Eamon Younis: Guillaume Farel’s Spirituality: Leading In Prayer

By Theodore G. Van Raalte

[Theodore G. (Ted ) Van Raalte is co-pastor of Redeemer Canadian Reformed Church of Winnipeg, Manitoba, and is currently a Ph.D. student in historical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Mich.]

I. Introduction

Guillaume Farel (1489–1565), a French Reformer rather neglected by scholars in the English-speaking world, merits greater consideration, especially by those who study that crucial question of the initia reformationis. Considered historically, Farel’s credentials are impressive: the first French-language exposition of the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed for Protestants,[1] issued by at least thirteen different printers between 1524 and 1545;[2] the first French-language dogmatics of the Reformation which went through several editions between 1529 and 1552;[3] the organization of the first Reformation churches in the French-speaking Swiss cantons;[4] and the first French-language liturgical forms for the new churches (baptism, marriage, Lord’s Supper, manner of preaching, and visitation to the sick).[5] Higman has shown that up to 1551 Farel had published twenty-six editions of various works involving sixteen titles.[6] In light of the above, it does not suffice to turn aside momentarily for Farel in the midst of studying Calvin.[7] Farel deserves to be known for himself.

Most of his works were shorter and more basic than Calvin’s, but the important factor in the study of Farel has more to do with his pivotal place in the history of the French Reformation and the proximate effect of his works than their size or the complexity of their thought.[8] These writings were more occasional than systematic, written by one whose bold preaching made him the first agent of the Reformation among the French-speaking Swiss, where he indeed oversaw the reform of Montbéliard, Aigle, Neuchâtel, Morat, Vaud and its villages, and even Geneva.[9]

This article aims to contribute to the study of Guillaume Farel by moving the discussion ahead in more than one respect. In the first place, no study of Farel can be undertaken today apart from a careful interaction with the tremendous bibliographic advances of the last several decades, thanks to Francis Higman and Jean-François Gilmont, among others. I hope to bring English readers up-to-date with this discussion.[10] It will be evident that recent findings have important implications with respect to studies of both the early Farel and the early reform movement among the French-speaking Swiss. Secondly, I intend to accomplish this bibliographic update within the context of an examination of Farel’s spirituality in his earliest writings—a study never yet undertaken. However, since Farel’s spirituality or piety in general is too wide in scope for this article, I will scrutinize his spirituality through the particular window of his doctrine and practice of prayer.[11]

The bibliographic portions of the article will form the opening discussion of each section. This discussion can stand on its own and must be worked into the two other deeper levels of detail. At the deepest level, the study of prayer will provide data from the documents for first-order conclusions about Farel’s emphasis on prayer and its role in his program. These conclusions will in turn generate some modest suppositions for the middle level of detail—Farel’s spirituality.[12]

The entire study, in all its aspects, will hopefully provide at least some balance to the popular caricature of the restless, fiery, even violent, Guillaume Farel.[13]

Investigating Farel on prayer should prove fruitful. Already in the sixteenth century his contemporary Beza spoke of Farel’s “most fervent prayers” which could not be heard “without feeling almost as though [one] was being carried up to heaven.”[14] Hower’s 1983 dissertation argues that Farel is responsible for “the genesis of Protestant prayer.”[15] Although I find such a description historically problematic, one certainly may argue that Farel’s attention to prayer is the most sustained and thoroughly treated topic in his writings. One must include his written and published prayers in such a study, for these were published as models. Unfortunately, due to space, we must exclude detailed study of both a published prayer of Farel from 1543[16] and his 1533 liturgy.[17] I will restrict the study to four early works of Farel, the first three dating from 1524 and the last from 1529.

II. The Disputation at Basle (February 1524 )

The stage may be set with the first recorded words we currently have from Farel on prayer. Their historical context particularly helps us set his view of prayer in the context of and yet apart from the spiritual and devotional practices of his day.

In April 1523, at the age of thirty-four, Guillaume Farel finally left the comfort of the circle of French humanists who had gathered around Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples. Farel had joined Lefèvre in Paris perhaps as early as 1515 or 1516,[18] and then followed him from Paris to Meaux in 1521 as part of a group of humanists who contributed to reform within the church under the bishop Guillaume Briçonnet, the whole group enjoying royal protection through Margaret of Alençon, the king’s sister. However, as their reforms drew the attention of opponents, Briçonnet was forced to make a disciplinary decree. Likely as a result of this Farel was either sent away or left voluntarily.[19] He attempted to preach in his native Gap but was not well received. Afterward he journeyed to Basle to meet the German-speaking Reformers there, possibly as early as July 1523.[20]

Attempting to promote reform, he gained government approval for a disputation in Basle and posted thirteen theses in Latin to be argued on March 3, 1524.[21] The fourth thesis concerns us here.

Farel argued, “Long-winded prayers (verbosiores preces) which are against the command of Christ, and not according to the Christian pattern of rule, cannot be prayed or instituted without danger: so that it will be better to pay out to the poor whatever is offered in these matters, and not to contribute to the funding of so many evils.”[22] Unfortunately no record of the disputation’s proceedings is known, but judging by the reference to things given for the praying of these prayers and the possible benefits for the poor, it appears that Farel has in view memorial masses endowed by the laity (individuals or corporations) to be carried out by the priests. These endowments were called chantries, and the masses performed were low masses performed by chantry priests. The literature terms them variously as funerary, requiem, or memorial masses.

Thomas Lambert relates the rapid development of chantries in Geneva in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, both those which simply paid a priest to perform extra masses and those which resulted in the erection of dedicated altars and even new buildings or attachments to the existing cathedral. In the years 1516 through 1518 the diocese around the city of Geneva counted some 1,435 endowed chantries. The cathedral of St. Pierre itself housed one hundred chantries by 1536, in addition to its twenty-three altars (Geneva was not unique in this regard).[23] Since one of the legal requirements for founding a chantry stipulated that sufficient funds had to be set aside for both its institution and maintenance, Farel could argue that this practice denied the poor much of what they might have received.

The expression verbosiores preces literally means “more abundantly-worded prayers,”[24] but one must not think that Farel is opposing long prayers as such. He himself was quite capable of lengthy prayers, as we shall see. The prayers of many words must refer to the multiple repetitions of the Lord’s Prayer, Kyrie Eleison, Hail Mary, and so forth, said in all the mass celebrations, prayers which were usually repeated mindlessly and thought to be beneficial by virtue of being spoken. Farel could argue against both clergy and laity practices in this regard. Although “the laity considered the clergy to be the specialists in prayer,”[25] yet the laity also undertook verbosiores preces. While the priest performed the mass behind the screen, the worshipers were expected to say their prayers quietly, that is, to repeat the Lord’s Prayer, the Hail Mary, and other set prayers while using their rosary beads to count the number. After Geneva accepted the Reformation in 1536, and after the consistory was established in 1541, they had to deal with a great number of cases of “muttering” (barbotement), that is, with those who attended the Reformed worship services but maintained the old practice of quietly saying their prayers in Latin, thus distracting others from the sermons.[26] The consistory’s concern post-1541, and surely also Farel’s concern here in 1524, has everything to do with the connection between the heart and the mouth. Abundantly worded prayers were not spiritual if the heart was not engaged. As we shall see, Farel’s style of praying and his admonitions regarding prayer will have everything to do with the moving of the affections toward the love of God and one’s neighbor.

Thesis four combines an inner and an outer spirituality, the proper outer being love for the poor, and the inner, by implication, being that prayer in which the human spirit is activated by the divine Spirit to be lifted up to God. Ozment, who thinks of the thirteen theses as preparatory for Farel’s Summaire, rightly points out their very practical approach to living the Christian life,[27] a life which Farel viewed as spiritual and in which prayer was key.

III. L’Épistre chrestienne tresutile (August 1524)

L’Épistre chrestienne tresutile was written to promote the reading of the Scriptures in the vernacular, serving particularly as a promotion for Jacques Lefèvre’s translation of the New Testament into French.[28] It is the first known letter of its kind in French and was published anonymously. Although Gilmont listed its Farelian authorship as doubtful in his fine, scholarly, and exhaustive bibliography of Farel,[29] Denommé and Kemp, with the collaboration of Gilmont, have since returned to the defense of Farel’s authorship.[30] They argue on the basis of internal and external considerations, such as many parallels to Farel’s other writings and several circumstances in Farel’s life that match the letter.[31] The reason for Gilmont’s categorization as “doubtful” in 1983 hinged on his reconsideration of an invoice sent to Farel (dated August 28, 1524) from the bookseller Jean Vaugris of Basle wherein some two hundred copies of Farel’s prayer book, Le Pater Noster et le Credo, were billed at a cheaper rate per copy than fifty copies of “letters” in the same invoice. Gilmont reasoned that these “letters” could not refer to L’Épistre chrestienne because their higher price indicates that they had to be longer than Le Pater Noster whereas in fact L’Épistre chrestienne is shorter. Thus, the invoice can no longer function to support Farelian authorship. This is the one argument that Denommé and Kemp do not overcome. It seems to me that three responses can be advanced. First, prayer books were purposefully printed inexpensively so as to find wider distribution.[32] Second, the cost per letter had to be greater than the cost per prayer book since there were fewer letters printed, with the result that the setup cost had to be recovered in fewer items.[33] Finally, the two works are actually the same size, both at three quires of eight folios, the last quire ending in both cases at folio four verso![34] Besides this answer to Gilmont’s objection, we can also point to further internal evidences favoring Farel, not noted by Denommé and Kemp. These include phrases common in the undisputed writings of Farel, such as, “the good Jesus,” “poor souls,” “the sweet Jesus,” “the good God,” “this good Lord,” “his good Spirit,” “his great kindness,” and the name “Jesus” by itself.[35]

While the thrust of the letter regards the reading of Scripture, the letter also speaks of prayer needing to be offered in the vernacular in order to be edifying to the people. These parts of the letter, once read in light of the rest of the evidence presented in this article, also argue for Farel’s authorship. Let us examine these parts briefly.

