The Spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism: Papers of the International Conference on the Heidelberg Catechism Held in Apeldoorn 2013 9783666550843, 9783525550847

Citation preview

Refo500 Academic Studies

Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis In Co-operation with Günter Frank (Bretten), Bruce Gordon (New Haven), Ute Lotz-Heumann (Tucson), Mathijs Lamberigts (Leuven), Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (Bern), Tarald Rasmussen (Oslo), Johannes Schilling (Kiel), Herman Selderhuis (Emden), Günther Wassilowsky (Linz), Siegrid Westphal (Osnabrück), David M. Whitford (Trotwood) Volume 24

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

The Spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism Papers of the International Conference on the Heidelberg Catechism Held in Apeldoorn 2013 Edited by Arnold Huijgen

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

With 2 tables

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-55084-7 You can find alternative editions of this book and additional material on our Website: www.v-r.de p 2015, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Printed in Germany. Typesetting by Konrad Triltsch GmbH, Ochsenfurt Printed and bound by Hubert & Co, Göttingen Printed on non-aging paper.

Contents

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8

Lyle D. Bierma Ursinus and the Theological Landscape of the Heidelberg Catechism .

9

Andreas Mühling Caspar Olevian und die Einführung des Heidelberger Katechismus . .

25

Frank van der Pol Aspects of the Theology of Controverse Two Early Modern Polemical Approaches of the Heidelberg Catechism

34

Henk van den Belt Anabaptist Spirituality and the Heidelberg Catechism . . . . . . . . . .

50

Kyle J. Dieleman The Heidelberg Catechism, Calvin’s Genevan Catechism, and Spirituality A Comparative Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62

Kees de Wildt Interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism in the Sixteenth Century Commentaries and Sermons on HC 53: the Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . .

71

Riemer A. Faber The Function of the Catechism’s Spirituality in the Synopsis of Purer Theology (1625) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

84

Christian Link Glaube als lebensbestimmende Erkenntnis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95

Preface

Wim Verboom Regeneration According to the Heidelberg Catechism

. . . . . . . . . 108

6

Contents

Dolf te Velde The Heidelberg Catechism on the Doctrine of the Trinity

. . . . . . . 119

Erik A. de Boer Adoration or Idolatry? HC 80 in the Context of the Catechetical Teaching of Joannes Anastasius in the Palatinate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Wim H.Th. Moehn A Lasting Controversy on Mass and Supper? Meaning and Actuality of HC 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Frank Ewerszumrode Holy Celebrations in the Power of the Holy Spirit A Roman Catholic Rereading of the Doctrine of the Sacraments in the Heidelberg Catechism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Willem van Vlastuin The Promise of Unio Mystica An Inquiry into the Functioning of a Spiritual-Theological Concept in the Heidelberg Catechism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Eberhard Busch Die Gebote des gnädigen Gottes nach dem Heidelberger Katechismus . 186 Gerard den Hertog The Heidelberg Catechism and the Art of Dying and Living . . . . . . 194 Arnold Huijgen Practicing Gratitude The Spirituality of Prayer in the Heidelberg Catechism . . . . . . . . . 206 Pieter Veerman Prayer and the Law of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Arie Baars Theory and Practice of Preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism . . . . 232 T. Theo J. Pleizier Heidelberg as Best Practice Catechism A Practical-Theological Exploration of Constructing Catechisms in a Post-Christian and De-churched Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Contents

7

Hans Burger Gospel Presentation and the Structure of the Heidelberg Catechism . . 268 Maarten J. Kater Permanent Education Lessons from the “je lenger je mehr”-passages in the Heidelberg Catechism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 About the authors

