I., and was he not a man of considerable culture, lofty genius, and iron strength of will? He too became the head of a republic, without, however, the merit of being its founder; and yet, while the declared champion of freedom and tolerance, he not only inflicted the severest punishments on all who committed blasphemy or worked on Sunday, but even cast women into prison for arranging their hair in an immodest fashion!1 Was it not he who, in the year 1553, had the innocent and ill-starred Servetus burnt to death at Geneva? It is no part of true historic criticism to put aside, when judging Savonarola, all remembrance of human passion and religious excitement.

1 In the Geneva Archives the Decree is still preserved by which a woman was sentenced to imprisonment, parce qu'elle n'avait pas les cheveux abattus. 

This was the sparse source Durant utilized. Villari claims it was John Calvin himself that "even cast women into prison for arranging their hair in an immodest fashion." Documentation is also provided: "In the Geneva Archives the Decree is still preserved by which a woman was sentenced to imprisonment." Notice Villari explains the Genevan records say explicitly, "parce qu'elle n'avait pas les cheveux abattus," but he leaves it to his readers to search out those records for this particular sentence! This is not meaningful documentation, particularly for his contemporaries. Even with our advantage of online search engines, this exact sentence typically hits only Villari's books. 

Also notice that Will Durant mis-cited  Villari. The English translation of Villari utilized by Durant does not say "immoral height," but rather, "immodest fashion." Villari's text was originally in Italian, not English. Villari's Italian text reads, "le donne per la poco modesta acconciatura dei loro capelli." "Immodest fashion" is an acceptable English translation. Why did Durant choose "Immoral height"? One pictures a Genevan woman with a 1950's beehive hairdo. True, the words "immodest" and "immoral" are related, but doesn't it seem Durant was trying to paint a darker picture of the event than what Villari wrote? The French text cited by Villari (parce qu'elle n'avait pas les cheveux abattus) does not say immoral height. The gist is that her was not hanging down.

Elsewhere I've documented Will Durant's strong bias against John Calvin. Here we see that not only was Durant biased by his choice of words in quoting his secondary source, that secondary does not helpfully substantiate the information presented. The trail mapped out by Durant to uncover the historical truth turns out to be a dead end.

Other Considerations
There are clues from other sources to consider in determining whether or not Calvin or Geneva regulated women's hair. For instance, this source states,

It was then decreed that the taverns should be closed at nightfall, all games of dice and cards were forbidden, and every sort of blasphemy and swearing was to be punished by imprisonment. It would have been well if the reformers had been content to stop there, for the prisons were full of delinquents, but Calvin insisted on legislating on the subject of dress and personal adornment, and sins of vanity were punished, as if they belonged to the same category as theft and libel. The registers of the republic under date May 20, 1537, contain the following entry:—

"A married woman went out last Sunday with her hair hanging down more than it ought, which is a bad example and contrary to the Gospel preached. The mistress, the maids who accompanied her, and the woman who dressed her hair have been sent to prison."

Notice particularly, this author claims the woman had "hair hanging down more than it ought," the exact opposite of what Durant claimed. Now not only is Calvin arresting women for high hair, he's arresting them for long hair! The famous historian Leopold von Ranke likewise mentions a version of this story:

One of the chief causes of contention was the adorning of brides, the "plicatura capillorum," which the preachers, according to 1 Peter iii. 3, would not permit. In the Registries of the Republic, May 20, 1537, we find that the mother and female friends who were present when a bride appeared "avec les cheveux plus abattus qu'il en se doit faire," were also subjected to punishment. The new preachers placed themselves under an obligation to permit the benediction of the bride "en cheveux pendans."

I suspect that the "Registries of the Republic" being cited is this text:

“Une épouse étant sortie dimanche dernier avec les cheveux plus abattus qu'il ne se doit faire, ce qui est d'un mauvais exemple, et contraire à ce qu'on leur évangélise, on fait mettre en prison sa maitresse, les deux qui l'ont menée, et celle qui l’a coiffée.—Régistres, 20 Mai, 1537.