Typical of Farel’s writings, the author states his prayer for the readers early on, that they might “come to the reading of the very dignified Word of God, casting all your heart upon this good Lord by humble prayer made with the firm faith that he will give you his good Spirit, according to the unshakeable truth of his promise to us.” Farel here ties the Spirit and Word together, and specifies the engagement of the heart in both the reading of Scripture and the uttering of prayer. He continues stating his prayer for them, that out of his great kindness God would open his heavenly kingdom to them, illumine their hearts to make them new creatures who will live completely in Jesus Christ, loving none other but him.[36] “Love,” “kindness,” “new” are all very positive. But the struggle with sin is pictured as equally real. Later, as the writer reviews the gospel and the law, he turns to the need for the Spirit and the struggle of the renewed sinner to love God. In this context the pastoral tone that pervades the letter heightens with rhetorical questions reminiscent of Rom 7.[37] A few pages later the letter takes on the voice of the gospel, directly addressing the readers, “O poor thief, who wanted to disrobe the Deity and wanted to make himself God … poor, damned, and despairing, who … is condemned … the very merciful God sends you his grace and pardon and desires that the sentence not be executed.”[38] The believer is assured that they are now received by God, “with the benign Savior Jesus” as their brother, and “the priceless sweetness of the very benign Jesus” as their own by the promises of God, with the result that they may be filled with joy.[39] Throughout the letter one encounters a deeply pastoral tone, a concern that the readers should put their faith in Jesus and his merits, that the readers should have confidence in Jesus’ conquering of the world. For such consolation and courage to form and to have their effect in the church, the “praying” and “speaking” must be conveyed in the vernacular.[40]

As we have seen, the topic of prayer was unavoidable in the pastoral context of this letter, and certainly was not avoided. The letter ends with these words, “I pray you, remember me in your prayers, in order that [I] may be able with dignity to make progress in the holy word of God, in the honor and glory of the very holy kindness of God. Amen.”[41]

IV. Le Pater Noster et le Credo (August 1524)

We turn now to a work that clearly belongs to Farel, his explanation of the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed. Aside from the preface, the work proper was thought for many years to have been lost, until a copy was found by Francis Higman around 1980 in the National Austrian Library in Vienna. He published a critical edition in 1982 (see n. 2). With this publication we come to the heart of the article and, it would seem, to the heart of Guillaume Farel.

The most remarkable feature of this work on prayer deserves to be stated up front. It is written as a prayer, in direct address to God throughout. In fact, not only is this the case with the exposition of the Lord’s Prayer, but also of the Apostles’ Creed which follows. Indeed, one must consider whether one of the indices of Farelian authorship is this penchant for direct address. On prayer, Farel appears to prefer showing over telling. Could it be that this matter of “form,” which has a dramatic effect on the “content,” is one of the important things that made Farel’s work so popular?

The popularity of Farel’s Pater Noster et le Credo has been amply documented by Francis Higman in at least four scholarly articles, in addition to his introduction to the critical edition. After having undergone modifications, Farel’s work was incorporated by others into Le livre de vraye et parfaicte oraison, a devotional manual that received royal approval in 1528 and even Sorbonne clearance in 1549, when certain phrases were omitted or toned down. It saw wide distribution among Roman Catholics and Evangelicals alike, an interesting case of trans-confessional piety.[42] It may even have spawned the first traditional Roman Catholic response to the “new genre.”[43] Higman traces some three printings of the preface, fifteen of the exposition of the Lord’s Prayer, and twenty-eight of the Apostles’ Creed.[44] Nichols remarks that printers showed a preference for these little manuals of piety and instruction.[45]

In Farel’s little manual, the exposition of the Lord’s Prayer is, according to Higman, from Farel alone, “from his own pen,” whereas the Credo “has mostly exploited the exposition of Luther in the Betbüchlein.”[46] Based on his introduction to the critical edition, Higman gives the impression that Farel faithfully follows Luther’s exposition after having supplied his own introduction.[47] Indeed, the flow of the text follows Luther, and, of course, the structure of the Apostles’ Creed. We do notice, however, writes Higman, several small changes which improve the thought (two examples are then supplied), and there are two additions which suggest some independent theological formulation on Farel’s part.[48] Higman’s appended notes single out seven places where Farel has made additions to Luther.[49] It appears to me that we may add a few more lines, so that of the 297 lines of this prayerful exposition of the Creed, about 111, or one third, are Farel’s own.[50] In this way we can appreciate all the more that Farel has put together the exposition with particular thought to the French situation, and not merely as a copyist of Luther.[51]

Farel introduces his booklet with a description of prayer as “one of the most noble fruits” produced by faith when that faith has regard only for the kindness, mercy, and benevolence of God. “Prayer” is here placed in parallel with the “lifting up of the spirit and understanding to God.”[52] Note that Farel’s definition is not first of all based on words being spoken, but on the orientation of the person’s spirit and mind. Further, this orientation is only possible when an earlier prerequisite is fulfilled—faith—and therefore by definition Farel’s conception of prayer functions for believers only. In terms of the believer’s contemplation of God, Farel’s approach is also very positive, appealing to the contemplation of God’s mercy with no word of fear for God’s wrath.

At the same time, as Farel moves from the what to the how of prayer, he stipulates the need for “very great humility and reverence of heart, and a very great zeal of spirit, in thinking all the words which are in the spoken prayer.”[53] Such reverence, he writes, arises out of honor for the one to whom we are praying. In humbly honoring him, Farel prays, “I bend the knees of my heart before you.”[54] This honor of God becomes important within the prayer also as the grounds of an appeal for pardon, namely, that Christians, who are named after Christ, not carry that name in vain, but that God sanctify that name.[55] It is remarkable that Farel speaks of human sin being committed against “your divine power” and against “your holy benevolence,” not against God’s holiness as such.[56] In this sense the prayer portrays humans as entirely lost, yet greatly loved by the God who mercifully desires to forgive and save them.

The “very great zeal of spirit,” with which prayer must be expressed, pervades Farel’s own written prayers. The title page of this work states that it is made in the form of a prayer “beneficial for inflaming the heart and spirit in the love of God.” Similar words occur in the introduction to the Creed, which he wrote as a prayer “to inflame faith in God.”[57] This word enflamber certainly speaks of zeal, yet it may in a sense be balanced with the word consolation, which appears close behind it in the title page of the prayer. It is a zeal driven by love and expressing love, so as to pursue and supply comfort for believers.[58] Therefore Farel also prays that the governing of new affections according to the will of God might follow upon the slaying of the carnal affections of the flesh.[59] Prayer seeks grace for holy living. Farel’s practice of prayer has little in common with mere external forms.

In this regard, Farel specifically directs that his prayer book is meant to be used, “in place of the rosary.”[60] His introduction speaks similarly against the mere muttering of the lips, using the same root of the word that recurs in the Geneva consistory’s minute books of the 1540s.[61] Prayer, then, although it begins with the lifting up of the spirit to God, includes the understanding as well, and comes to expression when one is “thinking all the words which are in the spoken prayer.”[62] Here Farel invokes 1 Cor 14 wherein the Apostle Paul writes about the need for sounds uttered in the church to be edifying. Under this rubric we may also understand Farel’s chastisement of the pastors who have neglected “the sheep of God” instead of instructing them in a language which is understandable.[63] All of the foregoing elucidates Farel’s purpose in writing this little manual. He wants it to be accessible to those who do not understand Latin, those whom he and Lefèvre often call “the simple people.”[64] He wants them to be able to take it anywhere, hence it is a “little booklet which can easily be carried in the hand by anyone.”[65] By means of these prayers the believers ought to find consolation for their souls. If they pray diligently, their very prayers will become the means by which the kingdom of heaven is opened, as Farel exhorts his readers: “Therefore let each one devote himself to prayer for the infinite mercy of God, that it be his good pleasure to open to us the kingdom of heaven, by the true understanding of the Scriptures which he alone gives.”[66] We may summarize that Farel intends his prayer book to be used by all French evangelicals, at any suitable time, wherever they find themselves.

In Le Pater Noster abundant use of très and of adjectives for God demonstrates Farel’s own passion, as do his articulations of our absolute dependence on God’s mercy and his abundant confessions of sin.[67] Farel writes that God wants to be called our Father in order that we might not doubt that God wishes to give believers everything out of his tender mercy.[68] Thus, while Farel’s God is almighty, he is not distant; he most certainly hears all the prayers of his people. One of the most poignant expressions of Farel’s prayer is reserved for the end, when believers pray that God would deliver them “from the eternal sorrow of hell, in which no one will be able to praise you nor to confess your name nor your kindness.”[69] Farel is teaching the French evangelicals how those who confess God’s initiative and sovereignty in salvation should pray: they should appeal to the glory and praise of his holy name. Further, Farel gives his readers the sense that the worst punishment imaginable is the denial of the opportunity to praise God. Following this, the prayer makes its request in one final formulation: “And because it is your holy will that sinners be converted and live in you, and with you, I pray you, O almighty Father …” One cannot help but notice the very positive framework of Farel’s style of prayer. He presents God in all his mercy and kindness, his desire to impart salvation and restore sinners to communion with him. These emphases must have helped make this prayer as popular as it was.[70]

It may be noted, finally, that Farel addresses God in the tu form, not the vous form. Lefèvre’s translation of the New Testament, which appeared around the same time as Farel’s Pater Noster, also uses tu.[71] Higman, commenting on another work elsewhere, relates that the Reformers “seem almost always to have preferred the ‘tu’ form” in their prayers. Tu was always used in the Lord’s Prayer.

Other expressions such as grande misercorde could be listed (e.g., 77). Confessions of sin occur in varying degrees as follows: 83–85, 87–89, 122–23, 127–28, 137–47, 174, 214–17. On the other hand, the confessions of and allusions to God’s mercy, kindness, sweetness, love, desire to forgive, and desire to convert sinners are too abundant to list them all. The following will suffice: 77, 86–87, 89–91, 95, 109, 112–19, 125–26, 166–72, 197–99, etc.