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

Preface

On the occasion of the 450th anniversary of the Heidelberg Catechism, an international conference was held at the Theological University Apeldoorn, the Netherlands, on June 21 and 22, 2013. The focus of this conference was the spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism, for this document is famous for its opening question and answer on the only comfort in life and death. The present volume offers a collection of the plenary papers and a selection of the short papers presented at the conference. As the contributions demonstrate, the Heidelberg Catechism is a central document of the Reformed tradition, particularly with respect to spirituality. Moreover, it remains a vital source for theological reflection and catechetical practice. I am grateful for the assistance of Wouter Beinema in preparing this volume, and for the help of Christoph Spill (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Many thanks to Herman Selderhuis for accepting this volume into the Refo500 Academic Series. The Refo500 network has been a great help in bringing people together for the Heidelberg Catechism anniversary. Arnold Huijgen, Apeldoorn

Lyle D. Bierma

Ursinus and the Theological Landscape of the Heidelberg Catechism

The theological landscape of the Heidelberg Catechism is as varied and complex as the physical terrain of the Electoral Palatinate where the catechism was born. In the 45 years from the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518 to the publication of the HC in 1563, the Palatinate had moved religiously from a weakening Catholicism under Elector Ludwig V, to a wavering Lutheranism under Frederick II, to a broadscale Melanchthonian reform under Otto Henry, and finally to a Philippist-Reformed orientation under Frederick III (Gunnoe: 2005, 15 – 47). Contributing to these shifts in the Palatinate was the influence, directly or indirectly, of individuals from every branch of the magisterial reformation: Luther, Melanchthon, Brenz, Bucer, Zwingli, Jud, Bullinger, Erastus, Calvin, Beza, y Lasco, Micronius, Boquinus, and Olevianus, among others. But when Frederick III commissioned the HC as part of his reform in the early 1560s, the person who loomed largest on the local theological landscape was Zacharias Ursinus (1534 – 1583), rector of the Sapience College (a pastoral training school in Heidelberg), professor of dogmatics at the university, and primary author of the HC. In what follows, we will examine Ursinus’s location on this landscape by addressing four questions: (1) Why does Ursinus belong on the landscape? (2) How did he get to this landscape? (3) How can we best determine his spot on the landscape? (4) What exactly is his place on the theological terrain of the HC? We will then make a few concluding remarks on the bearing that all of this has on the theme of the conference—the spirituality of the HC.

1. Why Does Ursinus Belong on the Landscape? The most obvious answer to this question is that he was one of the authors, and probably the main author, of the HC. What might be somewhat surprising, however, is that there is very little direct evidence to support such a claim. Unfortunately, whatever records might have existed of the process by which the catechism was developed, they did not survive the wars and political upheavals in the Palatinate over the course of the following century and a half. In addition, the title page of the HC does not name an author or authors, and the most we can learn from Frederick’s preface to the catechism is that a team

10

Lyle D. Bierma

that included “the entire theological faculty in this place” provided advice and cooperation in the preparation of the document.1 Even in the personal correspondence of some of those closest to the catechism—Frederick III, Erastus, Olevianus, and Ursinus—no author is ever singled out.2 It was not until the seventeenth century that Ursinus’s name began to be associated more closely with the composition of the HC. A work from 1603 by the Dutch Reformed minister Johannes Gerobulus referred in passing to Ursinus alone as the author of the HC,3 and in an edition of Ursinus’s theological works in 1612, Quirinus Reuter named two earlier catechisms by Ursinus as part of the preparation process.4 A decade later, in lectures delivered between 1619 and 1622, the German Reformed theologian Heinrich Alting became the first to identify Ursinus and Olevianus as the two most significant writers of the HC: “the authors, especially Dr. Ursinus and Olevianus … after joint consultation and labors, completed the catechism” (Alting: 1646, 5). And some twenty years after that, in 1644, Alting had narrowed the list to those two men alone: This task [of preparing the HC] was assigned in 1562 to two theologians, Olevianus and Dr. Ursinus, both of them Germans and accomplished in writing the German language. Each of them prepared his own draft: Olevianus, a popular exposition of the covenant of grace; Ursinus, a twofold catechism—a larger one for those more advanced, and a smaller one for the youth. From these two works the Palatine Catechism was composed (Alting: 1701, 189).

