chapter four
THE EPIPHANY: THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM
We have composed a catechism, in which all the heads of doctrine as well as the Sacraments are explained clearly and in great detail . . . For some time now I have been totally absorbed in it. For I was always eager to make our doctrine public. Erastus to Bullinger, January , []
The Heidelberg Catechism, composed in late and published in January , arguably became the most important confessional doc- ument in the history of Reformed Christianity. It was the first mani- festly Reformed confession adopted by a principality of the Holy Roman Empire and, as such, stood as a direct challenge to the Religious Peace of Augsburg. Its adoption signaled the beginning of the so-called “sec- ond Reformation,” in which many principalities and cities of the Holy Roman Empire moved from Lutheranism to the Reformed faith.1 For no reason other than this, the Heidelberg Catechism occupies a prominent place in the history of the Reformation. Beyond its political importance, the catechism became one of the most popular confessional documents of the Reformation era. It has been translated into more than twenty languages and retains confessional status in many Reformed denomi- nations around the globe. It played a formative role in the histories of German and Dutch immigrant communities in North America. It has also been considered one of the most theologically cogent and appealing confessions of the Reformation era. Since the catechism did not directly affirm the most controversial tenets of Calvinism, it has also been con- sidered one of the most irenic documents of the era. Theologians from Heinrich Bullinger to Karl Barth have lauded its presentation of the
1 Henry J. Cohn, “Territorial Princes in Germany’s Second Reformation, –,” in International Calvinism –, ed. Menna Preswich (Oxford: Oxford UP, ), –; Press, “Die ‘Zweite Reformation’ in der Kurpfalz,” –; Goeters, “Genesis, Formen und Hauptthemen,” –. chapter four
Christian faith in a manner which is simultaneously theological and devotional. Members of the Reformed communion have also hailed its literary quality—a fondness no doubt enhanced by familiarity—and the devotion shown it is akin to an Anglican’s love for the Book of Common Prayer.2 Thus, when probing the origins of the Heidelberg Catechism, histo- rians must be aware that they are standing on holy ground. Like other celebrated texts, the story of its composition has become obscured over the centuries in the haze of legend and hagiography. One could cite many accounts of the Heidelberg Reformation which would be better suited for a Sunday school room than the history seminar. The paean of the lead- ing Mercersberg theologian John Nevin captures the pious enthusiasm regarding the catechism’s origins: It is something wonderful in the first place, that the catechism should be in fact the production of two authors; for it appears to be certain, that the double authorship was of the most real and positive character, involving throughout not simply an outward, but a true inward coöperation also, which it is curious to note, and by no means easy to understand. The catechism was not the work of Ursinus, approved by Olevianus, nor on the other hand the work of Olevianus, approved by Ursinus; it was the joint production of both; and it was this, not in the way of any mechanical putting together of their different contributions to the work, but inthe way of an organic fusion, which refers the whole work to both authors, and makes it impossible to know or say, what in it belongs to one and what to the other.3 Were this account true, the composition of the catechism truly would have been a sublime affair that would have been the exception rather than the rule in this era of confessional strife. Research published around the four hundredth anniversary of the publication of the catechism, however, has demonstrated conclusively that this hagiographic depiction of the writing of the catechism must be severely revised. Since the traditional conception of the dual authorship of Caspar Olevianus and Zacharias Ursinus has been set aside (more below), the opportunity is ripe to investigate the roles of other likely members of the authorship circle, such as Thomas Erastus. To orient this study, it is
2 See Lyle D. Bierma et al., An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, ). 3 [John W. Nevin] in The Heidelberg Catechism, in German, Latin and English: with an Historical Introduction (New York, ), .