Some of the traditionalist doctors used vous in their prayers, but not all.[72] As one charting the course for the French Reformed writings, Farel’s use of tu is not new, but fits within his context.[73] It also fits Farel’s sense of closeness to God; near the end he specifically calls Jesus “our brother,” as he also did in L’Épistre chrestienne.[74] Indeed, Higman identifies the personal relationship of believers to God as the first of three central themes of Farelian spirituality.[75]

The tu whom Farel addresses throughout the prayer, including the creedal section, is the first person of the Trinity, the Father. This is clear from the constant use of the second person possessive regarding the Son and Spirit, ton chier filz and ton sainct esperit. However, some years later, in another published prayer for the persecuted church, Farel directly addresses not only the Father, but also Seigneur Jesus, doux Jesus, Sainct Esprit, and Esprit de verité. Burger, who studied this prayer, concludes that Farel wants his readers to discount their present troubles in light of the one great calling to rescue for Christ the greatest possible number of souls seduced by the pope. Indeed, one may identify mission as one of the recurring petitions in Farel’s prayers. The publication of this written prayer, in two editions (1543 and 1545), shows that Farel’s directives to the church on prayer remained living for him two decades later.[76]

If we step back and think about the role of Farel’s little prayer book in the early French reform movement, at least two remarks are pertinent. First, given Farel’s remark about prayer opening the kingdom, he must have a theological reason for publishing his explanation of the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed in the form of a prayer. Namely, he believes that by the increase of heartfelt prayer the nascent French reform movement will advance, for God has promised to work out his will in response to the prayers of believers. True change needs true prayer. Prayer functions as a means of grace, both at the level of the individual believers and at the level of the corporate church. Secondly, the fact that Farel altered Luther’s exposition of the Creed so that he formulated it as a prayer simply shows that for Farel prayer was a rather natural form of communicating ideas, not only toward God but also toward others. In other words, prayer functions partly as a teaching tool. By means of this form, Farel hopes the contents will be learned not just in the head, but also in the heart. Farel aims to reform persons, not merely institutions. For Farel, “understanding” speaks of the mind, yet to “pray” requires the spirit being lifted up as well. In other words, the whole person must be engaged. Only then will their affections be inflamed with a love informed by Scripture. One wonders to what extent Farel’s work reflects his own spirituality, and undoubtedly the connection must be strong.

We have seen, to this point, three works of Farel from the year 1524. I wish now to review Farel’s early “dogmatics,” before drawing conclusions.

V. Summaire (1529)

Scholars prior to 1980 generally accepted the date of 1525 for Farel’s Sum-maire,[77] since this was the date printed on an edition said to be from Turin.[78] It has since been conclusively shown that the Summaire was composed in 1529.[79] The “Turin” publication was actually the third edition, a pirated one, printed by Simon du Bois in Alençon between 1530 and 1534.[80] Two earlier printings by Pierre de Vingle (1529 and 1531) are attested in archival records but have not been recovered. The most reliable edition, it seems, is that of 1534 from Pierre de Vingle.[81]

What does the Summaire contain?[82] It is a forty-two chapter summary of the evangelical faith, the first of its kind in French, presenting the essential points of the gospel teachings in a chapter format with a table of contents.[83] Positive gospel teaching and negative rejections of Roman Catholic doctrines and practices stand side by side.[84] Chapter 24 is entitled, “Prayer and Praying.”[85] Prayer is also mentioned or alluded to in chapters 9, 20, 22, 26, and 40.

Farel specifies the role of heart and mouth in the same way as his 1524 work, but in more detail, when he writes, “Prayer is an ardent speaking with God, in which man does not know what he must say or ask, but the Spirit who is in believers prays for us with great inexpressible groanings. In prayer the mouth is not really required to speak, but only the heart.”[86] Later he specifies, “Never let the tongue speak to pray if the heart is not with God.”[87] Reminiscent of prayer as one of the most noble fruits of faith, prayer is also spoken of as “the true sacrifice of praise by which one honors and glorifies God.”[88] This time stronger warnings occur against the idolatry of praying to any other, and a warning against mindless “muttering” also occurs.[89]

A study of Farel’s spiritual view of prayer should also turn to his chapter on the Spirit and the new man, chapter 9. He calls the Holy Spirit, “the movement and affection which God gives to man, the Renewer.”[90] Here Farel writes of the Spirit subduing human “presumption and rashness,” bringing believers in submission to the Word of God, and making them steadfast against all the world’s vanity and lies. He states, “Much better would it be to know this by experience than by a book.”[91] He continues, “Nevertheless, [the Bible] is written for the elect, in order that they might passionately desire and pray that the Spirit be given to them to make them into new men.”[92] Note Farel’s sustained emphasis on the interior of humans, the heart and spirit, and on experience. He advances a robust spirituality, viewed in terms of the believer’s affections being led and moved by the Spirit.

Such spirituality is not individualistic. It puts forth the fruit of love for one’s neighbor. In chapter 27, regarding the adoration of the saints, Farel relates that believers should instead pray for each other, helping their fellows by praying for them. The Scriptures, he argues, are full of such requests for each other. Love for God ought to grow by means of these intercessions, for then more thanks will be rendered to God in response to his answers. Practical love for the neighbor was obviously expected to grow out of such prayers.[93]

Based on these teachings, it will not do to picture Farel as a trouble-making or violent character, or, at least, not as one who desired to act that way.[94] Farel’s doctrine of prayer in its unity with the affections of the heart and the dynamic of the Holy Spirit is about practically living close to God and loving one’s neighbor. Some of his language may sound mystical, as when he speaks of the Spirit as God’s affection and movement, and when he puts the heart ahead of the tongue; however, he also firmly roots the Spirit’s work in the Word, such that it is the Spirit himself who directs believers to the Word to make them hold to it and submit to it. Farel’s doctrine of the right use of the law in the life of the believer also permeates the Summaire.[95]

It is rather striking that in this chapter-by-chapter setting forth of doctrine Farel cannot avoid the mode of second-person direct address. The Summaire begins in what one might expect of a manual of doctrine: a third-person presentation of what must be believed. However, in chapter 29 Farel moves to three rhetorical questions on the number of souls seduced by the papacy. A paragraph later he addresses his readers directly, “Christians, pull yourselves away” from the pope who lays on a heavy burden, and “come” to Christ who took our bur-den.[96] In chapter 35, entitled “The Power of Pastors,” Farel argues that the entire power of pastors lies in properly teaching the people the simple Word of God. He mourns the fact that all kinds of foolish books are available while the true Word is not allowed to be read by the simple people for whom God intended it. In the emotion of his rhetoric, Farel addresses the sun and the earth regarding this horror. Then he turns directly to God and inserts a prayer consisting of some thirteen rhetorical pleas that God grant justice. These pleas express such a longing, convey such a zeal, and hold God to his Word so fiercely, that it would have been hard for an evangelical to be unmoved when reading them. This brings Farel to direct his admonitions against those who deny the Scriptures, in the form of four questions and two statements to the effect that it would be better if they had not been born. Finally, he ends with, “Rise up, O God … make the trumpet of the holy gospel to be heard.”[97] In terms of teaching prayer, once again we encounter Farel teaching by example. Direct address to others and direct address to God seem to bring out Farel’s most powerful rhetoric and most moving emo-tions.[98] Scholars often wonder what his sermons would have been like and mourn the fact that we have no collection of them.[99]

VI. Prayer in Farel’s Historical Context

It has not been possible to investigate Farel’s 1533 liturgy, his sermons at the Disputation of Lausanne in 1536, his prayers for the believers at Metz in 1543 and 1545, nor his later works. Each of these would also prove fruitful for the topic at hand, but none is likely to alter the basic thesis of this article: Guillaume Farel exhibited a robust spirituality in a time of reformation, and exhorted others to the same, especially by his examples of prayer. Farel’s attention to the life of prayer for the believer played a very practical role in the Reformation. As Higman suggested regarding Summaire, leave it to Farel to perceive the need for something which did not yet exist and put it together.[100]

But this raises the question of precisely what was original about Farel’s attention to prayer. Does Farel mark the genesis of Protestant prayer, as Hower argued? If the question of exactly what makes a prayer “Protestant” is difficult, the question of beginnings is even more dangerous. Praying did not stop before the Reformation and restart with it. Nor did it wait for Farel to write in 1524. Farel’s main source on the Apostles’ Creed was Luther’s Betbüchlein, written in 1522, but drawn from materials on the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Commandments already published in 1520. A separate tract for “simple laymen” on the Lord’s Prayer had already come from Luther’s pen in 1519. Farel, then, appears to be the first French Protestant to write on prayer, but not the genesis of Protestant prayer in general. More examination of context must follow before concluding just what was original about Farel’s attention to prayer.

Besides the older, hand-copied manuscripts, numerous prayer books had come from the new printing presses in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Wiencke introduces Luther’s devotional writings by highlighting these personal prayer books which had been used in the medieval church for centuries.[101] Luther realized that on the practical level, the theology of these prayer books needed to be challenged and replaced with the new doctrines. As early as 1517 he published a book of the seven penitential Psalms to counteract the prayer books. Several sermons were also published with the same intent. Luther introduces the Betbüchlein itself with a rant against these prayer books.[102] In the time before Sorbonne censure, Luther’s works quickly flowed into the French territories. It is obvious enough that Farel used Luther’s exposition of the Credo from the very book that also contained Luther’s exposition of the Lord’s Prayer, thus the lines of continuity are tight.

The lines of continuity can also be drawn closer to Farel if we look, for example, at Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples. On February 16, 1524, Lefèvre wrote Vne Épistre comment on doibt prier Dieu, etc. This letter introduced seven Psalms in French translation with the argument that God intends for believers to pray in their own language. He quotes both Col 3:16 and 1 Cor 14:19, with the obvious connotation that Latin prayers are improper for those who do not understand them.[103] Prayer, then, had the attention of Farel’s teacher, the humanist Lefèvre.