Of these putative co-authors, it was Olevianus who actually rose to greater prominence in the centuries that followed, since many argued that he was responsible for taking Ursinus’s Latin Smaller Catechism and converting it into the warm, devotional style of the German HC.5 None of these foregoing hypotheses, however, offered much in the way of evidence to support them, and a reevaluation of the whole question of the authorship of the HC was launched in the 1960s with Walter Hollweg’s (1961, 124 – 152) rigorous questioning of the role of Olevianus. This led to a growing scholarly consensus over the next fifty years that Ursinus, not Olevianus, was the primary and final drafter of the HC.6 The evidence is still circumstantial, but the cumulative weight of that evidence makes it compelling. Prior to his work on the Heidelberg project, Ursinus had experience in teaching, 1 Richards: 1913, 193, 195. On pp. 182 – 99 Richards provides a facsimile of the German text of the preface and an English translation on the facing pages. The German text can also be found in Lang: 1907, 2 ff. 2 For these references and a fuller treatment of the HC as a team project, see Bierma: 2005a, 53 – 57. 3 Gerobulus: 1603, 34. My thanks to Kees de Wildt for this reference. 4 Ursinus: 1612, 10 f (English translation in Richards: 1913, 51). 5 For an overview of this scholarship, see Bierma: 1982, 17 f. 6 Goeters: 1963, 15, 17; Staedtke: 1965, 130; Metz: 1970, 63 – 69; Benrath: 1983, 155; Henss: 1983, 27 f, 44; Klooster : 1986, 76, 97.

Ursinus and the Theological Landscape of the Heidelberg Catechism

11

translating, and composing catechetical material, including the Smaller and Larger Catechisms that were identified already in the seventeenth century as major sources for the HC. Following the publication of the HC, Ursinus also became its leading homiletician, commentator, and apologist. In August 1563, just seven months after the catechism was published, Ursinus replaced Olevianus as the preacher of the catechism sermon in Heidelberg on Sunday afternoons. He also employed the HC as the basis for lectures on the loci that were later collected by his students and published as a kind of commentary on the catechism (Ursinus: 1616). Finally, in 1564 he produced three treatises, two of them representing the entire theological faculty at the university, in which he defended the catechism against Catholic and Gnesio-Lutheran attacks. If indeed, then, one person on the team of authors was responsible for crafting the final form of the HC, the most likely person was Zacharias Ursinus. And it is for that reason that he holds a prominent position on the theological landscape of the catechism.

2. How Did Ursinus Get to this Landscape? Ursinus came to Heidelberg by way of Wittenberg, Zurich, and Geneva—both literally and theologically.7 He was born in 1534 into a first-generation Lutheran family in Breslau, Silesia, and was probably catechized there by the Melanchthonian preacher Ambrosius Moibanus, who himself had written a catechism for youth that highlighted the comfort of the gospel. At the age of fifteen, Ursinus matriculated at Wittenberg University, where he became a deeply-devoted student and protg of Philip Melanchthon. After completing his university studies in 1557, Ursinus left Wittenberg on a tour of some of the major cities of the Reformation era: Worms, where he joined Melanchthon at a religious colloquy between Catholics and Protestants, Strasbourg, Basel, Zurich, Bern, Lausanne, and finally Geneva, where he first encountered John Calvin. On the way back to Germany, he stopped again in Zurich and became better acquainted with Zwingli’s successor Heinrich Bullinger and with the Italian Calvinist Peter Martyr Vermigli, who seems to have had a significant theological impact on Ursinus. In 1558, at the age of twenty-four, Ursinus was invited by the Breslau city council to become a professor of classical languages and Christian doctrine at his alma mater, the St. Elizabeth Gymnasium. However, his enthusiastic use of Melanchthon’s Examen ordinandorum (German: 1552; Latin: 1554) as a classroom textbook and his friendship with some of the Reformed theologians he had met a year earlier rankled several Gnesio-Lutheran ministers in the city, 7 Detailed biographical information on Ursinus can be found in Sudhoff: 1857; Good: 1914; Bouwmeester: 1954; Sturm: 1972; Visser: 1983.

