C T J 54.2 (2019): 301–324 “I Have Sought to Move All to Pray … to This Good Father, by the Lord Jesus, in the Power of the Holy Spirit” Farel, Caroli, Calvin, and Farel’s Trinitarian Prayers Theodore G. Van Raalte “I Have Sought to Move All to Pray” The problem of John Calvin and Guillaume Farel’s orthodoxy as regards the doctrine of the Trinity has been arising periodically ever since Pierre Caroli charged them with Arianism at the Synod of Lausanne in 1537. When they produced the newly minted Catechism of Geneva as evidence against this charge, Caroli challenged them instead to subscribe to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. Calvin responded, “We swear in the faith of the one God, not of Athanasius, whose creed no true church has approved.”1 Twenty-two years later, the Gallican Confession (1559) sounded very different. Its fifth article ends, “And in keeping with this [doctrine of the Trinity] we recognize the three creeds, that is to say, of the Apostles, of Nicea, and of Athanasius, because they are in agreement with the Word of God.”2 Although Calvin wrote a draft for the 1 Stephen M. Reynolds, “Calvin’s View of the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds,” Westminster Theological Journal 23, no. 1 (1960): 33–37. Reynolds corrects the translation of Williston Walker, John Calvin, the Organizer of Reformed Protestantism, 1509–1564 (New York: Putnam, 1906), 197. In the same year, Martin Luther wrote appreciatively of these creeds, though his work was not published till 1538. See Martin Luther, The Three Symbols or Creeds of the Christian Faith, 1538, in Luther’s Works, ed. Lewis W. Spitz and Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 34:199–229. 2 “Et suyvant cela nous avoüons les trois symboles, ascavoir des Apostres, de Nice, et d’Athanase, pource qu’ilz sont conformes à la Parole de Dieu.” J. N. Bakhuizen van den Brink, De Nederlands Belijdenisgeschriften (Amsterdam: 301 T heodore G. V an r aalTe Gallican Confession, these words were not his, but were added by one of the pastors of the Paris church, likely Antoine de Chandieu.3 So perhaps there is an issue here. The Socinian historian E. Morse Wilbur certainly thought so, for he claimed that “the tendency of the first reformers was rather to pass over the doctrine [of the Trinity] as unscriptural and therefore unessential,” and further, that Farel in his first version of the Summaire, made “not the slightest reference to the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ.”4 More recently, several studies have returned to the issue of Farel’s and Calvin’s trinitarian orthodoxy, of which two deserve particular mention. These two studies differ, the first affirming Calvin’s—and by extension, Farel’s—trinitarian orthodoxy, the other confirming Calvin’s orthodoxy while arguing that Farel went through a decade of antitrinitarian thinking. In the first study, Brannon Ellis reviews the Confession of the Genevan Preachers about the Trinity that was read at the Synod of Lausanne on 14 May 1537 and concludes, “Calvin here in epitome affirmed classical trinitarian orthodoxy and rejected the archetypal heresies with respect to the one divine essence and the three persons—and certainly to make a point, he did so without saying Ton Bolland, 1976), 78. These words were closely followed by Guy de Brès in the Belgic Confession, art. 9, “Par ainsi nous recevons volontiers en ceste matiere les trois Symboles, celuy des Apostres, celuy de Nice, et d’Athanase, et semblablement ce qui en a esté determiné par les Anciens conformement à iceux” (Van den Brink, Nederlands Belijdenisgeschriften, 84). 3 Van den Brink, Nederlands Belijdenisgeschriften, 70. Pace Reynolds, “Calvin’s View of Creeds,” 33. Reynolds incorrectly assumed that Calvin had supplied this sentence, went on to argue that “he never wavered from the doctrinal positions he set forth as a young man,” and then reasoned backwards to say that the young Calvin must have held to these creeds. For Chandieu’s role, see the assertion of Jacques Pannier, Les origines de la confession de foi et la discipline des églises réformées de France (Paris: Alcan, 1930), 83. Calvin did write, “We recognize what has been determined by the ancient councils” (Van den Brink, Nederlands Belijdenisgeschriften, 80). 4 Earl Morse Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism: Socinianism and its Antecedents (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947), 1:15–16. Cf. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 4:66–67n17. 302 “I h aVe S ouGhT To M oVe a ll To P ray ” trinitas or persona.”5 It seems to me that Calvin’s avoidance of these two terms may have stemmed in part from a desire to spite Caroli, whose charges against Farel and Calvin had so incensed Calvin that at the synod he asked rhetorically whether Caroli even believed in God at all and asserted that he had no more faith than a pig or a dog! The avoidance of these two terms should not lead anyone to think, however, that Calvin avoided them primarily because they are extrabiblical terms, for he actually used a series of other such terms in this confession, to wit: “essentia” six times, “hypostasis” once, “subsistentia” twice, “simplicissima unitas” twice, “infinitum” twice, and “natura” thrice (with this word assumed in one more place).6 Indeed, Calvin’s concern for accurate words, definitions, and distinctions ought to be well known.7 In two follow-up statements, Calvin used “Trinitas” twice and “persona” thrice.8 Interestingly, after criticizing the Nicene Creed’s wording and refusing to subscribe to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, Calvin in his confession of faith at Lausanne appears to me to be following the basic structure of the Athanasian Creed, even if doing so in his own more expansive manner, 5 Brannon Ellis, Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 42. 6 John Calvin, Confessio Genevensium Praedicatorum de Trinitate, ed. Marc Vial (Geneva: Droz, 2002), 145–50; Confessio de Trinitate Propter Calumnias P. Caroli [1537], in Ioannes Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia 9:703–10, ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss, in Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 37 (Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1870). For a translation, see John Calvin, “Confession on the Trinity,” trans. Casey Carmichael, Kerux: The Journal of Northwest Theological Seminary 29, no. 3 (December 2014): 4–9. Carmichael should have translated the two instances of “subsistentia” as “subsistence” or “subsistent,” not “substance.” 7 Robert H. Ayers, “Language, Logic and Reason in Calvin’s ‘Institutes,’” Religious Studies 16, no. 3 (September 1980): 283–97. Though I question some of Ayers’s critique regarding the consistency of Calvin’s theological positions, he undertakes a very fine analysis of Calvin’s semiotics. 8 These two additional statements focused on the words Trinity and persons, and the application of the name “Jehovah” to Christ. They were read and approved at the Synod of Bern on 22 September 1537, but had probably been composed in the summer of 1537 (Calvin, Confessio Genevensium, 126n10). 