Prayer also held the attention of one of Farel’s antagonists, the humanist Erasmus. Although this aspect of his work is little known, Erasmus was, one might say, in the habit of publishing prayers, whether to Jesus or to Mary. One year before Farel, Erasmus had even published an extended paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer divided into seven parts for the seven days of the week. It was indeed meant to serve as a new kind of prayer book.[104] A few months after Farel’s Le Pater Noster Erasmus published, “On Praying to God,” a lengthy essay covering all the rubrics of prayer.[105] In spite of discontinuity between Erasmus and Farel as to what reform should look like (Erasmus labored for reform, but also strongly opposed the evangelicals), it is from Erasmus that we find an earlier version of the form that otherwise seems unique to Farel, namely, a paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer. Note well, however, that Erasmus stuck to Latin, Farel to French. This difference is as decisive as the differences in doctrine (e.g., Erasmus included prayers to Mary). But the paraphrasing style as such was new for prayer books of the time, since the late medieval practice simply adhered to precise quotations.[106] Lambert remarks that late fifteenth-and early sixteenth-century persons showed, “a marked preference for following a set text when praying.”[107] Thus, looking at Farel’s and Erasmus’s paraphrases respectively, Higman and O’Malley write of “the new genre.”[108]

But at the same time, there was also a longer history of similar written prayers. Higman states, “This form of first-person meditation goes back to a long medieval tradition of devotional poetry and prose (for example many of the works attributed to Gerson).”[109] One may certainly turn the mind all the way back to Augustine’s Confessions for the greatest example of an entire book written as a prayer. Such a form of teaching certainly puts the reader coram Deo and is more likely to engage the heart along with the mind. Farel belongs to the line of those teachers who sought to do something to counter the mindless repetition of prayers, to tie once again individual spiritual life to the inner life and work of the Holy Spirit. There certainly was a sense in which Farel’s project sought to challenge a prevalent practice of the time, even if many traditional teachers also spoke against it.[110]

Daily life was affected by the changes. The medieval hours of prayer, regulated by the ever-present bells in the cities, came to an end when the Reformation was accepted. Lambert writes, “The disappearance of the Divine Office from Geneva … could not have been a minor event. The new religion offered nothing to replace these liturgical or liturgically-minded prayers that structured the day of the pious person.”[111] Nothing at all? Perhaps Farel’s prayer book? Or perhaps Luther’s? I would suggest that the bells and the books preceding the Reformation are precisely the reasons why Farel stated that his prayer book could be used whenever one was at leisure to do so, in place of the rosary, and could be easily carried in the hand. He was clearly offering an alternative.

VII. Farel’s Particular Contribution to the Reform of Prayer

Did Farel’s Le Pater Noster et le Credo contribute to the renewal of prayer? Considering its popularity, it must have. Considering the success of the Geneva consistory at ending the “muttering” during sermons, there must have been some positive replacements of the tools of piety which the people had enjoyed prior to the Reformation.[112]

With the foregoing contextual factors in mind, what was “new” about Farel’s attention to prayer? First, his prayer book was the first one of any confessional allegiance to be written entirely in the French language. Second, his prayer book, to be used in place of the rosary, served as a simplification of the medieval prayer books; instead of setting forth tens or hundreds of prayers for as many occasions, he stuck to the basics of the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed. Together with the Commandments, these were to become the steady diet of many reform-minded persons. Third, his integration of the inner person—the heart and spirit—with the praying lips, was new for many of his readers, though at the same time connected to certain streams of late medieval piety. Fourth, his use of direct address did not merely take the form of an already written text, like the medieval prayer books, but struck out on its own with something fresh. This in itself could make it either attractive or repelling, depending on whether one was conservative or reform-minded. Fifth, Farel’s use of direct address was intended to function as a teaching tool, particularly since he used it for both the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed. This could remind us of Augustine’s Confessions, and it certainly seems more likely to teach the heart and mind at once. Sixth, Farel contributed directly to the revamping of prayer among the French evangelicals, both in France and Switzerland, since his publications reached many. Finally, it may be commented that Farel’s deep piety, having been in close contact with Lefèvre’s mystical tendencies,[113] maintains a strong sense of love and devotion and experience, but never seeks to go beyond the Scriptures or outside of them. It seems clear that Farel understood that the Spirit of prayer is the Spirit of Scripture.

We should also note at least one thing Farel does not do, at least not explicitly. He does not recommend that his Le Pater Noster be used as the basis for free prayers. Rather, it is to be used “in place of the rosary.” Would not this lead medieval persons to understand that it is a new form prayer? One also needs to think about what it would have meant to the average medieval to read the ending of L’Épistre chrestienne, where Farel writes, “Remember me in your prayers.” Would this have meant the saying of the Lord’s Prayer or perhaps a Hail Mary, with Farel also held in their minds? Note that even Farel’s disputation against the verbosiores preces did not as such exclude form prayers, but fit within a context that opposed their mindless repetition. Thus, Farel’s emphasis on the employment of the heart in prayer does not necessarily translate into the promotion of free prayers. The Lord’s Prayer certainly can be prayed from the heart.

Looking back a few years, I did not find Luther suggesting the use of free prayers in the years 1519 to 1522.[114] Later, in 1535, Luther wrote an extremely practical guide for prayer, and described his own practice of dwelling on the various petitions of the Lord’s Prayer as he prayed. “Occasionally,” he stated, “I may get lost among so many ideas in one petition that I forego the other six.”[115] Luther exhorted his readers to take such experiences for the guidance, indeed, the preaching of the Holy Spirit. In other words, he recommends free prayer. But this was 1535, not 1524. Perhaps the context of the bells and the mass wherein the prayers were all the same, and especially the context of the prayer books, wherein precise prayers were given for every detail of life—from getting out of bed to washing hands and eyes to leaving the house, and so forth[116] —had such a bind on the people that Luther and Farel did not yet in the 1520s feel free to recommend free prayers as strongly as Luther did in 1535. Perhaps they also considered the lack of biblical knowledge among their readers to be a hindrance to free prayer. One might then view Farel’s paraphrase as a step towards free prayers, radical enough in its precise time. At any rate, he had to supply something specifically evangelical for those who preferred to follow a set text but were warned against verbosiores preces. In L’Épistre chrestienne Farel states his own prayer for those who are going to take up the New Testament in French. His prayer is obviously freely composed, yet based on Scripture. But one could not expect the majority of the readers to be able to accomplish the same; many still preferred a set text, so he supplied it.

Farel’s definition of prayer in Summaire four years later might be regarded as a small step towards free prayer, when he more clearly makes the distinction between the spirit of prayer and the words of prayer. In Summaire Farel more clearly speaks of the believer’s need to pray for the Spirit, as well as the benefit of intercession for fellow believers (in place of prayer to the saints). Yet he provides no new models for such prayers, and his instructions therefore can only be fulfilled by employing free prayers. Farel’s prayer of 1543, republished in 1545, was another freely composed prayer, written with a view to a specific situation of persecution. Here again Farel was showing the way in the manner of free prayer, trying to help the church present to God an expression of its grief. While one cannot read into Farel’s mind, nor think of history as trying to attain to what it came to be, there certainly was a transition taking place in the Reformation era with respect to prayer. I have attempted at least a tentative reconstruction of a small portion of this history.

VIII. Offering Balance to the Negative Image of Farel

Moving outwards to the wider considerations of Farel’s doctrine and use of prayer as a window on his spirituality, does this study offer a balance to some of the prevailing images of Farel? Peronnet ends his article on Farel at Lausanne with a number of images of Farel, writing of Guillaume Farel, “preacher and minister opening the sessions with exhortations and prayers.”[117] Indeed, anyone who reads the proceedings of the Dispute of Lausanne will come away with a profound sense of Farel, master of rhetoric, imploring his hearers to pray, to believe, to confess, and to love. Roulet considers the thesis that Farel was a kind of double agent, first of all a political emissary of Bern, then a preacher, as the early Farel worked his way through the Swiss cities. Roulet concludes rather strongly against it: “Farel is the agent of the Lord or, in any case, of the Gospel, not of the Bernese.”[118] Higman engages the image of Farel the warrior and says that it is only part of the truth. He points out that Farel put himself to the patient work of reforming the church of Neuchâtel, where he was pastor for twenty-seven long years (1538–1565). Higman continues, “And there is also another aspect of Guillaume Farel, which perhaps even surprises us by its moderation, its gentleness, its irenic character. One finds it in his correspondence, even with those who, like Girard Roussel, clearly display their disagreement with him; and one finds it especially in the little text of [Le Pater Noster].”[119] Finally, he writes of Farel’s vibrant and rhythmic style, “representing well the profound spirituality and burning conviction of Guillaume Farel, traits which, thanks to this large dissemination [of Le Pater Noster], have strongly marked the piety and the language of the church in the French language.”[120] Higman is not the only one to highlight Farel’s pastoral heart. Bodenmann, in a telling note, terms Farel’s work on the Lord’s Supper, “a pastoral explanation” of the Consensus Tigurinus on this point.[121] Wiley also highlights as a motif in Summaire, Farel’s advice to Christians on how to love their neighbor, something he calls a “practical and pastoral concern.”[122]

Whence then the negative images? Farel himself would admit his faults readily, but how is it that his zeal for prayer and pastoral sensitivity have been minimized, even cast aside? It is unlikely that the rhetoric of Erasmus’s letters had that much influence. Could it be that some have read Farel through the eyes of Calvin too much? Although he appreciated Farel, Calvin could also be ruthless in his letters to him (see n. 94). At the turn of 1558–1559 Calvin appears to have cut short his relationship with Farel over the latter’s late and indecorous marriage.[123] The possibility of Calvin’s contribution to the negative image would need further investigation. On the other hand, Barth and company must take some responsibility for having caricatured Farel as foil for their other caricature, Calvin, the man ahead of his times. What about Beza’s portrayal of Farel? Early on we noted Beza’s comment about the ardent prayers of Farel. But there was also a verse composed by Beza which went like this, “The Church of France recently admired Calvin, because no one taught more learnedly. It also recently admired you, Farel, because no one thundered more power-fully.”[124] Presumably this is to be taken positively, but how many readers of history would later associate the Farel of profound piety and pastoral love with this bit of verse?

Surely there are many more lines to trace in discerning the reasons for the various images of Guillaume Farel. This article has not tried to trace all the lines and images nor to present an exhaustive history of Farel. But one image has come into view that offers some balance to the negative images: through the window of prayer we have observed spiritual, pastoral, and servant-like traits at work in Farel. He supplied many of the first-order spiritual needs of the Reformation among the French-speaking Swiss. He gave himself to the work, heart and soul, and his passionate engagement must have brought many of the Swiss to favor the “new” doctrines.