12

Lyle D. Bierma

especially because of his rejection of Christ’s bodily presence in the eucharistic elements, a position that they regarded as “sacramentarian.” To explain his views and defend himself against these charges, Ursinus (1584, 1:339 – 382) composed 123 “Theses on the Sacraments” (1559), many of which echoed the voice of his teacher Melanchthon. This treatise made such an impression on Melanchthon that he is reported to have said that he had “never seen anything so brilliant as in this work.”8 The incessant theological bickering between the Philippists and GnesioLutherans in Breslau eventually led Ursinus to request a leave of absence in early 1560, just a week after the death of Philip Melanchthon. Against the urging of friends who wanted him to join the university faculty in Wittenberg, Ursinus decided instead to return to Zurich, where he studied with Vermigli for nearly a year before accepting an invitation from Frederick III to assist with the reformation in the Palatinate. All of these events in such close proximity— the loss of his long-time mentor, his exodus from Breslau, his decision not to join the faculty in Wittenberg, his return to Zurich for more study, and his acceptance of the invitation to Heidelberg—suggest that this was a critical juncture in Ursinus’s shift away from the Lutheranism of his youth and toward the Reformed convictions of the second half of his life. Nevertheless, Melanchthon seems to have left a mark on Ursinus’s theology and reform that was never erased as he moved more and more into the orbit of Reformed Protestantism (Richards: 1913, 28, 133; Good: 1914, 45; Sturm: 1972, 1ff; Muller : 1986, 124). When Ursinus arrived in Heidelberg in 1561, therefore, he had made a long pilgrimage, theologically as well as geographically, from Wittenberg to Heidelberg by way of Geneva and Zurich. The influence of the Calvinist tradition on his theology is unmistakable, but it should not be forgotten that he had received most of his theological training and developed some of his closest friendships in Wittenberg and Zurich. What he brought to the theological landscape of the HC was an exposure and, to some degree, an indebtedness to all the major streams of mid-century Protestantism.9 Since by the early 1560s all these parties were also present in the Electoral Palatinate, and part of Frederick’s plan was to bridge the gaps between them, the elector’s choice of Ursinus as the lead author of a new union catechism could hardly have been more prudent.

8 According to Sudhoff: 1857, 5, Melanchthon’s reaction was reported in a letter Ursinus received from his friend Ferinarius. 9 Sturm: 1972, 1ff, passim; Lang: 1907, LXIVff; Benrath: 1963, 24ff; Neuser: 1979, 181 ff. Muller : 1986, 124 concludes that “in the years between 1563 and 1577 Ursinus … produced a synthesis of Reformed theology with the established scholastic method, related in its central motifs not only to the thought of Calvin but also to the theology of Bullinger, Vermigli, [and] Musculus, and to that of Luther, Melanchthon, and Bucer.”