303 T heodore G. V an r aalTe with Scripture proofs interspersed. Ellis concludes that Calvin is not guilty of the charge of holding antitrinitarian views.9 The second study, Reinhard Bodenmann’s new biography of Pierre Caroli, regards Farel in particular, but comes to the opposite conclusion of Ellis regarding Farel’s trinitarian orthodoxy.10 Bodenmann comes to this study well equipped. Not only is Bodenmann publishing carefully annotated editions of Bullinger’s correspondence—and Bullinger was the most prolific letter writer of all the Reformers—but he has also studied the bibliography of Farel and has produced two volumes of a critical edition of Farel’s writings.11 He suggests that Farel may have held some antitrinitarian views in the decade prior to his contact with Calvin, and that, under Calvin’s influence he may have, bit by bit, moved back into trinitarian orthodoxy. 9 An earlier study came to similar conclusions. See W. Nijenhuis, “Calvin’s Attitude towards the Symbols of the Early Church during the Conflict with Caroli,” in Ecclesia Reformata: Studies in the Reformation (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 2:73–96. However, Nijenhuis, like Ellis, overemphasizes Calvin’s aversion to speculative language in his speech at the Synod of Lausanne (84–85). Two other recent studies on Farel’s theology and spirituality noted that his published prayers of 1524, 1543, and 1545 exhibited a robust and orthodox trinitarian spirituality. See Jason Zuidema and Theodore Van Raalte, Early French Reform: The Theology and Spirituality of Guillaume Farel (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011), 50–69, 75–93; Theodore G. Van Raalte, “Guillaume Farel’s Spirituality: Leading in Prayer,” in Westminster Theological Journal 70, no. 2 (2008): 277–302. 10 Reinhard Bodenmann, Les perdants: Pierre Caroli et les débuts de la Réforme en Romandie (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016). See also Theodore G. Van Raalte, review of Bodenmann, Les perdants, in Calvin Theological Journal 54, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 171–75. 11 Reinhard Bodenmann, “Farel et le livre réformé français,” in The French Evangelical Book before Calvin, ed. Jean-François Gilmont and William Kemp (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 13–39; Guillaume Farel, Œuvres imprimées, Tome I: Traités messins I. Oraison très dévote 1542, Forme d’oraison 1545, ed. Bodenmann and Françoise Briegel (Geneva: Droz, 2009); Guillaume Farel, Œuvres imprimées, Tome II: Traités messins II. Epistre au duc de Lorraine 1543, Epistre de Pierre Caroli & la Response de Farel 1543, Seconde Epistre à Pierre Caroli 1543, ed. Bodenmann, Briegel, and Olivier Labarthe (Geneva: Droz, 2018). See also Theodore G. Van Raalte, review of Farel, Œuvres imprimées, in Calvin Theological Journal 54, no. 1 (Spring 2019): 188–96. Bodenmann has also prepared the bibliography of François Lambert d’Avignon. 304 “I h aVe S ouGhT To M oVe a ll To P ray ” In what follows, I will argue that further examination of the evidence advanced by Bodenmann, plus counterevidence to Bodenmann’s thesis—including a Farelian published prayer that has never yet been part of the scholarly discussion—will leave no grounds to support the charges that Farel may have held antitrinitarian views for a time. Though one cannot sustain the negative conclusion that Farel never held such antitrinitarian views, still, based on the evidence at hand, it is not possible to sustain the opposite conclusion that he did. Further, Farel’s practice of prayer, known through his published prayers, exhibits a robust trinitarian spirituality, for he frequently mentions all three divine persons in close proximity, and offers prayer to each of the persons, thus affirming their divine status. Therefore, unless new evidence arises to demonstrate that Farel actually did hold antitrinitarian views at some time, scholars ought to refrain from this claim. Bodenmann divides his discussion into two periods: that up to and including 1542, and that which follows, letting Caroli’s publication of 1543 against Farel and Calvin—wherein he resurrected his charges first made in 1537—serve as the dividing line. Prior to 1542, in his first publication Le Pater Noster et le Credo (1524), Farel provided the most explicit affirmations of the Trinity in all his oeuvre. Bodenmann acknowledges only that Farel used the classical terms “essence” and “persons” but avoided the word Trinity. In fact, a closer examination, undertaken below, will show that Farel affirmed the doctrine quite fully and in classical terms at least three times in this short treatise. Be that as it may, the question of Farel’s trinitarian views involves the decade and a half that followed, from c. 1525 up to the second encounter with Caroli in 1542. Bodenmann advances as evidence the fact that when Farel had Le Pater Noster et le Credo reprinted after 1524 (the date is undetermined, but Jean-François Gilmont has suggested 1525), “the words essence and persons have disappeared!”12 Corroborating evidence comes from two sources: around 1534 Farel’s colleague Berchtold Haller questioned Farel’s view on the Trinity; in 1539 Capito indicated that he had a letter from Farel wherein 12 Bodenmann, Les perdants, 107. 305 T heodore G. V an r aalTe he stated that he did not share his colleagues’ views (an ambiguous statement at best).13 Bodenmann concludes, We cannot exclude the possibility that Farel, who in 1524 still used the classical terms of essence and persons with respect to God (without however using the word Trinity), had afterward moved into a period of questioning the doctrine of the Trinity, before Calvin appeared in his life and little by little caused him to change his view.… Who knows whether, in the course of the conflict with Caroli and through contact with Calvin, Farel did not secretly and progressively modify his point of view, without ever confessing these old doubts to his new, young colleague?14 Bodenmann thus suggests that shortly after 1524 Farel may have abandoned the use of the words Trinity and persons and even doubted “the doctrine of the Trinity.” He does not specify, however, in what way Farel may have doubted the doctrine: Did Farel tend to deny the unity of the divine persons, or the distinction between the persons, or the deity of one or more of the divine persons? This lack of specificity itself suggests that Bodenmann lacks evidence. Examining the evidence after 1542, Bodenmann writes, “I would like to point out that even after 1542 we do not find in any of the known texts of Farel the non-biblical formulas of the type, ‘God (the) Son,’ or ‘God (the) Holy Spirit,’ or even ‘God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,’ but only the expression ‘God the Father,’ confirmed not only by the Apostles’ Creed, but also by the Pauline letters.”15 This statement 13 Bodenmann, Les perdants, 106–7. 