Notes

The term “Protestants” is not out of place, since Farel’s 1537 Confession de la foi begins with the verb protester: “Premièrement, nous protestons....” See Irena Backus and Claire Chimelli, eds., La vraie piété: Divers traits de Jean Calvin et Confession de foi de Guillaume Farel (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1986), 45. Unless otherwise specified, all English translations in this article are my own.
A critical edition of this 1524 work is now available. See Guillaume Farel, Le Pater Noster et le Credo en françoys (publiéd’aprèsl’exemplaire unique nouvellement retrouvépar Francis Higman)(Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1982).
A critical edition of this work is now available, but is unfortunately based on an inferior version of the text (see n. 81 of this article). See Guillaume Farel, Sommaire et brève déclaration (ed. Arthur-L. Hofer; Neuchâtel: Belle Rivière, 1980).
See the collaborative effort at a biography of Farel published on the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in Neuchâtel, which resulted in an impressive and large collection of scholarly essays, though a number of their conclusions must now be challenged, especially as recent bibliographic advances demand it. These advances will be reviewed within this article. See Comité Farel, Guillaume Farel 1489–1565: Biographie nouvelle, écrite d’apres les documents originaux par un groupe d’historiens, professeurs et pasteurs de Suisse, de France et d’Italie; Ornéed’un portrait en couleurs et de vingt-cinq planches hors texte (Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1930).
Guillaume Farel, La manière et fasson qu’on tien en baillant le sainct baptisme (Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle, 1533 [microfiche; Zurich: IDC, 1980]). See also Farel, La manière et fasson qu’on tient es lieux que Dieu de sa grâce a visités: Première liturgie des églises réformées de France de l’an 1533 (ed. Jean-Guillaume Baum; Strasbourg: Treuttel & Wurtz, 1859).
See Francis M. Higman, Piety and the People: Religious Printing in French, 1511–1551 (Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1996). Higman shows that although Calvin takes pride of place as the most-published person in these years with 77 editions involving 46 different titles, Farel holds his own, albeit far behind, with 26 editions involving 16 titles (see pp. 5-6). The French Vernacular Book Project is now augmenting Higman’s list. See http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/reformation/book/eng/index.shtml (accessed 13 January 2007).
The normative status of Calvin in modern historiography has unfortunately obscured the actual historical events of the Reformation among the French-speaking Swiss. Popular works reduce Farel to the finger-shaking prophet who kept Calvin in Geneva in 1536. More careful works also put Farel in Calvin’s shadow. In 2004 Bodenmann rightly identified this attention to Calvin as one of the reasons why there is no critical edition of Farel’s corpus (Reinhardt Bodenmann, “Farel et le livre réformé français,” in Le livre évangélique en français avant Calvin = The French Evangelical Book Before Calvin [ed. Jean-François Gilmont and William Kemp; Turnhout: Brepols, 2004], 37–38). On the matter of Farel’s first meeting with Calvin, does anyone mention that Calvin’s record of this event describes, within a page, the same treatment at the hands of Martin Bucer in Strasbourg two years later? Calvin writes that Bucer “employed a similar kind of remonstrance and protestation as that to which Farel had recourse,” and gives the detail that Bucer set forth the example of Jonah. See John Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms, in Calvin’s Commentaries (22 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 4:xlii-xliii. Setting these somewhat coercive efforts in their historical setting of the early Reformation era also requires that we realize the fact that Farel and others were in the business of securing Reformed preachers and teachers; it was Farel who secured Viret in 1531 and Froment in 1532, among others. For an example of the great-thinker model where Farel serves the narrative as little more than a lackey of Calvin, see Justo L. Gonzàlez, Reformation to the Present Day (vol. 2 of The Story of Christianity; San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1985), 65.
Seven of Farel’s writings are under 20 folios in length, four between 20 and 50 folios, one is about 60, and four surpass the 90 folio mark. See Bodenmann, “Farel et le livre réformé français,” 28.
I know of no English histories that adequately treat Farel, but there is now a superb treatment (a published dissertation) that integrates the social and political history of the period with its religious history. See Michael W. Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground: Conflict and Reform in the Pays de Vaud, 1528–1559 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2005). The 1990 translation of Heyer’s 1872 study on Farel cannot be relied upon as a scholarly work, but does give the English reader access to the outlines of Farel’s thought. The translator has dropped all of Heyer’s sources as found in a substantial number of original footnotes, and even dropped a paragraph here and there. He has also failed to provide the English reader with any trace of the date of the French work which he has translated. Compare Henri Heyer, Guillaume Farel: Essai sur le développement de ses idées théologiques (Geneva: Ramboz & Schuchardt, 1872); with Henri Heyer, Guillaume Farel: An Introduction to His Theology (trans. Blair Reynolds; Text and Studies in Religion 54; Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990). Gordon unfortunately focuses only on Zwingli and the German-speaking Swiss Reformation; see Bruce Gordon, The Swiss Reformation (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002). Walker’s classic, relying on Kidd’s collection of documents, gives a dated but mainly accurate overview; see Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959), 345–48. Kidd’s partial collection is arranged chronologically and his brief introductions give some guidance to the English reader; see B. J. Kidd, ed., Documents Illustrative of the Continental Reformation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911), 477–521. Four older nineteenth-century works, one nearly inaccessible, are noted by K. R. Hagenbach, History of the Reformation in Germany and Switzerland Chiefly (trans. Evelina Moore; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1878), 330 n. 2. Doumergue’s monumental work on Calvin includes a fine chapter on Farel; see E. Doumergue, Jean Calvin: Les hommes et les choses de son temps (4 vols.; Lausanne: Georges Bridel, 1902), 2:150–72. More readily available is E. Doumergue, Calvijn in Het Strijdperk (trans. W. F. A. Winckel; Amsterdam: W. Kirchner, 1904). See also n. 4 of this article.
In brief, almost all scholars writing prior to 1980 on the works of Farel have assumed a date four years too early for his Summaire and have not had access to his Le Pater Noster. As a result, they did not realize the enormous influence of the latter in its connection with later known works, and they misconstrued the development of many of the polemics of the former by dating them too early. A new critical biography of Farel should be undertaken.
I have wondered whether to use the word “spirituality” or “piety” or “devotion.” In Farel’s time spiritualité still largely referred to ecclesiastical jurisdiction in contrast with the “temporal” realm, whereas piété had come into use via Gerson and then Calvin, together with coeur and intérieure. Dévotion had an important place, and certainly occurs in Farel’s writing. While “devotion” or “piety” might fit Farel best, the meaning of the former has narrowed while the latter has suffered pejorative connotations since late nineteenth-century historiography. Given the already existing use of “spirituality” in the secondary literature on Farel, I have decided to adopt this term. “Spirituality” in this article should be understood unambiguously as “being filled/led/taught by the Holy Spirit and acting accordingly.” Besides period dictionaries, see Sister Lucy Tinsley, The French Expressions for Spirituality and Devotion: A Semantic Study (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1953), 58–71, 136–39, 151–53, 289–90.
A number of recent studies have begun to address the question of Farel’s spirituality, although some are simply bibliographic studies. Chr. Burger, “Farels Frömmigkeit,” in Actes du colloque Guillaume Farel: Neuchâtel, 29 septembre–1er octobre 1980 (ed. Pierre Barthel, Rémy Scheurer, and Richard Stauffer; 2 vols.; Cahiers de la Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 9.1 and 9.2; Geneva: Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 1983), 1:149–60. (The proceedings of this 1980 conference will hereafter be cited as Colloque Farel.) See also Francis M. Higman, “Farel, Calvin, et Olivétan: Sources de la spiritualité gallicane,” Colloque Farel, 1:45–61; and Louis-Ed. Roulet, “Farel: Agent bernois? (1528–1536),” Colloque Farel, 1:99–106. See also Robert G. Hower, “William Farel, Theologian of the Common Man, and the Genesis of Protestant Prayer” (Th.D. thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1983); and Michel Peronnet, “Images de Guillaume Farel pendant la Dispute de Lausanne,” in La Dispute de Lausanne, 1536: La theologie réformée après Zwingli et avant Calvin (Textes du colloque international sur la Dispute de Lausanne [29 septembre–1er octobre 1986]; Lausanne: Presses Centrales Lausanne S.A., 1988), 133–41. Finally, see Francis M. Higman, “Theology for the Layman in the French Reformation, 1520–1550,” The Library, ser. 6, 9 (1987): 105-27.
“Restless”: this term is used quite uncritically, even by those who do not study his movements. The Comité Farel in its biography also highlights this trait of Farel. At the very least we have to recall that Farel was the man who was pastor of Neuchâtel for 27 years (1538–1565), through thick and thin. “Fiery”: for a recent study accentuating Farel’s “fiery” character, complete with his vurige baard (“fiery beard”) which apparently made een enigszins woeste indruk (“a rather fierce picture”)for sixteenth-century persons, see M. A. van den Berg, Vrienden van Calvijn: Een amicale biografie (Utrecht: De Banier, 2006), 98. Using stronger expressions, Holtrop generalized from a January 11, 1552, letter of Farel to Calvin regarding Jerome Bolsec that it, “expressed the vitriol and simplism that we have come to expect from the ‘firebrand”’ (see Philip Holtrop, “The Bolsec Controversy from 1551 to 1555: Theological Currents, the Setting and Mood, and the Trial Itself “ [Ph.D. diss., Harvard University], Bk. 2, Pt. 1:901). Barth went so far as to construct “Farelism” in his efforts to enthrone his own version of Calvin when he wrote, “Farelism, that is pastoral daring and rashness to the glory of God … is not really Calvinism” (Karl Barth, The Theology of John Calvin [trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 245). “Violent”: Hall, for the most part parroting Barth, writes, “Farel, a storm-trooper of the evangel rather than a theologian, found that breaking altars, pictured windows, and statues of the saints, was not a very effective reformation and that he needed the help of a man with a gift for organization and a sound theological training to help him in Geneva” (Basil Hall, John Calvin: Humanist and Theologian [London: The Historical Association, 1956], 17). If the caricature originated with the humanist Erasmus, it certainly received a new impetus from neo-orthodox writers. Erasmus, whose relations with Lefèvre were distant, met Farel in Basle and filled some of his letters with fierce invective against Farel and other evangelicals, using words like “subversion,” “lying,” and “lawbreaking.” His derisive term for Farel was Phallicus. See Erasmus, “Letters 1356 to 1534, [from the years] 1523 to 1524” (trans. R. A. B. Mynors and Alexander Dalzell; vol. 10 of Collected Works of Erasmus; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992), letters 1496, 1510.