Ursinus and the Theological Landscape of the Heidelberg Catechism

13

3. How Can We Best Determine Ursinus’s Spot on the Landscape? Perhaps the best way to get a reading on Ursinus’s theology around the time he was working on the HC is to examine his Summa Theologiae (“Summary of Theology”). Because this work covered the standard elements of Christian catechesis—law, creed, prayer, and sacraments—and was organized into 323 questions and answers, it is sometimes referred to as Ursinus’s Catechesis maior, or Larger Catechism (LC). It may seem odd not to turn instead to his Catechesis minor, or Smaller Catechism (SC), on which so much of the text of the HC was based. No fewer than 110 of the 129 questions and answers of the HC contain parallels to the text of the SC, whereas only 22 questions and answers in the HC appear dependent in some way on the LC. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to prefer the Larger over the Smaller Catechism if we want a snapshot of Ursinus’s theological thinking in the early 1560s. For most of the four centuries since the accounts of Reuter and Alting in the early 1600s, it was assumed that both of Ursinus’s early catechisms were commissioned by the magistrate as preparatory documents for the HC. It was also assumed that the LC was composed before the SC and that the SC was essentially an abridged version of the LC. All of these assumptions were challenged, however, in the early 1970s by Erdmann Sturm, who had come across the inaugural address that Ursinus gave in September 1562 as a newlyappointed professor at the university. In that address, Ursinus mentions first of all that the catechism currently being prepared for the Palatinate (the HC) was nearing completion. He goes on to say that he intended to launch his university lectures in dogmatics with “a summary of doctrine” (summam doctrinae) that would steer a middle course between a basic catechism, on the one hand, and an in-depth explanation of the traditional topics of theology, on the other. Of all of Ursinus’s known works, it is his catechetical “Summary of Theology,” or LC, that looks the most like the “summary of doctrine” he was proposing (Sturm: 1972, 239ff, 246; Bierma: 2005b, 137ff). If that identification is correct, then the LC was not commissioned by the elector, it was not written before the SC, it was not a document that the SC had abridged, and it was not intended as a draft for the HC. Even though there are some striking parallels in wording between the LC and the HC, the original and primary purpose of the LC was to serve as a classroom text for theological students at the university. Why, then, is the LC such a good indicator of Ursinus’s place on the landscape of the HC? First of all, it was written virtually simultaneously with the HC itself. As Ursinus noted in his inaugural address, by the fall of 1562 the HC was just about finished and his summary lectures on theology were just about to begin. The LC, therefore, can give us insight into Ursinus’s thought at the very time he was working on the official catechism for the Palatinate. Second, the LC provides a fairly comprehensive view of Ursinus’s theology, covering the whole range of Christian teaching as summarized in the Apostles’

14

Lyle D. Bierma

Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Third, as a graduate-level textbook it reflects on the Christian faith at a deeper level than was possible in a more popular work like the HC. Finally, and most importantly, the fact that the LC was designed not for a committee drafting a territorial catechism but for students in a university classroom meant that Ursinus could compose it with less concern for the religious politics of the day. He alone would be the author, and he would not have to be accountable to a committee or feel constrained by the impact his positions might have on those of other points of view. In an academic setting he could deal with such sensitive theological topics as covenant without worrying about how Lutheran theologians in and around the Palatinate might react. Or again, he could mention the communication of the substantia of Christ in the Lord’s Supper without offending the Zwinglians. The LC, in other words, gives us the clearest picture of where Ursinus himself stood theologically in the early 1560s.

4. What Exactly Is Ursinus’s Place on the Theological Terrain of the Heidelberg Catechism? The picture that emerges from an analysis of the LC is of a theology that was influenced by the variety of sources and theologians that Ursinus had encountered on his ten-year trek to Heidelberg. Indeed, all three of the major traditions to which he had been exposed—Wittenberg, Zurich, and Geneva— appear to have left their mark on both the text and the texture of the LC. Let us look briefly at the impact of each of those three traditions in turn.

4.1 Wittenberg The influence of Lutheran sources on the text of the LC can be seen most clearly in the definitions of two of the most important doctrines in the catechism: faith and the sacraments. The definition of faith in LC 3810 contains several phrases that are strikingly reminiscent of Melanchthon’s definitions in the German (1552) and Latin (1554) editions of his Examen ordinandorum (Melanchthon: 1955/1855, 23/19): LC 38: [Faith] is to assent firmly to every word of God related to us EO (1554): Faith is to assent to every word of God related to us 10 All quotations from the LC are from Bierma: 2005b, 163. The Latin text on which this English translation is based is found in Lang: 1907, 152 – 199.