14 “Toutefois, on ne peut exclure que Farel, qui en 1524 recourait encore à propos de Dieu aux termes classiques d’essence et de personnes (sans toutefois employer le vocable de trinité), ait passé par la suite par une période de remise en question du dogme de la trinité, avant que Calvin ne surgisse dans sa vie et le fasse petit à petit change d’avis … Qui sait donc si, au cours du conflit avec Caroli et au contact de Calvin, Farel ne modifia pas secrètement et progressivement son point de vue, sans jamais avouer ses anciens doutes à son nouveau jeune collègue?” (Bodenmann, Les perdants, 107). 15 “Je tiens à préciser que même après 1542 on ne retrouve dans aucun des textes connus de Farel les formules non bibliques du type de ‘Dieu (le) Fils’ ou ‘Dieu (le) Saint-Esprit’ ou encore de ‘Dieu le Père, Fils et Saint-Esprit’, mais uniquement la locution ‘Dieu le Père’, attestée non seulement par le 306 “I h aVe S ouGhT To M oVe a ll To P ray ” suggests that Bodenmann suspects that Farel minimized the deity of the Son and Holy Spirit, treating the Father alone as fully divine. Older studies that examined the episode of 1537 and the figure of Caroli did not raise doubts about Farel’s orthodoxy.16 Herminjard, in his edition of the letters of Haller and Capito that Bodenmann uses as evidence, stated that their concerns over Farel’s views on this point were unfounded.17 In this essay, I study this question via a number of published and unpublished works of Farel from the period 1524 to 1543, the period critical to Bodenmann’s argument. Many of these were published prayers. But before we examine the evidence in Farel’s writings, we note three further points. First, Bodenmann absolves Calvin of the same charge: “The doubts that I have expressed with regard to Farel are not justified in the case of Calvin.”18 He then proceeds to advance as evidence Calvin’s confession at the Synod of Lausanne in May 1537. But, if Bodenmann is willing to absolve Calvin based on this evidence, he needs to acknowledge that the speech was based on a written text to which Farel and Viret had equally subscribed, and that Capito, Bucer, Myconius, and Grynaeus agreed at the Synod of Bern on 22 September 1537 that this confession, with the two appended documents noted above, was sufficient to absolve the three preachers of Caroli’s charges.19 Credo, mais aussi par les épîtres pauliniennes” (Bodenmann, Les perdants, 106). 16 Previous studies include Abraham Ruchat, Histoire de la Réformation de la Suisse (Lausanne: Marc Ducloux, 1836), 5:16–41; Émile Doumergue, Jean Calvin: Les hommes et les choses de son temps (Lausanne: Bridel, 1902), 2:252–68; Henri Vuilleumier, Histoire de l’Église Réformée du Pays du Vaud sous le régime bernois (Lausanne: Concorde, 1927), 1:603–17. 17 A. L. Herminjard, Correspondance des Réformateurs (Geneva: Georg, 1870), 3:174n7; 6:111–12n5. 18 “Les doutes que j’ai émis à propos de Farel seraient injustifiés à l’endroit de Calvin” (Bodenmann, Les perdants, 108; cf. 116). 19 Bodenmann, in contrast with the Carmichael translation noted above, rightly notices that “subsistentia” is used in the second paragraph of the confession as an equivalent term to “hypostasis” and therefore representative of the distinctions within the Trinity. However, Bodenmann then states that Calvin “renounces here the use of the Latin term persona.” In fact, Calvin avoids it, but endorses it later in the summer of 1537 as noted above (Bodenmann, Les perdants, 112n720). 307 T heodore G. V an r aalTe Further, the three men had also subscribed to the (First) Helvetic Confession at the Lausanne Synod, which affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity in the traditional terms of Trinity and persons.20 Since Farel signed both of these documents he would, in Bodenmman’s view, have to be guilty of dissimulation in addition to his heterodoxy on the doctrine of the Trinity. Second, Bodenmann questions Calvin and Farel’s justification for avoiding technical terms, namely, that these are not helpful to the simple people, by pointing out that they also refused to use them before their colleagues at the Synod of Lausanne, and their colleagues were not unlettered men.21 However, Bodenmann leaves out the important point that although Calvin, Farel, and Viret refused to subscribe to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, partially because they did not want to yield to Caroli, just the same, the confession they did offer contained all the same doctrine—including almost all of the technical terms, as noted earlier. Thus, they did not refuse to use the technical terms in the presence of their colleagues, but refrained from overusing them in the context of teaching the common people. Third, the avoidance of terms such as Trinity and persons does not entail the charge that one is questioning the doctrine of the Trinity, still less that one is guilty of “antitrinitarianism.” There are more ways of expressing the doctrine, apart from using these terms—an allowance that all authors, Bodenmann included, are willing to admit in Calvin’s case, but which Bodenmann then withdraws in Farel’s case. By such a standard, even the Apostles’ and Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creeds question the teaching of the Trinity, for they do not use these terms. With these points in mind, we proceed to the evidence in Farel’s publications. 20 Bodenmann, Les perdants, 113, 236. These two synods of 1537 were also busy with debates about the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. 21 Bodenmann, 308 Les perdants, 114. “I h aVe S ouGhT To M oVe a ll To P ray ” Le Pater Noster et le Credo en françoys (Basel: Andreas Cratander, 1524) This prayer, based on Martin Luther’s Little Prayer Book (Betbüchlein) that first appeared in 1522, translates and augments by one third Luther’s exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, but turns the exposition into a prayer.22 The explanation of the Lord’s Prayer, also in the form of a prayer, is entirely Farel’s own. Francis Higman, in a critical edition published in 1982, highlights the importance of Farel’s Le Pater Noster. He writes, “The preface was printed three times, the explanation of the Lord’s Prayer fifteen times, that of the Creed twenty-eight times. For their chronological priority they deserve attention as the first expression of Reformed piety in the French language.”23 These printings occurred between 1524 and 1545.24 Farel’s role in the changes that occurred in various printings cannot be determined, unfortunately. Of the various editions collated by Higman, all editions of the preface include the words, “he sent us his very dear Son, true God and true man, Jesus Christ.”25 The next affirmation of this kind occurs after Farel has introduced the Creed but before he explains its articles. The original version—and this section, like the preface, is entirely from Farel, not a translation of Luther—reads, “I believe that you are the one and only God in three persons: the Father, from whom proceeds all action; the Son, who is the counsel of the operation; and the Holy Spirit, who is the motion or movement, from whom all things have their energy and power to make our service to you 22 This prayer is studied and translated in Zuidema and Van Raalte, Early French Reform, 54–69, 103–16. For Farel’s additions to Luther’s original, see especially 56n106. 