I believe the popular source for this French text utilized by these two writers may be to an 1850 biography of John Calvin. The date of May 20, 1537 appears to be an error from this biographer. The actual date was October 30, 1537. I suspect the biographer utilized this text, and made a simple copyist error. Karl Barth mentions this similar story along with the correct date and a helpful reference"

Barth documents this with CO 21, 216. This is referring to the multi-volume set, Joannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. Volume 21, page 216 states:

The same text can be found in Registres du Conseil de Genève à l'époque de Calvin, Volume 2. So Durant got it both right and wrong.  He's right that a woman was arrested and imprisoned. He's wrong as to the specific details.

Conclusion
The Registers of Geneva do record at least one instance of the the regulation of hair style and subsequent imprisonment in 1537.  It appears to me that the woman's hair was was placed up, whereas the standard was to have hair hanging down.

Calvin arrived in Geneva in 1536, but the best records of the Genevan church didn't really begin until a decade later. What is available in the early years are fragments, which is where this information comes from. It appears the incident Durant was documenting (via Villari) was originally a fragment from October 30, 1537.

One thing that is missing from the context of the primary source fragment is reference to John Calvin having a woman arrested for her hair style. True, Calvin was an important voice in the life of the Genevan church. Was he directly responsible for the ordinance? This author claims some of these strict regulations (like the hair ordinance) "were already in existence" before Calvin got involved.  For this author, Calvin's fault was not making the ordinance, but rather calling on the Council to enforce those pre-existing laws. Was Calvin then directly responsible for having a woman imprisoned for a hairstyle in 1537? The context does not say that. The most one could argue is that Calvin may have influenced the incident.

How responsible then was Calvin for the regulations on hairstyle? The Reform movement in Geneva did not begin with Calvin, but it certainly grew exponentially under Calvin's influence. Calvin's biographer Thomas Henry Dyer paints a picture of Geneva as being not only liberal, but a bit wild previous to Calvin's arrival: "...it must be admitted that they were carried away to excess in Geneva, and that the greatest dissoluteness of manners prevailed." He argues that the morality of the city did require reform, but that the Reformers tried too quickly (they "should be extirpated all at once...") which led to some of the seemingly harsh recordings found in the Fragments. He refers specifically to the "hair" incident:

Marriage was ordered so be solemnised with as little show as possible. Instead of the joyous fete it had hitherto been, it was converted into a purely religious ceremony, and sanctified by a sermon. If the bride or her companions adorned themselves in a fashion contrary to what was evangelised, they were punished with imprisonment. 

From the same time period, there are the Articles Concerning the Organization of the Church and of Worship at Geneva 1537, probably the product of Calvin himself. There is nothing specific in this document about hair. There is nothing then that directly links Calvin to this incident. On the other hand, though written later, we do have Calvin's comments on 1 Peter 3:3. There Calvin comments,

3. Whose adorning. The other part of the exhortation is, that wives are to adorn themselves sparingly and modestly: for we know that they are in this respect much more curious and ambitious than they ought to be. Then Peter does not without cause seek to correct in them this vanity. And though he reproves generally sumptuous or costly adorning, yet he points out some things in particular,—that they were not artificially to curl or wreath their hair, as it was usually done by crisping-pins, or otherwise to form it according to the fashion; nor were they to set gold around their head: for these are the things in which excesses especially appear.