Theodore Beza, The Life of John Calvin (trans. Henry Beveridge; n.p.: Banner of Truth, 1982), 23. Sayous quotes the French, “… et ses prières étaient si ardentes” (André Sayous, Etudes littéraires sur les écrivains français de la Réformation [Paris: Gratiot, 1854], 38). Beza’s work on Calvin first appeared as a preface to Calvin’s Commentary on Joshua in 1564 but a year later it was augmented, perhaps in collaboration with Colladon. A third, more developed edition appeared later. Thus, there are at least three versions circulating, as one will also find in English. Gardy’s brief biographical note stands in need of further study. Frédéric Gardy, Bibliographie des œuvres … de Théodore de Bèze (Geneva: Droz, 1960), 104.
Unfortunately, Hower’s 1983 dissertation followed the 1930 Comité Farel in listing Farel’s Le Pater Noster as lost. The work had in fact been announced as rediscovered at the 1980 Colloque Guillaume Farel and was then published in a critical edition by Higman in 1982. Hower’s elucidation of the continuities and discontinuities from those preceding Farel to Farel himself also lacks detail.
Except for a brief comment, for which see n. 76 and connected text.
Farel’s liturgy would yield some data regarding his use of the Lord’s Prayer in the liturgy, and would accentuate his directives to the other ministers, to whom the rubrics are directed. For example, under the prayers for the sick they are directed to spare nothing, giving to the sick even bread, wine, or candy, if they possess it. See Farel, La manière et fasson qu’on tien en baillant le sainct baptisme, 51. Farel’s liturgy would need to be studied in connection with the Bern Service Book. See Hughes Oliphant Old, The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 158–64.
P. E. Hughes, “Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples (c. 1455–1536): Calvin’s Forerunner in France,” reprinted in Articles on Calvin and Calvinism: A Fourteen Volume Anthology of Scholarly Articles (ed. Richard C. Gamble; New York: Garland, 1992), 2:10–11. However, Hughes’s source does not exactly support the 1515 date and another source mentions 1516.
Henry Heller, “Reform and Reformers at Meaux, 1518–1525” (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1969), 300–301; Comité Farel, Biographie nouvelle, 115; David Nichols, “Heresy and Protestantism, 1520–1542: Questions of Perception and Communication,” French History 10 (1996): 200.
N. Weiss,”Guillaume Farel: Ses premiers travaux,” Bulletin de la Sociétéde l’histoire du protestantisme français 68 (1919): 194; Peter G. Bietenholz, Basle and France in the Sixteenth Century: The Basle Humanists and Printers in Their Contact with Francophone Culture (Geneva and Toronto: Libraire Droz and University of Toronto Press, 1971), 91.
Interestingly, as a result of disagreement between the university and bishop on the one hand and the city magistrates on the other, the city government ordered that the dispute must take place, and further, that all citizens must attend. Hagenbach, History of the Reformation, 331; cf. Comité Farel, Biographie nouvelle, 123. On the strategic importance of religious disputations in the Pays de Vaud, see Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground, 137–41.
“Quae contra praeceptum sunt Christi verbosiores preces, et non secundum Christianam formam regulatae sine perculo orari non possunt, nec institui: ut praestiterit quae in haec conferuntur pauperibus erogari, et non tantorum fomenta malorum fovere …” (Aimé-Louis Herminjard, Correspondence des réformateurs dans les pays de langue française [9 vols.; Geneva: H. George, 1866], 1:194). A photocopy of the 20 x 33 cm. placard, reduced in size, can be viewed as plate 1–1 at the end of Colloque Farel, vol. 1.
Thomas A. Lambert, “Preaching, Praying and Policing the Reform in Sixteenth-Century Geneva” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1998), 77–78, 90–92. When a large number of funerary masses were commissioned, one priest might rush the altar to perform his mass before the other was finished, lest he lose his mass fee (92).
Estienne’s definition of verbosus is, “that hath muche prattering or much tonge, that is full of woords. Qui ha beaucoup de language, Abondant en parolles” (Robert Estienne, Dictionariolum Puerorum tribus linguis Latina, Anglica, & Gallica [Amsterdam and New York: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum and Da Copo Press, 1971 (photo reprint of 1552)], s.v. “verbosus”).
Lambert, “Preaching, Praying and Policing,” 95; see also 97–98.
Barbotement, translated as “muttering” by Kingdon and others, is a negative word connoting the idea that such prayers “carried no real meaning to those who said them, and were repeated in the superstitious hope that God will be pleased simply by hearing a prayer even if it could not be understood by the petitioner” (Robert Kingdon, “Worship in Geneva Before and After the Reformation,” in Worship in Medieval and Early Modern Europe [ed. Karin Maag and John D. Witvliet; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004], 49–50). For examples of consistory exhortations regarding muttering, see pp. 42-45. Cf. Lambert, “Preaching, Praying and Policing,” 102.
Steven E. Ozment, The Reformation in the Cities: The Appeal of Protestantism to Sixteenth-Century Germany and Switzerland (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), 68.
Lefèvre’s complete NT in French appeared first in 1523, according to Higman, Piety and the People: Religious Printing in French, 92. Lefèvre had first published the Gospels, writing his dedicatory exhortation on June 8, 1523, and then the rest of the NT with its dedicatory exhortation on November 6, 1523. The complete NT must have been assembled by the printers immediately, but it could not have been well-known until April 1524, when Lefèvre published a new and revised edition. See Eugene F. Rice Jr., ed., The Prefatory Epistles of Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples and Related Texts (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972), 449, 457. Cf. Heller, “Reform and Reformers,” 305–6.
See Gilmont for the previous scholarship (e.g., Tricard, who subscribed to Farelian authorship). Jean-François Gilmont,”L’œuvre imprimé de Guillaume Farel,” in Colloque Farel, 2:140.
Isabelle C. Denommé and William Kemp with the collaboration of Jean-François Gilmont, “L’Épistre chrestienne tresutile (c. 1524): Un écrit de Guillaume Farel? Présentation et édition,” in Le livre évangélique en français avant Calvin, 43–69. After an introductory section on the question of authorship (43–51), Denommé and Kemp present a critical edition of the letter (52–69). Although their conclusion on Farel’s possible authorship speaks tentatively of trying “d’apporter, sinon une réponse, du moins quelques esquisses de solution” (51), their actual arguments vouch quite strongly for Farel (44–47, 50).
Denommé and Kemp, L’Épistre chrestienne, 43–51.
See the editor’s introduction to Luther’s works on prayer, Martin Luther, Devotional Writings 2 (vol. 43 of Luther’s Works; ed. Helmut T. Lehmann; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 7. Cf. Heller, “Reform and Reformers,” 69.
Although it is true that the labor for typesetting was low, the number of copies in this case is extremely low, since a small edition at the time was considered to be about 750 copies. One should also consider the option that higher quality paper was used for the “letters,” especially if “letters” does refer to L’Épistre chrestienne, which was addressed secondarily to a woman of nobility. For printing information see Higman, Piety and the People: Religious Printing in French, 4. On the recipient of the letter see Denommé and Kemp, L’Épistre chrestienne, 47–48.
It appears to me that here Gilmont was averted from his usual thoroughness, for he states that the letter was only 20 folios whereas the prayer book was about 30. Counting the markings in each critical edition shows otherwise (I also counted the number of words per folio side to account for the possibility of different fonts in the original printings). Gilmont, “L’œuvre imprimé,” 140.
Au bon Jesus, povres ames, le doulx Jesus, le bon dieu, ce bon seigneur, son bon esperit, sa grande bonté, all of which occur already on the first page of the letter (L’Épistre chrestienne [ed. Denommé and Kemp], a2r [p. 54]) and are repeated variously throughout. A comparison of Farel’s language (and perhaps that of Lefèvre’s other students also) to that of Lefèvre (and, ideally, all of these to the language of their predecessors and contemporaries) would help us evaluate the historical continuities between Lefèvre and Farel in context. Lefèvre certainly spoke of the sweet Jesus and the good God. For a few examples see Heller, “Reform and Reformers,” 172, 308. See also Rice, ed., The Prefatory Epistles, 450. I shall hereafter assume that Farel is the author of L’Épistre chrestienne.
L’Épistre chrestienne (ed. Denommé and Kemp), a2v (pp. 54-55).
Ibid., a5r-a5v (pp. 56-57); also noted in the introduction, p. 50.
Ibid., a7r-a7v (p. 58).
Ibid., a7r-b2r (pp. 58-60).
Ibid., b7r (p. 64).
Ibid., c4v (p. 69).
Francis M. Higman, “Histoire du livre et histoire de la Réforme,” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 148 (2002): 848; cf. Nichols, “Heresy and Protestantism,” 201.
Higman, “Theology for the Layman,” 112. Later in this article I will address the phrase “new genre.”
Francis M. Higman, “Luther et la piété de l’église gallicane: Le livre de vraye et parfaicte oraison,” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 63 (1983): 91-111. See also Higman’s introduction to his critical edition of Farel’s Le Pater Noster et le Credo, 26.
Nichols, “Heresy and Protestantism,” 200.