23 Guillaume Farel, Le Pater Noster et le Credo en françoys, ed. Francis Higman (Geneva: Droz, 1982), 26. Higman has created a critical apparatus that allows scholars to trace the additions, alterations, and subtractions of a number of key editions of Le Pater Noster. 24 Farel, Le Pater Noster, 30–31. 25 Farel, Le Pater Noster, 36, lines 9–10 (because the discussion may become intricate, I will continue to include the line numbers, as assigned by Higman. I will also use my own published translation). One edition changes “his very dear Son” to “his only Son” (Zuidema and Van Raalte, Early French Reform, 105). 309 T heodore G. V an r aalTe agreeable.”26 Bodenmann is correct that the words “three persons” are omitted in editions of 1525 and 1528.27 However, these editions still state, “I believe that you are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is almighty, from whom are all things; the Son is all wise, by whom are all things; and the Holy Spirit is all [1528 adds: infinite] goodness, in whom are all things.” By saying in the 1528 edition that “you [tu, unambiguously singular] are these three,” Farel is affirming the Trinity, without using the word, just like the Heidelberg Catechism of 1561 would later ask, “Since there is but one Divine Being, why do you speak of three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Because God has so revealed himself in his Word that these three distinct Persons are the one, true, eternal God.”28 That catechism also has no mention of the word Trinity or triune, yet to my knowledge no one has ever accused its authors of doubting the doctrine. Rather, the frequent mentions of the three divine persons together and the affirmation that they are one affirms a robust underlying doctrine of the Trinity. At the close of the preface, Farel returns to the confession of the Trinity when he writes, “and that by this faith, and no other means, I am able to know the deity of your Son Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. Thus, I believe in them as in you, O heavenly Father. This faith will be able to make me believe that you, Father, and your Son, with the Holy Spirit, are one only essence, and moreover one God in three persons.”29 Farel is here noticing the creed’s wording of “credo in …” as a statement of trust in God, as applied to all three persons, and thus implying that all three are divine. A year later this last sentence said, “that you are one only God in three, who other26 Farel, Le Pater Noster, 50, lines 310–15; Zuidema and Van Raalte, Early French Reform, 111. 27 I note here the edition I am using of Le livre de vraye et parfaicte oraison was printed in July 1528 (see colophon) by Simon du Bois, while Higman lists his edition to be from 1529. However, on page 23 he cites it as “1528/9.” Higman abbreviates this edition as LVPO. The edition that Bodenmann uses in his argument is the Oraison Jesus Christ, said by Higman to be from 1525 and said by Bodenmann simply to be post-1524. 28 Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper, 1882), 3:315 (emphasis added). 29 Farel, Le Pater Noster, 51, lines 338–44; Zuidema and Van Raalte, Early French Reform, 112. 310 “I h aVe S ouGhT To M oVe a ll To P ray ” wise is only named together in the Scriptures as Father, Son or Word, and Holy Spirit.” The former sentence, speaking of the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, however, was retained. In the 1528 edition, both of these sentences were omitted. We shall see why in a moment and consider whether or not Farel was responsible for the changes. Two more affirmations of the deity of the Son and Spirit occur: when the section on the Son begins, Farel prays, “That is to say: I not only believe that Jesus Christ is your true and only Son in one eternal, divine nature, always begotten without beginning, but also that all things are subject to him, and that according to his humanity he is constituted my Saviour. He is even Saviour of everything which, according to his divinity, he created with you, O heavenly Father.”30 All of these words are retained in the 1525 edition and the words “one eternal, divine nature” remain in the 1528 edition. When the section on the Holy Spirit begins, Farel prays, “That is to say: I not only believe that the Holy Spirit is one true God with you and your Son Jesus Christ, but I believe moreover that nothing can prevent me from believing in you.”31 These words are fully retained in both 1525 and 1528. Finally, the entire prayer ends with another Farelian addition to Luther’s original, wherein Farel again explicitly affirms “one God in three persons,” in a quite fulsome request, praying “Therefore, my most dear Father, I pray you by the merits of your dear Son Jesus Christ, that you desire to make me live and die with true faith and trust in you, in your Son and in the blessed Holy Spirit, one God in three persons.”32 These words receive but one change in the 1525 and 1528 versions, changing “persons” to proprietez, that is, “properties,” and adding, “by the Scriptures thus named.” Since the word properties could be used of the properties or perfections of God or 30 Farel, Le Pater Noster, 56, lines 429–32; Zuidema and Van Raalte, Early French Reform, 114. Note that an error occurred in Early French Reform at this place: “always without a begotten beginning” should read, “always begotten without beginning.” 31 Farel, Le Pater Noster, 59, lines 503–5; Zuidema and Van Raalte, Early French Reform, 115. 32 Farel, Le Pater Noster, 62, lines 565–69; Zuidema and Van Raalte, Early French Reform, 116. 311 T heodore G. V an r aalTe of the properties of the particular persons in the Trinity, the change may be a way of insisting on the distinction between the persons.33 We may safely conclude that Farel fully maintained the deity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit between 1524 and 1528, that he consistently called them together “one true, eternal God,” “one essence,” and said of the Son and Spirit, “I believe in them as in you, O heavenly Father.” His practice of prayer demonstrates a robust trinitarian spirituality. Yet some trinitarian affirmations are avoided in the later editions of the prayer book. Why? This is not hard to determine when one has the 1528 publication, Le livre de vraye et parfaicte oraison, in hand.34 Many other long sections of the original 1524 publication were also removed—in fact, almost half the text of the preface and of the confession of God the Father. The book is set up differently than Farel’s Pater Noster, with shorter sentences and simpler content. Included were prayers to Mary and it was published outside of Farel’s control, in Paris. It was not even intended for Reformed believers—a case of what Higman calls “trans-confessional piety.”35 The editing sought to simplify Farel’s work for those less educated and very likely was not Farel’s doing. The word persons is a more interesting case. Why was it omitted, and even in one case replaced with “properties”? One might argue, as Caroli later would, that Farel was minimizing the deity of the persons.36 But—assuming Farel is responsible for the change, which is doubtful—one could equally argue that Farel was sensitive to criticisms that “person” as applied to God is easily misunderstood in a way that leads to practical tritheism or at least minimizes the deity of the Son and Spirit. An aversion to the term person as applied to God certainly was the case with Claude d’Aliod, a preacher who was banished from many 33 The Gallican Confession speaks of the three divine persons being known by their “proprietez incommunicables” (Van den Brink, Nederlands Belijdenisgeschriften, 80). 