It may be now asked, whether the Apostle wholly condemns the use of gold in adorning the body. Were any one to urge these words, it may be said, that he prohibits precious garments no less than gold; for he immediately adds, the putting on of apparel, or, of clothes. But it would be an immoderate strictness wholly to forbid neatness and elegance in clothing. If the material is said to be too sumptuous, the Lord has created it; and we know that skill in art has proceeded from him. Then Peter did not intend to condemn every sort of ornament, but the evil of vanity, to which women are subject. Two things are to be regarded in clothing, usefulness and decency; and what decency requires is moderation and modesty. Were, then, a woman to go forth with her hair wantonly curled and decked, and make an extravagant display, her vanity could not be excused. They who object and say, that to clothe one’s-self in this or that manner is an indifferent thing, in which all are free to do as they please, may be easily confuted; for excessive elegance and superfluous display, in short, all excesses, arise from a corrupted mind. Besides ambition, pride, affectation of display, and all things of this kind, are not indifferent things. Therefore they whose minds are purified from all vanity, will duly order all things, so as not to exceed moderation. 

Notice also Calvin's comments in his commentary on 1 Tim. 2:9,

In like manner also women. As he enjoined men to lift up pure hands, so he now prescribes the manner in which women ought to prepare for praying aright. And there appears to be an implied contrast between those virtues which he recommends and the outward sanctification of the Jews; for he intimates that there is no profane place, nor any from which both men and women may not draw near to God, provided they are not excluded by their vices.

He intended to embrace the opportunity of correcting a vice to which women are almost always prone, and which perhaps at Ephesus, being a city of vast wealth and extensive merchandise, especially abounded. That vice is—excessive eagerness and desire to be richly dressed. He wishes therefore that their dress should be regulated by modesty and sobriety; for luxury and immoderate expense arise from a desire to make a display either for the sake of pride or of departure from chastity. And hence we ought to derive the rule of moderation; for, since dress is an indifferent matter, (as all outward matters are,) it is difficult to assign a fixed limit, how far we ought to go. Magistrates may indeed make laws, by means of which a rage for superfluous expenditure shall be in some measure restrained; but godly teachers, whose business it is to guide the consciences, ought always to keep in view the end of lawful use. This at least will be settled beyond all controversy, that every thing in dress which is not in accordance with modesty and sobriety must be disapproved.

Yet we must always begin with the dispositions; for where debauchery reigns within, there will be no chastity; and where ambition reigns within, there will be no modesty in the outward dress. But because hypocrites commonly avail themselves of all the pretexts that they can find for concealing their wicked dispositions, we are under the necessity of pointing out what meets the eye. It would be great baseness to deny the appropriateness of modesty as the peculiar and constant ornament of virtuous and chaste women, or the duty of all to observe moderation. Whatever is opposed to these virtues it will be in vain to excuse. He expressly censures certain kinds of superfluity, such as curled hair, jewels, and golden rings; not that the use of gold or of jewels is expressly forbidden, but that, wherever they are prominently displayed, these things commonly draw along with them the other evils which I have mentioned, and arise from ambition or from want of chastity as their source.

In both passages, Calvin mentions curled hair and vanity. Perhaps it was Calvin's influence that had this woman arrested and imprisoned? It appears that a hairdresser had dressed a woman's hair in such a way that she simply looked... too beautiful, which would be an an outward show of vanity in Calvin's mind. Without though any direct evidence, it's speculation at best that Calvin had anything to do with it.

Addendum
 Here's an interesting article: Untangling history: What hair and hairstyles meant in 16th and 17th-century Europe. The author states:

In early modern Europe, dress was regulated by “sumptuary laws”. These regulations set out who could wear what and when, according to a hierarchy of privileges believed to be accorded by god. Some of the laws related not just to clothing but also to hair. 

-snip-

In some areas, the Reformation made extravagant excesses a subject of discussion and attempted to regulate clothing in regard to new aesthetics of piety and morals of modesty.

-snip-

Early modern European cities enacted laws that defined the privileges and duties of different groups. Noblemen, clerics and peasants, for example, were expected to dress and behave in certain ways: what was appropriate for one group was inappropriate for another. In the wake of the Reformation, people were expected to comply with new rules on dress – but, as always, there were some who were determined to test the limits of authority.