Ursinus and the Theological Landscape of the Heidelberg Catechism

15

LC 38: a firm trust … that God has graciously granted him remission of sins, righteousness, and eternal life EO (1552): a truly wholehearted trust … that … we have forgiveness of sins, grace, and salvation LC 38: because of Christ’s merit and through him EO (1552): because of [Christ] and through him

After a question and answer on the Apostles’ Creed as a summary of that which we believe (LC 39), Ursinus proceeds in LC 40 to outline the divisions of the creed: Q. How many main parts does this creed have? A. Three. The first has to do with creation and preservation; the second with redemption; and the third with our sanctification.

This threefold summary is almost certainly based on Luther’s Small Catechism of 1529, which also and in almost identical language connects the three parts of the creed to the works of creation, redemption, and sanctification by the three persons of the Trinity, respectively (Luther : 2000, 354 f). As Gooszen (1890, 65 f) and Neuser (1964, 311) suggested already many years ago, Ursinus’s definition of sacraments in LC 275 was also very likely based on the text of Melanchthon’s Examen (1855, 23/39). Once again, the parallel phrasing is striking: LC: Sacraments are ceremonies instituted by God EO (1554): A sacrament … is a divinely instituted rite LC: added to the promise of grace EO (1554): added to the promise related in the gospel LC: by these visible pledges and public testimonies EO (1554): to be a testimony and pledge LC: that this promise most certainly belongs to them EO (1554): of the promise of the grace that is presented and applied [to them]

Direct dependence is indeed a possibility here, since Ursinus (1584, 344) had used the Examen as a textbook in his classes in Breslau and had even quoted its definition of a sacrament in 1559 in his theses defending Melanchthon’s position. The influence of the Lutheran tradition can also be seen in some of the themes and structure of the LC. In the first place, it is worth noting the reference to comfort in the opening question of the LC, “What firm comfort do you have in life and in death?” The term comfort actually appears only five more times in the LC’s 323 questions and answers (LC 64, 103, 110, 131, 141), and it is not connected to the structure of the document or designated as the main theme. Nevertheless, its inclusion in the very first question does give it a

16

Lyle D. Bierma

prominent place in the catechism, and the motif can still be found throughout the LC even though the term itself is not always used.11 This is an emphasis that had been more dominant in the Lutheran than in the Reformed theological tradition, and one to which Ursinus had likely been exposed at the feet of his boyhood teachers Moibanus and Melanchthon. In Melanchthon’s Examen ordinandorum in particular, comfort as the assurance of salvation is a common and pervasive term, occurring more than fifty times throughout the document.12 Another aspect of the LC that betrays its Lutheran heritage is the law-gospel dialectic built into the structure of the catechism. In LC 9 we learn that Christian doctrine consists of four basic parts: “the summary of the divine law, or Decalogue; the summary of the gospel, or Apostles’ Creed; the invocation of God, or the Lord’s Prayer; and the institution of the ministry of the church.” These four elements form the basic divisions of the rest of the catechism: law, gospel, prayer, and the ministry of the church. Actually, the structure is law–gospel–law–prayer–ministry, since Ursinus expounds on good works as the fruit of faith in a long exposition of the Decalogue between the sections on the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer (LC 148 – 223). Nonetheless, he places his initial treatment of the law (in its summary) before his treatment of the gospel (in the creed) and in such a way that it stands in stark contrast with the gospel. The law requires our perfect obedience; the gospel reveals how Christ has met that requirement. The law shows us the sinful state into which we have fallen; the gospel shows us how we are delivered from sin and death. The law threatens eternal punishment to those who disobey ; the gospel promises eternal life to those who believe (LC 10, 35, 36). Ursinus sharpens this polarity with a further contrast between the natural covenant and the covenant of grace. The law contains the natural covenant, established by God with humanity in creation; the gospel contains the covenant of grace, established by God with humanity in redemption (LC 10, 35, 36). Covenant, as we will see, was a concept with roots in the Reformed tradition, but here Ursinus connects it to the more Lutheran dialectic of law and gospel that shapes the first two sections of the LC. 4.2 Zurich Nowhere in the LC do we find any obvious verbal parallels to texts from the Zurich tradition, but one of the noteworthy features of the LC is, as we have just seen, its teaching on covenant, both the covenant of grace and what Ursinus calls the “covenant … in creation” or “natural covenant.” The doctrine of the covenant of grace owes its origins and most extensive 11 For just a few examples, see LC 35, 38, 68, 78, 88, 97, 101, 112, 127, 130, 219. 12 For an overview of this theme in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions and examples of it in Melanchthon’s Examen, see Bierma: 2013, ch. 2.