34 Guillaume Farel et al., Le livre de vraye et parfaicte oraison (Paris: Simon du Bois, 1528). 35 Francis M. Higman, “Histoire du livre et histoire de la Réforme,” in Bulletin de la Société d’Histoire du Protestantisme Français 148 (2002): 848. 36 Caroli claimed that Viret, Farel, and Calvin held Arian views (Bodenmann, Les perdants, 155). 312 “I h aVe S ouGhT To M oVe a ll To P ray ” Swiss cities in the 1530s for his antitrinitarian views. One of d’Aliod’s views was, “I do not believe the three persons are one God, but I know that these are three men; three persons are three men, not one God.”37 D’Aliod held that the Father alone was God; d’Aliod might be described in more ancient terms as a Monarchian. In the summer of 1534 d’Aliod claimed to be the sometime preacher of Neuchâtel.38 Though we know of no verification for his claim of Neuchâtel in particular, this may well be true, for we do know that in May 1534 he was banished from the Bernese-controlled territories after having served as a pastor within them. It is hard to say just how extensively d’Aliod and Farel interacted in 1534, since Farel was spending most of his time in Geneva.39 When d’Aliod quietly returned to his hometown on the south side of Lake Geneva to minister there in 1537, the Bernese authorities were quick to order him arrested.40 Christoph Fabri, who had been recruited by Farel in 1530 (at age twenty-one) and was already pastor in Thonon when he allowed d’Aliod to join him, then wrote to Farel on 2 March 1537 that he was sorry for his carelessness and prayed that God “would add to his zeal both prudence and knowledge, with candor.” He now realized that d’Aliod had abused his trust.41 This letter shows that Fabri knew that Farel would approve neither of d’Aliod’s heterodox views nor of Fabri allowing d’Aliod to preach such views. D’Aliod was then sent to Geneva to explain himself to Farel and Calvin. Vuilleumier states that Calvin and Farel challenged d’Aliod’s views and told him that they could not regard him as a brother unless he held, with them, to 37 In May 1534 d’Aliod wrote, “Summariè, non credo tres personas esse unicum Deum, sed scio esse tres homines; tres personae sunt tres homines, non unus Deus” (Herminjard, Correspondance, 3:173n3 [letter of Haller to Bullinger, 7 May 1534; emphasis original]). He notes his fear that Farel might be engaged in the same errors. But Herminjard comments, “the theological works of Farel show that this accusation has no foundation” (Herminjard, Correspondance, 3:174n7). See also Vuilleumier, Histoire de l’Église Réformée, 1:600. 38 Herminjard, Correspondance, 3:173n3; Bodenmann, Les perdants, 52–53. 39 Herminjard, Correspondance, 3:173n3; Bodenmann, Les perdants, 107. 40 A Bernese letter of 28 February 1537 stipulated this (Herminjard, Correspondance, 4:197n3). 41 Herminjard, Correspondance, 4:197. 313 T heodore G. V an r aalTe the real divinity of Christ.42 This ultimatum hardly sounds like Farel was toying with antitrinitarian views. Subsequently, at the Synod of Lausanne in May 1537, d’Aliod recanted his heterodox perspective (later, however, he returned to these views).43 If d’Aliod’s conceptions made Farel sensitive to the difficulties of using the word person, this could only be true after 1534, and could be added to Farel’s earlier justification about not using technical theological terms for the common people. To my mind this is more likely than thinking that Farel may have shared d’Aliod’s views or that d’Aliod could be called Farel’s “protégé,” as Bodenmann does, rather tendentiously.44 In addition, one must keep in mind Farel’s and Calvin’s kinship with the humanist-minded theologians who were making a renewed study of biblical language and who were well aware of various theological difficulties in past definitions of the term person as applied to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These are discussed in the well-known lexicon of Johannes Altenstaig.45 In conclusion, if Farel himself edited these subsequent volumes of Le Pater Noster, his trinitarian orthodoxy is affirmed, as above. If another edited his works—a point that is nearly certain for the 1528 42 Vuilleumier, Histoire de l’Église Réformée, 1:602. 43 Milton Kooistra tells us that Claude d’Aliod “championed the absolute unity of God and rejected the divinity of the Holy Spirit and Christ.” He was expelled from Basel in 1534, soon after from Bern, Zurich, Strasbourg, and other cities. From 1536 to 1539 he worked around his hometown on the southern shore of Lake Geneva. See The Correspondence of Wolfgang Capito, trans. Erika Rummel, ed. Milton Kooistra (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015), 221n9. 44 Bodenmann writes, “Berchtold Haller émit des doutes à propos de l’orthodoxie trinitaire de Farel et de son protégé Claude d’Aliod” (Bodenmann, Les perdants, 106–7). Bodenmann’s source, a letter of Haller, does not call d’Aliod the protégé of Farel. Rather, Haller discusses d’Aliod’s error with evident concern, in reference to Scripture, Zwingli, and Lombard. At the end of the letter he expresses concern that Farel might become implicated or entangled in this error as well, writing “Vereor ne Farellus in hoc implicitus sit errore.” Haller expresses a fear; he does not make a charge or state a fact. See Herminjard, Correspondance, 3:172–74, especially 174n7. 45 See, for instance, the careful discussion in Altenstaig’s Lexion. Johannes Altenstaig, Lexicon Theologie: complectens vocabulorum descriptiones, diffinitiones, et significatus ad theologiam utilium (Hagenau: Heinrich Gran, 1517), 188r. 314 “I h aVe S ouGhT To M oVe a ll To P ray ” edition—none of the deletions can be attributed to him personally, and his orthodoxy is affirmed again. Either way, no evidence exists in the editions of his prayer book after 1524 that he ever regarded the Son and Spirit as less than fully divine. Quite the opposite. Jesus sur tous et riens sur luy (Neuchâtel: unpublished, 1530)46 In late summer 1530 Farel’s focus upon the reform of Neuchâtel brought him into conflict with the city’s vicar, Antoine Aubert. Farel aimed to provoke a public debate on the evangelical teachings, and to that end he wrote a set of seven theses that he gave to the mayor to convey to the canons and chaplains.47 He also posted placards at the crossroads of the city.48 His theses were read into the public record on 24 September 1530.49 At the end of his seventh thesis, Farel affirms the oneness of God, writing “This [Saviour Jesus] is what the Father of all mercy gives to all people, in order that with one and the same spirit all might serve one only and true God in spirit and in truth, having only one law and one faith.”50 On 30 September 1530 Farel stood before a tribunal in Neuchâtel to defend his theses against the vicar. Later in October, Farel wrote out a response to the vicar, arguing against the Mass.51 This unpublished response is contained in the manuscript entitled, “Jesus greater than all and nothing greater than he.” Farel does not speak about the doctrine of the Trinity as such; he only quotes Matthew 28 about 46 “Jesus sur tous et riens sur luy” is the title that Arthur Piaget gives to an unpublished transcript of Farel’s oral response to the vicar of Neuchâtel, Antoine Aubert. The title appears to be original to Farel. Arthur Piaget, “Documents inédits sur Guillaume Farel,” Musée Neuchâtelois: Recueil d’histoire nationale et d’archéologie 34 (1897): 107–12. 