“De sa propre plume” and “a largement exploité l’exposition de Luther du Betbüchlein” (Higman, “Luther et la piété de l’église gallicane,” 92). Higman specifies elsewhere that the commentary on the Creed, “after the introductory pages, is translated from Luther’s Betbüchlein, with some modifications to the text, and with a change from Luther’s third-person form of reference to God” (Higman, “Theology for the Layman,” 109). According to Higman, Farel did not read German and must have had a helper, possibly Anémand de Coct (see Le Pater Noster et le Credo [ed. Higman], 18). Since Oecolampadius had earlier in the year translated Farel’s thirteen theses at Basle into German, he might also be a candidate. See N. Weiss, “Guillaume Farel: La dispute de Bâle: Le conflit avec Erasme (1524),” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 69 (1920): 119.
“A partir de là et jusqu’à la fin de l’exposition, la version de Farel suit fidèlement le text de Luther” (Le Pater Noster et le Credo [ed. Higman], 16).
The two additions enlarge upon: (a) the contrast between being able to choose only sin apart from grace, and being unable to sin under grace, in the sense that God’s grace and Spirit cancel its effects; and (b) the need for Christians to seek suffering in this life (Le Pater Noster et le Credo [ed. Higman], 16).
Higman identified the following lines as additions from Farel: 362–69; 382–93; 401–3, 435–41; 457–62; 511–13; 565–76. One must also count lines 279–318, since these form Farel’s own introduction, as Higman notes. The entire work encompasses lines 265–576 in the critical edition. Excluding the text of the Creed at the beginning (265–78), this makes it 297 lines long. Higman has identified 84 of these lines as additions from Farel. It is doubtful, however, whether lines 435–41 should count as an addition. See Le Pater Noster et le Credo (ed. Higman), 66–68.
Specifically, I am adding lines (in some cases parts of lines) 322–24, 327–29, 339, 351–54, 357, 359, 371–75, 380, 419, 466–68, 493–94, 520, 531–32, 534–36, 546–49. It should also be noted that here and there Farel drops a line or two of Luther. I offer this small adjustment with the full realization that in doing so I am fully dependent on Higman’s fine critical edition and his many fine articles on the pedigree of Farel’s Pater Noster. For the comparison, Luther’s Betbüchlein can be found in English translation in Luther’s Works (see Martin Luther, Devotional Writings [vol. 43 of Luther’s Works; ed. Gustav K. Wienke; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968], 24–29). For the German, see Martin Luther, Eine kurze Form des Glaubensbekenntnisses (from the year 1522) (vol. 10.2 of D. Martin Luthers Werke; Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1907; repr., Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1966), 388–95; cf. Eine kurze Form der zehn Gebote, eine kurze Form des Glaubens, eine kurze form des Vaterunsers, of the year 1520, in vol. 7:214–20).
Moore carefully studied the German influences on the French Reformation, highlighting Luther’s important place. Yet he was also careful to distinguish translation as such from the movement of ideas. Thus, he writes of Lutheran ideas being given expression in French form. In this context he highlights the eloquence of Farel. See W. G. Moore, La Réforme allemande et la littérature française: Recherches sur la noteriété de Luther en France (Strasbourg: Publications de la Faculté des Lettres àl’Université, 1930), 169–70.
Le Pater Noster et le Credo (ed. Higman), a1v-a2r, lines 13–16 (pp. 35-36).
Ibid., a2r, lines 23–24 (p. 36).
Ibid., a4v, line 100 (p. 41).
Ibid., a5v-a6r, lines 130–32 (p. 42).
Ibid., a5v, lines 126–28 (p. 42).
Bodenmann draws attention to both of these, noting Beza’s characterization of Farel’s voice as animated with a zeal that would inflame his hearers, especially in the moment of prayer (“Farel et le livre réformé français,” 25). What Bodenmann does not relate is Farel’s fuller text within the Creed, well worth quoting: “Jaçoit ainsy qu’il n’est nul besoing quant àtoy, qu’aulcun descouvre son coraige, c’est à direlafoy, l’esperance, la fiance et l’amour qu’il a en ta justice, bonté et misercorde; toutefois, quant à nous, il est fort besoing de souvent exciter, esmouvoir et enflamber nostre dormant, lasche et froit coraige, ou esprit, par fervente meditation de cueur, laquelle soit aydee par oraison de bouche, procedante de l’ardant desir de l’esperit” (Le Pater Noster et le Credo [ed. Higman], b3r-b3v, lines 291–99 [p. 49]).
We have here another side to the epithet of “fiery” for Farel, one certainly not governed by the connotation of violence.
Le Pater Noster et le Credo (ed. Higman), a6v, lines 154–62 (p. 43).
“S’ensuite l’exposition de ceste orayson faicte en forme d’orayson, pour lire due chapelet, quant on aura loysir” (ibid., a4r, lines 72–74 [p. 40]).
“… et non pas ainsy seulement barbouter des levres sans rien entendre” (ibid., a2v, lines 30–32 [pp. 36-37]).
Ibid., a5v, line 125 (p. 42).
“Jusques à maintenant les brebis de dieu ont esté tresmal instruictes, par la grand negligence des pasteurs, qui les devoient instruire de prier en languaige qu’on entendist” (ibid., a2r-a2v, lines 27–30, [p. 36]). Throughout the introduction the roots entendre (understand) and instruire (teach) recur.
Ibid., a3r, line 47 (p. 37).
Ibid., a2v, lines 42–43 (p. 37).
Ibid., a3r, lines 50–54 (p. 38).
Restricting myself to Le Pater Noster proper, excluding Le Credo, I will simply list the words by line number. tresmisercordieux (99, 138), trescher (138, 148), tresbening (118, 223), treshumblement (244).
Ibid., a4v, lines 90–91 (p. 40).
Ibid., b2r, lines 252–54 (p. 47).
Although I have restricted most of my detailed study of the themes of prayer to Le Pater Noster proper, it may be remarked that in Le Credo Farel’s additions to Luther are in line with the earlier prayer. Listing them simply by line number, I enumerate the following emphases: (a) the believer’s absolute dependence on God, that without God’s grace and Holy Spirit, the believer can do nothing but sin, whereas any good in the believer stems entirely from the work of God (383–92), so that no one is to trust in their own accomplishments, etc. (351–54); (b) the believer’s total submission to God, such that the believer seeks only God’s glory and praise, whatever the circumstances (362–69); (c) the need to seek suffering at the present time in connection with sanctification (457–62, 466–68); (d) some elaboration regarding the reception of the keys of the kingdom by all the church, and not just by Peter (546–49). A number of these additions may be termed rhetorical, as when Farel piles up the kinds of things believers might trust in but should not (352–54), and when he provides a balanced list of positive and negative circumstances in which the believer’s faith in God must stand firm (365–69), as well as when he prays about the evil powers (372–75). His introduction has been somewhat elaborated on already in this article; the peroration returns to the confession of the Trinity with which the introduction ended, doing so in the context of a final prayer that Farel writes in the first person singular, a prayer for faith and trust in order to the maintenance of this confession until God delivers the one praying from this mortal life into the perfect confession, love, and eternal praise of God (565–75).
La saincte Bible en françoys, translatée selon la … traduction de Saint Hierome (trans. into French by Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples; Anvers: Martin Lempereur, 1534).
Higman, “Theology for the Layman,” 114 n. 8.
Perhaps it is interesting to note in this context that Calvin’s only French letter to Farel (in the year 1540) uses the vous form rather than tu. This is likely Calvin’s expression of respect for a man 20 years his senior (in spite of Calvin’s strong reprimands in the letter!). See Francis M. Higman, “Calvin and Farel,” in Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor: Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture (ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 223.
Note that these are lines originating in Farel, not Luther: “mesmement tous les merites de ton benoit filz Jesus nostre frere” (Le Pater Noster et le Credo [ed. Higman], c3v, lines 534–35 [p. 61]). Cf. “Jesus, qui s’est fait ton frere” (a7r [page 58]).
Higman identifies the following three marks: “le rapport personnel du croyant à Dieu,” “la dépendance entière du croyant envers Dieu,” and “la purification intérieure du croyant par le Saint Esprit” (Le Pater Noster et le Credo, 15).
Guillaume Farel, Forme d’oraison pour demander a Dieu la saincte predication de l’evangelie (Geneva: Jehan Girard, 1545). This work is a re-publishing of Oraison tresdevote en laqulle [sic] est faicte la confession des pechez from 1543. I have taken my quotations from an edition of 1865, contained within Guillaume Farel, Du vray usage de la croix de Jesus-Christ (Geneva: Fick, 1865), 278–88. A careful comparison of the two editions was undertaken by Chr. Burger, “Farels Frömmigkeit,” in Colloque Farel, 1:149–60.
Both Sommaire and Summaire occur in the literature; I have chosen to use Summaire.
This printing was discovered in the British Museum in 1929. Acceptance of the date can be found, e.g., in the 1930 biography, Comité Farel, Biographie nouvelle, 39; also, E. Droz, “Pierre de Vingle, l’imprimeur de Farel: 23 reproductions,” in Aspects de la propagande religieuse (Travaux d’humanisme et renaissance 28; Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1957), 57–60; Ozment, The Reformation in the Cities, 68; and finally, in 1983, Hower, “William Farel,” 40.
The first scholar to question the 1525 date was Elfriede Jacobs. She defended a thesis on this matter in 1975 and then published her dissertation on Farel’s sacramental doctrine in 1978. See Elfriede Jacobs, Die Sakramentslehre Wilhelm Farels (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1978), 29–44. At the same time Higman argued in detail for a 1528/1529 date of composition. See his conclusion: Francis M. Higman, “Dates clésdelaRéforme française: Le Sommaire de Guillaume Farel et La Somme de l’Escripture saincte,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 38 (1976): 245. Support for this thesis can be found in Gilmont, L’œvre imprimé, 119. See also David N. Wiley, “Toward a Critical Edition of Farel’s Sommaire: The Dating of the Editions of 1525 and 1542,” in Colloque Farel, 1:203–20. French printers altered date and place in an effort to evade detection under censorship laws.
Higman, “Dates clés,” 241–42.
Recently Higman has provided a handy and up-to-date summary of the dates and statuses of the first four editions. See Francis M. Higman, “Farel’s Summaire: The Interplay of Theology and Polemics,” in Le livre évangélique en français avant Calvin, 72 n. 1. Note that Hofer’s work is unfortunately based on what has turned out to be the inferior third edition. See Guillaume Farel, Sommaire et brève déclaration (ed. Hofer).