Ursinus and the Theological Landscape of the Heidelberg Catechism

17

development in early Reformed theology to Zwingli, and especially to Bullinger (1534), who had written the first full-length treatise on covenant. Bullinger had also “built his entire concept of Christian society and ethics on the covenant idea,” and “interpreted the entire experience of God’s people within the context of the covenant theme” (Baker : 1980, 141). Ursinus likely learned this doctrine from his teacher Bullinger and, to a lesser extent, from Calvin and Vermigli. The concept of a natural covenant, however, was original with him, and although the idea may reflect the influence of Melanchthon or Calvin,13 the term itself first appeared in Protestant theological literature in Ursinus’s LC. Two key questions concerning Ursinus’s covenant doctrine are, first, what role it plays in the theology of the LC as a whole and, second, why it virtually disappeared from the SC and HC so soon after the LC was composed. First of all, did Ursinus, as August Lang (1907, LXIV) claimed, place the covenant idea at the very foundation of the LC, or even, as Cornelis Graafland (Graafland: 1994, 2:13) alleged, assign it a “structurally determinative” role in the document? At first glance, this might appear to be the case, especially because Ursinus introduces the covenant theme into the very first answer of the catechism: Q. What firm comfort do you have in life and in death? A. That … out of his infinite and gracious mercy God received me into his covenant of grace… . It is also that he sealed this, his covenant, in my heart by his Spirit …; by his Word; and by the visible signs of this covenant. (emphasis added)

Ursinus also refers to covenant in the introductory questions or answers that lead off each of the four major divisions of the LC. The divine law “teaches the kind of covenant that God established with mankind in creation, how he managed in keeping it, and what God requires of him after establishing a new covenant of grace with him” (LC 10). The gospel teaches “what God promises us in his covenant of grace, how we are received into it, and how we know we are in it” (LC 35). Prayer is a necessary part of the Christian life for three reasons: First, because it is among the most important parts of the worship of God that the covenant of grace requires of us. Second, because this is the way God wants the elect to acquire and retain … the grace of the Holy Spirit necessary for keeping his covenant… . Third, because it is a testimony in their hearts to the divine covenant. (LC 224)

And God instituted the ministry of the church “so that through it he might receive us into his covenant, keep us in it, and really convince us that we are and forever will remain in it” (LC 265). At other points in the document Ursinus relates covenant also to such topics as our incorporation into Christ 13 For a summary of this debate about influences, see Lillback: 2001, 276 – 282.