47 Piaget, “Documents inédits sur Guillaume Farel,” 100. 48 Piaget, “Documents inédits sur Guillaume Farel,” 99. 49 Piaget, “Documents inédits sur Guillaume Farel,” 101. 50 “Ce que le père de toute misericorde donne à tous, affin que d’ung mesme esperit tous servent ung seul et vray Dieu en esperit et veritey, n’ayant qu’une loy et une foy” (Piaget, “Documents inédits sur Guillaume Farel,” 101). 51 Piaget, “Documents inédits sur Guillaume Farel,” 102. 315 T heodore G. V an r aalTe baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”52 In sum, in 1530 Farel does speak of all three divine persons while also stating in thesis seven that there is “one only and true God.” La Tressaincte cene de nostre seigneur Jesus: et de la Messe quon chante communement ([Basel: Thomas Wolff], 1532) We turn now to a little-studied work of Farel: his critique of the Roman Mass, published, as far as we know, in 1532.53 The work sets forth every part of the Mass, describing it and quoting in detail all the liturgy of the Mass as Farel was familiar with it. It appears to be written with simple people in mind, like the publication of 1528, discussed above. The format is also small, for a cheaper cost and ease of use. Bodenmann does not include this work in his study, but its publication date of 1532 is important to his speculation that between 1525 and 1542 Farel may have held antitrinitarian views. In one place, Farel objects to the Roman church that it does not hold to the Nicene Creed. He introduces this point by speaking of a certain step in the Mass: “The gospel having been read and sung, one begins the Creed, in which the articles of the faith are contained, concerning which [articles] whoever will pay attention also to the 52 Piaget, 53 “Documents inédits sur Guillaume Farel,” 110. For an excellent discussion of the authorship and contents of this treatise, followed by a presentation of the text, see Francis M. Higman, “Les débuts de la polémique contre la messe: De la tressaincte cene de nostre seigneur et de la messe qu’on chante communement,” in Le Livre et la Réforme, ed. Rodolphe Peter and Bernard Roussel (Bordeaux: Société des bibliophiles de Guyenne, 1987), 35–92. Higman attributes the printing to Thomas Wolff of Basel and assigns the date of 1532, with the latest possible date being 1534 (“Les débuts de la polémique contre la messe,” 35–36, 53–54). It turns out that “Thomas Wolff” was probably a pseudonym for the same Simon du Bois who printed the Livre de vraye et parfaicte oraison in Paris in 1528. He either had since then fled to Basel or it may be that his other works that were said to be printed in Basel actually had a false place name. See Peter and Roussel, Le Livre et la Réforme, 457, 462, as well as the data provided on Simon du Bois at the website of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, accessed 5 December 2017, http://data.bnf.fr/12483190/simon_du_bois/. 316 “I h aVe S ouGhT To M oVe a ll To P ray ” work of the priests and their teaching, will find that they deny everything entirely.” This statement, and the critiques that follow, imply that Farel approved of the Creed. He then quotes the first section of the Nicene Creed as used by the priest in the Mass, that is, “I believe in one God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible,” and begins to critique the Roman church for denying this article by calling the pope their very holy father and even “God” on earth.54 He likewise argues that the Mass denies what the Nicene Creed’s articles confess about the Lord Jesus.55 Farel describes another step in the Mass as follows: “Then he prays to the Trinity to receive this gift.” But Farel does not critique the use of the word Trinity, only that the priest thinks he is offering Christ, when the Christ already completed his offering at Golgotha.56 Twice Farel speaks about Jesus the Savior “as man,” clearly implying that the Savior is also divine.57 He substitutes “Jesus” for “God” when he writes of the dual “love of Jesus and of his neighbor.”58 He describes the Spirit of God as “in everything and by everything conformed to himself,” that is, fully divine, immutable.59 The evidence that this little work offers for our question, published in the very period when Bodenmann speculates that Farel may have shared some antitrinitarian views, points in the opposite direction. While critiquing the Mass, Farel did not extend his criticism to the Nicene Creed or the term Trinity. 54 Farel, Tressaincte cene, c8v–d1r. 55 Farel, Tressaincte cene, d2v–d3r. 56 Farel, Tressaincte cene, d6v–d7r. 57 Farel, Tressaincte cene, d8v, l3v. In the first instance Farel states that nothing visible, such as bread, and “especially Jesus our Saviour as man” can provide eternal life, but only “the only God” can do this. This implies that Jesus must be truly human and truly divine in order to save sinners. In the second instance Farel writes about God’s voice from heaven confirming that Jesus is the “Son of God” when he was baptized by John the Baptist, and John then pointing to Jesus as the One who takes away the sins of the world. From this Farel concludes that Jesus “in the flesh and as true man,” not in the form of bread (per the Roman Mass), fulfills all the Messianic prophecies. 58 Farel, Tressaincte cene, l1r. 59 Farel, Tressaincte cene, k3v. 317 T heodore G. V an r aalTe Le Pater Noster et le Credo en françoys (Geneva: Wigand Koeln, 1536) Of the numerous reprintings and editions of Farel’s Le Pater Noster et le Credo, one not considered by Bodenmann deserves special mention. It is a reprinting of the 1524 edition, unchanged, in 1536 in Geneva, where Farel was working at that time. This printing of Farel’s prayer book was discovered by William Kemp and described by Kemp and Jean-François Gilmont in an essay published in 2008.60 Identical to the 1524 edition, this prayer book thus includes multiple clear and robust affirmations of the doctrine of the Trinity, as noted earlier in this essay when we studied the 1524 edition. We may be certain that Farel himself oversaw this printing, given that Farel focused on Geneva from 1533 onward and worked full-time there as its leading Reformer from sometime in 1535 till 1538, and given that Koeln printed four works for Farel in Geneva during 1536 and 1537.61 Not only does this reprinting of the prayer book in 1536 under Farel’s direction call into question the speculation that he was at this very time entertaining antitrinitarian views, but it also calls into question the assumption—which I have contested above—that Farel was responsible for simplifying the edition of his prayer book published in 1528. We should also mention that this printing, certainly carried out at Farel’s direction in order to teach the Genevans how to pray in 60 Jean-François Gilmont and William Kemp, “Wigand Koeln Libraire à Genève (1516–1545): éditeur du Pater Noster de Guillaume Farel,” in Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 70, no. 1 (2008): 131–46. 