Presently no scholarly English translations of any of Farel’s works have been published. I thank Jason Zuidema of McGill University for sharing with me in 2007 his English translation of the 1534 edition of Farel’s Summaire, which he is preparing for publication. An earlier translation of Farel’s Summaire and his 1533 liturgy was made by Blair Reynolds and published as a staple-bound booklet. However, the translation is not dependable; e.g., the second sentence of Farel’s chapter on God (ch. 1) is translated in part as the opposite of its French original. Chapters 19 and 26, among others, also provide examples of unintelligible translation. In addition, the work suffers from an inexcusable lack of editing. See Guillaume Farel, “Manner and Method” and “Summary and Brief Declaration” (trans. Blair Reynolds; University Monograph Series; Bristol, Ind.: Wyndam Hall Press, 1985). Translations given in this article are my own and are drawn from the 1534 de Vingle printing.
Higman remarks, “It is characteristic of Guillaume Farel that he should perceive the need for something which did not yet exist: a systematic reference work which would order the ‘new’ teachings in an accessible form, in French, and with that fundamental reading aid, a Table of Contents” (Higman, “Summaire: Interplay of Theology and Politics,” 74).
One of Higman’s arguments about Summaire is that, written in 1529, it forms a transition from the earlier positive advancement of Reformed teaching to the later polemical rejection of the traditional doctrines and practices. He posits a change in tactics on the part of the Reformers, as they realized that their essentially positive message was not yielding the expected results. This conclusion bears scrutiny. I wonder, was not the reform movement by definition polemical from the start? See Higman, “Summaire: Interplay of Theology and Politics,” 84–85.
Original: De priere et l’oraison. “Prayer and Praying” is the translation suggested by Zuidema (English translation of Farel’s Summaire forthcoming).
“Oraison est ung ardant parler auec Dieu, auquel l’homme ne scait qu’il doit dire ne demander: Mais l’Esperit qui est ès fideles par grandz gemissementz qu’on ne scauroit dire, prie pour nous. En l’oraison la bouche n’est ia resquise qu’elle parle: mais le coeur seulement” (Guillaume Farel, Summaire et brièfve déclaration [Neuchâtel: Pierre de Vingle, 1534], E i). Following Zuidema’s example, I note only the recto pages, concurring thereby with the original. Page numbers to the Hofer edition will follow in parentheses (in this case: 150).
Ibid., E ii (154).
Ibid., E i(152). Cf. art. 22: “Et pourtant le coeur Chrestien, ardant en l’amour de nostre pere, pour son honneur et gloire, affin que Dieu soit honoré et magnifié” (D vi [140]).
The word is barbottant, a variation of barbotement. See Summaire, E ii (154). This word also occurs in chs. 21 and 42 (D v [136]; K viii [318]). Since context determines meaning, note the following in ch. 21: “et aux barbotteurs qui ne font que murmurer parolles sans entendement, honnorantz Dieu des leures, auquel ilz servent en vain suyvantz la doctrine et commandementz des hommes.”
“L’Esprit est le mouuement et affection que Dieu baille àl’homme le renouuellant” (ibid., B v [70]).
Ibid., B vi (72).
Ibid., B vi (74).
Ibid., E viii (174). Farel’s emphasis on love for the neighbor spans his entire writing career.
Indeed, some of the Farel-Calvin correspondence suggests just the opposite. Farel comes across as the humble one who transparently acknowledges his faults to the twenty-years-younger Calvin, whereas Calvin at times hardly holds himself back in reprimanding Farel. See, e.g., Preserved Smith, “Some Old Unpublished Letters,” HTR 12 (1919): 206-14; and compare this to Higman, “Calvin and Farel,” 214–23. Doumergue comments that Farel objected to being addressed as L’Apôtre des Allobrages and told his friends to address their letters very simply, to G. Farel, Genève ( Jean Calvin, 2:168 n. 3).
See Charles Partee, “Farel’s Influence on Calvin: A Prolusion,” in Colloque Farel, 1:179, 181. Oberman provides an influential article on the change in Calvin and Farel’s relationship in 1559; see Heiko A. Oberman, “Calvin and Farel: The Dynamics of Legitimation in Early Calvinism,” Reformation and Renaissance Review 1 (1999): 7-40. One of his students, Michael W. Bruening, has responded in a careful and considerate dissertation, showing that Calvin sought legitimation from the beginning; see Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground, 6–7, 176–79, 199–209.
Summaire, F vii (200). Cf. ch. 27, where Farel had already exhorted the “Christians” directly.
Ibid., H ii–H iv (240–48). Note here the recurring emphasis on mission.
Direct address also occurs in art. 38 on marriage, speaking to believers and addressing the magistrates. Art. 39 speaks to fathers. Art. 41 addresses the champions and warriors who go out with the Word of God as their sword. Art. 42 reads like a sermon, complete with a host of imperative verbs.
In fact, we do possess two speeches that may be properly titled sermons. At the Lausanne Disputation in 1536 it was actually Farel who carried the debate, speaking 40 percent of the time, taking care of the opening and closing remarks, and leading almost all of the devotions. His opening sermon was one long call to prayer. The entire proceedings were transcribed and are available in a carefully done 1928 edition; see Arthur Piaget, Les Actes de la Dispute de Lausanne 1536, publiés intêgrale-ment d’après le manuscrit de Berne (Mémoires de l’université de Neuchâtel 6; Neuchâtel: Paul Attinger, 1928). Cf. Peronnet, “Images de Guillaume Farel pendant la Dispute de Lausanne,” 133–41.
See n. 83 above.
Fassler provides an outline and analysis of one such prayer book from the fifteenth century (Margot Fassler, “Psalms and Prayers in Daily Devotion: A Fifteenth-Century Devotional Anthology from the Diocese of Rheims: Beinecke 757,” in Worship in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, 15–40). Higman notes Gerson’s popular Opus tripartium containing the Creed, the Prayer, and the Commandments, produced in French and Latin in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Other simple “catechisms” like it also functioned to help people pray. See Higman, “Theology for the Layman,” 107–9.
The above depends upon Luther’s Devotional Writings 2 (ed. Wienke), 5–6, 11–12.
Rice, Prefatory Epistles, 468–70. Both Lefèvre and Briçonnet were interested in developing lay piety. See Heller, “Reform and Reformers,” 69, 208, 304.
Erasmus’s English editors complain about a “collective amnesia” with regard to Erasmus’s spiritual writings, and provide translations of a range of published prayers from him. See Erasmus, Spiritualia and Pastoralia (vol. 69 of Collected Works; ed. John W. O’Malley and Louis A. Perraud; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), xi-xii. The prayers, with introductions, are found on pp. 1-151. Their translated titles and dates are: Prayer to Jesus, Son of the Virgin (1499); Paean in Honour of the Virgin Mother (1499); Prayer of Supplication to Mary, the Virgin Mother, in Time of Trouble (1503); The Lord’s Prayer (1523); Liturgy of the Virgin Mother Venerated at Loreto (1523); Prayer to the Lord Jesus for Peace in the Church (1532); and Some New Prayers (1535).
Erasmus, Spiritualia and Pastoralia (vol. 70 of Collected Works; ed. John W. O’Malley; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998), 141–230.
See the editors’ comments in Erasmus, Spiritualia and Pastoralia, 69:xvi-xix. See also Fassler, “Psalms and Prayers in Daily Devotion,” 16–22.
Lambert, “Preaching, Praying and Policing,” 398.
See Higman, “Theology for the Layman,” 112; and O’Malley’s comments in Erasmus, Spiritualia and Pastoralia, 69: xvii. Higman is referring to works that offer commentary on the Creed, Lord’s Prayer, and Commandments rather than just the bare text. O’Malley writes that Erasmus was “showing in actual practice and in a fully fleshed-out model how one might pray the Lord’s Prayer in a more sustained way than by simply reciting the formula,” and that this was a new genre for him.
Higman, “Theology for the Layman,” 109.
Certainly medieval preachers also exhorted the laity to pray from the heart. But, concludes Lambert, most frequently people “learned and recited the basic prayers in Latin” and thus could not understand them very well (Lambert, “Preaching, Praying and Policing,” 400–401; emphasis in the original).
Ibid., 103-4; see also 71–104. Lambert’s answer to the problem focuses on the consistory records of Geneva (post-1542) where the concern was with delinquents and the effort was simply to get them to recite the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed, let alone anything more elaborate. But given what Lambert relates about Calvin’s view of the time to be spent in prayer (half to three quarters of an hour each morning), it is evident that the more faithful Genevans did more than pray the Lord’s Prayer. Cf. ibid., 405, 455–59.
After five years the instances of barbotement in the Geneva consistory’s records drop off (Robert Kingdon, The Registers of the Consistory of Geneva in the Time of Calvin [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], xxi). It is interesting to note that a certain Anna who appeared before the Geneva consistory in September 1542 stated that she had learned the prayer and creed from Farelhimself. Evidently Farel also worked “from house to house.” See Lambert, “Preaching, Praying and Policing,” 445.
I take Lefèvre’s mysticism to be an established fact, although one must also notice Lefèvre’s development towards evangelicalism as his career evolved. In the latter he was unlike and aloof from Erasmus. For either of these arguments, see Heller, “Reform and Reformers,” passim.
Note that this research is very limited at this point. I have not researched Luther’s sermons, for example.
Luther, “A Simple Way to Pray,” in Devotional Writings 2, 198. Note that he begins this treatise by explaining that when he grows cold or joyless in prayer, he returns to prayer by rote: he takes his “little psalter” and says “quietly to myself and word-for-word the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and, if I have time, some words of Christ or of Paul, or some psalms, just as a child might do” (193).
Fassler, “Psalms and Prayers in Daily Devotion,” 16–17.
Peronnet, “Images de Guillaume Farel pendant la Dispute de Lausanne,” 141.
Roulet, “Farel: Agent bernois? (1528–1536),” 104.
Higman’s introduction to Le Pater Noster et le Credo, 8–9.
Le Pater Noster et le Credo, 26. See also Higman, “Summaire: The Interplay of Theology and Polemics,” 73, where he repeats his view that Farel’s Le Pater Noster explains the Lord’s Prayer “eirenically.”
Bodenmann, “Farel et le livre réformé français,” 17.
Wiley, “Toward a Critical Edition of Farel’s Sommaire,” 203; cf. 218.
Oberman, “Calvin and Farel: The Dynamics of Legitimation,” 25–28.
“Gallica mirata est Calvinum Ecclesia nuper,/Quo nemo docuit doctius./Est quoque te nuper mirata, Farelle, tonantem,/Quo nemo tonuit fortius” (E. Doumergue, Jean Calvin, 2:172).

Eamon Younis

Wednesday, 13 October 2021

Guillaume Farel’s Spirituality: Leading In Prayer

No comments:

Post a Comment