61 Koeln printed Farel’s placard in preparation for the Dispute of Lausanne (1536), Farel’s prayer book (1536), the Genevan Confession of Faith, written by Farel (1536), and a reprinting of this confession (1537). Koeln was a member of the Council of Sixty, before whom Farel made several of his speeches that propelled reform in 1535 and 1536, and Koeln favored this reformation. Farel was employed by the Council as the equivalent of an itinerant preacher. On Koeln’s printing of Farel’s works, Koeln’s position in the city’s councils, his support for the reform, and the interaction of Koeln and Farel, see Gilmont and Kemp, “Wigand Koeln Libraire,” 133–34, 145–46, and the “Répertoire des imprimeurs et éditeurs suisses actifs avant 1800,” sub Koeln, Wigand (accessed 13 February 2019, https://db-prod-bcul.unil. ch/riech/imprimeur.php?ImprID=60&submit=Chercher). On Farel’s status as preacher, see Elsie Anne McKee, The Pastoral Ministry and Worship in Calvin’s Geneva (Geneva: Droz, 2016), 110. 318 “I h aVe S ouGhT To M oVe a ll To P ray ” accordance with their newly adopted evangelical faith, came out prior to Caroli’s accusations in 1537 but after Caroli’s arrival in Geneva in April or May of 1535. During or shortly after the time it was printed, Claude d’Aliod, the antitrinitarian preacher, was working around Lake Geneva. Under these circumstances this reprinting would serve to distinguish Farel’s teachings from d’Aliod’s. The existence of this printing at this time and place is perhaps the strongest evidence against Bodenmann’s speculation that Farel may have been passing through an antitrinitarian stage at just this time. La tressaincte oraison que Jesus Christ a baillé à ses Apostres (Geneva: Jean Girard, 1541) Lately another published prayer by Farel has come to light. In 1982 Higman stated that no known copy had been found and, given its title and the many variant editions of Farel’s Le Pater Noster of 1524, wondered about its relation to the latter.62 Thankfully, a copy has now been found.63 However, no scholar has yet written about its contents. This work, too, was published in the period during which (according to Bodenmann) Farel held antitrinitarian views. We know that Jean Girard received permission from the city council of Geneva on 22 December 1540 to print this work, entitled The Very Holy Prayer That Jesus Christ Entrusted to His Apostles.64 Like Farel’s works from the 1520s, this is an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer. One 62 Farel, Le Pater Noster, 31. 63 Herewith my warmest thanks to Paul Fields, theological librarian and curator at the H. Henry Meeter Center for Calvin Studies at Calvin University and Calvin Theological Seminary, for securing for me a copy of this rare work. The University of Halle has the original and the University of Geneva possesses a microfilm copy of which the Meeter Center has obtained a scanned copy. Guillaume Farel, La tressaincte oraison que Jesus Christ a baillé à ses Apostres (Geneva: Jean Girard, 1541). 64 Jean Girard was given permission by the Geneva Council on 22 Decem- ber 1540 to print an “Exposition de l’orayson de N.S., composée par Farei” [sic]. On 25 May 1542 the Sorbonne censured the title given here (Higman, Censorship and the Sorbonne: A Bibliographical Study of Theology of the University of Paris; 1520–1552 [Geneva: Droz, 1979], 91–92). Francis M. Higman, Piety and the People: Religious Printing in French, 1511–1551 (Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1996), entry F21. 319 T heodore G. V an r aalTe might guess that it is simply another version of Le Pater Noster, but in fact it is not. Farel undertakes the same method as before: he prays his way through the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, but the work is entirely original. Late the next year he published another original prayer of fifty-six pages, which he in turn augmented to 156 pages in 1545. One thing is clear: Farel considered the ministry of prayer key to the progress of the Reformation, and kept publishing works that were meant to help the Reformed believers pray for the progress of the gospel and for their own salvation. Farel describes his purpose for the 1541 prayer as follows: “I have laboured to make understandable in the form of a prayer, how the heart ought to address itself to God by uttering the holy words that the Lord Jesus gave us, when he commanded us to pray like this, ‘Our Father in heaven.’”65 The work is replete with Scripture, something Farel has done self-consciously.66 Trinitarian statements abound in the prayer, at least the close association and unity of the divine persons in their works. These are combined with affirmations of the full deity of the Son of God. For instance, “I have sought to move all to pray, and to address themselves all to this good Father, by the Lord Jesus, in the power of the Holy Spirit … in order that the only Head of the Church, Jesus, the true eternal Shepherd King might be known, served, and honoured by all, just as he has commanded.”67 That the preceding cannot be read in a subordinationist manner is clear from Farel’s words in an earlier passage in this work, “For he accomplished [salvation] for all, who—being in the form of God and true God, one only God, Jesus true Son of God—having taken our flesh and been made true man, even as he was true God, showed us.”68 According to Farel, the virgin Mary herself “called Jesus her very dear Son true God and true man.”69 He affirms to the Father that Jesus is “your holy, pure, 65 Farel, Tressaincte oraison, b5r. 66 Farel, Tressaincte oraison, c1v. He asks that none impede the course of his treatise “but well consider the places of holy Scripture, from which everything here has been taken.” 320 67 Farel, Tressaincte oraison, c2r. 68 Farel, Tressaincte oraison, a2v. 69 Farel, Tressaincte oraison, h3v. “I h aVe S ouGhT To M oVe a ll To P ray ” true, and only Son.”70 And when he praises God in the most lofty way, he concludes as follows: “Jesus, to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be honour and glory eternally and without end. Amen.”71 In yet another passage where Farel keeps the three divine persons together, he states that God makes sinners new and gives them new hearts, “when by faith you take us to Jesus your only Son, causing us to have a firm faith and trust in him, giving us your Holy Spirit, adopting us for your children and heirs by that same Jesus, your true and natural Son and Heir.”72 Once more reaching a lofty height of emotion in his prayer, Farel prays “that this good and ever merciful Father and Jesus his very dear Son be known, served, honored, and worshipped by the truth of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”73 In the Nicene Creed the worship of all the divine persons together is an affirmation that all of them are divine, for no Christian may worship a created thing (this would be idolatry). Farel’s prayers exhibit a spirituality that is trinitarian through and through. He teaches trinitarian doctrine as he leads the church in prayer, showing that the three persons who receive prayer are considered to be divine precisely because they receive prayer and thereby receive worship. Yet there is but one God, which he also affirms. Further, we find Farel affirming the classical attributes of God, even using terms such as “immutable,” that do not occur in Scripture, when he prays, “You are heavenly, not being subject to alteration or change, not being limited as to place, nor subject to time, but immutable, immortal, containing and comprehending everything by your strength and power, eternal without beginning or end.”74 One can also notice that Farel considers the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Son, and not just from the Father. This too affirms the deity 70 Farel, Tressaincte oraison, h4r. 71 Farel, Tressaincte oraison, c3r. 72 Farel, Tressaincte oraison, c5v. 73 Farel, Tressaincte oraison, h7r. Further segments of the prayer where Farel holds all three persons together in the unity of their works, can be found at a6r, g5r, and h2r. 74 Farel, Tressaincte oraison, c5r. 321 T heodore G. V an r aalTe of the Son.75 The divine nature of all three also justifies prayers to any of the three persons.76 It is true that the terms essence and persons do not occur in the 1541 prayer, as far as I can tell, but it is impossible to doubt Farel’s devotion to, praise of, and faith in all three divine persons as the one true God. He affirms the divinity of each of the divine persons as well as the unity and oneness of God. Conclusion Like the Farel scholar Jason Zuidema, I find Farel’s justification for his modest language of the Trinity reasonable. Farel said in the addition to his 1542 Summaire that he had chosen to avoid speaking of God in his “named being, which is by all incomprehensible.”77 Rather, as a matter of “pedagogical prudence,” says Zuidema, Farel said that he “stuck to speaking of God and presenting him as he declared himself in the things that he did.”78 In taking this position, Farel was following the lead of Melanchthon, who decided not to treat the doctrine of the Trinity in the first edition of his Loci Communes, preferring to adore the mysteries of God rather than scrutinize them.79 Calvin’s Institutes would go beyond this, and would be highly recommended by Farel, who considered his own Summaire to be for the simple folk, 75 Farel, Tressaincte oraison, a7v–a8r, d8r, h1r. 76 Farel, Tressaincte oraison, h5r. Here Farel addresses the Holy Spirit; in a7v–a8r Farel addresses the Son. 77 Zuidema and Van Raalte, Early French Reform, 24. In this addition, Farel explained, “God is a simple spiritual essence, indivisible and incomprehensible. No created reasoning could comprehend or understand him by considering him simply and in himself. We confess and believe that there is one and only God in three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in a unity of essence and nature. We confess that the Trinity of persons has true personal distinction and perfect unity of essence and substance, without confusing the persons or dividing the essence. We understand and believe this by faith, according to that which God has revealed by the holy scriptures” (Zuidema and Van Raalte, Early French Reform, 120n2). 78 Zuidema and Van Raalte, Early French Reform, 120n2. 79 Vuilleumier, 322 Histoire de l’Église Réformée, 1:601. “I h aVe S ouGhT To M oVe a ll To P ray ” and who was happy to consider the Institutes to have far surpassed his own efforts.80 Indeed, key to this entire discussion is the genre and intended audience of Farel’s writings. Farel was a man of the people in the sense that he spoke at their level, and his writings often approximated his speaking. Indeed, his 1542 prayer appears to have been dictated.81 The present essay demonstrates a continuity in Farel’s trinitarian spirituality from the period studied here to the subsequent period, which has been studied previously.82 The prayers of 1542 and 1545, for instance, have been said to follow a trinitarian chiastic structure. That is to say, both prayers—the 1545 edition being an enormously augmented version of the 1542 prayer—address the divine persons sequentially: first the Father, then the Son, then the Holy Spirit, and then back to the Son, and then back to the Father. The portions of the prayer addressed to the Father, with which these prayers begin and end, are longest, and the portion in the center that is directly addressed to the Holy Spirit is shortest.83 Examination in this essay of both published and unpublished writings of Farel from 1524 to 1543 sustains the line of scholarship that has indicated that he maintained a consistent trinitarian orthodoxy in all of his writings. His defense in the appendix to his 1542 Summaire for avoiding technical terms when teaching nontheologians can be accepted at face value, since he never published any critique of the terms Trinity or person, let alone of the underlying doctrine. The question that might continue to be investigated is why the charges of antitrinitarianism have arisen from time to time, ever since 1537. Is it because Caroli reissued his charges in 1543 (something not investigated here because no scholar has questioned Farel’s trinitarian orthodoxy post-1542)? Or might Calvin’s vehement response to Caroli in 1537, in which he refused to subscribe to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, be a bigger factor?84 Or might other motivations 80 Zuidema and Van Raalte, Early French Reform, 186–87. 81 See the discussion by Olivier Labarthe and Reinhard Bodenmann in Farel, Traités messins I., 23, 29. 82 Zuidema and Van Raalte, Early French Reform, 79–85. 83 Zuidema and Van Raalte, Early French Reform, 79. 84 Bodenmann notes that Calvin’s strong invective against Caroli was not shared by Farel and Viret. This was especially true in 1543, when Farel wrote 323 T heodore G. V an r aalTe of scholars or popular writers also play a role? Whatever the answer to that question, scholars should accept that when Farel stated in 1541 that, “I have sought to move all to pray … to this good Father, by the Lord Jesus, in the power of the Holy Spirit,” he sought to encourage others to follow his own long-standing practice of worshiping and praying to the one only true God, revealed in three distinct but equally divine persons.85 a very compassionate public letter to Caroli in response to Caroli’s public summons of Farel (Bodenmann, Les perdants, 169, 344). 85 Farel, Tressaincte oraison, c2r. My warmest thanks to the editor of Calvin Theological Journal, Karin Maag, as well as two anonymous reviewers for their astute comments that helped me improve the essay. 324