18

Lyle D. Bierma

(LC 2 – 3), the comparison between Old and New Testaments (LC 33), the difference between law and gospel (LC 36), Christ as Mediator (LC 72 – 74), the sacrifice of Christ (LC 87), the preaching of the Word (LC 272), and the sacraments and church discipline (twenty times throughout LC 274 – 323). The argument that covenant plays a constitutive role in the LC, however, must reckon with the fact that the word covenant appears in only forty of its 323 questions and answers, just twelve percent of the total, and that the natural covenant is mentioned only three times (LC 10, 36, 135). Furthermore, in the key questions where Ursinus introduces the structure and major topics of the catechism (LC 8 – 9), he does not refer to covenant at all. As we have already seen, he does integrate it into the questions and answers that lead off each major section of the LC, but he usually then proceeds through the section itself with no further mention of the topic. In his treatment of the Decalogue (LC 148 – 223), for example, there is a stretch of seventy-three questions and answers—the entire exposition of the Ten Commandments!—where the term covenant never appears. In fact, most of the references to covenant in the LC are found in just two theological contexts, the doctrines of the gospel and of the sacraments, the same two contexts where it would later appear in Ursinus’s catechetical lectures on dogmatics. This last point is important because it is part of an answer to the question about the alleged receding of the covenant idea in Ursinus’s later catechisms. If Sturm is right that the LC was written after the SC and not before, then covenant is actually something that Ursinus added to his theology in the LC, not something that he removed in the SC. The fact that he also inserted an excursus on covenant into his later catechetical lectures indicates that this was a doctrine that in his more technical theological works, at least, was there to stay, even though it did not serve as the foundational or organizing principle of his system of theology (Ursinus: 1616, 96 – 100). That covenant played only a minor role in the SC and HC, even while it was a fixture on the theological landscape around them, can be explained by the fact that they were composed as lay catechisms, one a draft and the other the finished product, for the catechizing of youth and untutored adults in the Palatinate schools and churches. A state catechism for a general audience was not the place to unveil a fledgling Reformed doctrine like covenant, especially one that could prove unpalatable to Lutherans in what was still an officially Lutheran territory. 4.3 Geneva Direct reliance of the LC on sources from Geneva can perhaps best be demonstrated by the long list of linguistic parallels between the LC and Calvin’s Genevan Catechism (GC) of 1542 (French) and 1545 (Latin), which Ursinus was translating into German around the very time he was working on the LC and HC. We will limit ourselves to a small sampling of these parallels

Ursinus and the Theological Landscape of the Heidelberg Catechism

19

from the LC’s and GC’s expositions of the Apostles’ Creed, Ten Commandments, and Lord’s Prayer. In his explanation of the creed, first of all, Ursinus answers the question “Why did [Christ] ascend into heaven?” with five reasons, the last two of which are as follows: “Fourth, so that he might testify that the gates of heaven have been thrown open also for us… . Fifth, so that as intercessor and advocate he might prepare a place for us in the presence of God” (LC 96). This response echoes closely the twofold answer Calvin (1954, 101) gives to the same question in GC 77: “[Christ] opens up for us a way there; so that the gate is now open to us… . Then, too, he appears before God as intercessor and advocate on our behalf.” In his exposition of the second commandment of the Decalogue (the LC follows the Reformed, not Lutheran, ordering of the commandments), Ursinus responds to the question “Why doesn’t God want to be portrayed in visible form?” by saying that because God is “an eternal and incomprehensible spirit, every representation of him in corporeal, corruptible, mortal form is a lie about God” (LC 166). Once again, this is very close to Calvin’s answer (1954, 109) in GC 145: “Because there is no resemblance between him, who is Spirit eternal and incomprehensible, and corporeal, corruptible, and dead figures.” Furthermore, in his treatment of the fourth commandment, Ursinus states that corporate worship on the Sabbath Day is a time for three things: “the true doctrine about God is taught and learned, the sacraments are rightly administered and used, and public invocation of and confession to God are made” (LC 186). This is almost a direct quotation from GC 183, where Calvin encourages the people of God “to attend the sacred assemblies for the hearing of the Word of God, the celebration of the mysteries, and the regular prayers as they will be ordained” (Calvin: 1954, 113). Finally, in his explanation of the Lord’s Prayer, Ursinus defines “daily bread” as “whatever is necessary to maintain the present life” (LC 250), again an almost verbatim quotation from GC 275: “whatever contributes to the preservation of the present life” (Calvin: 1954, 126). In addition, in the sixth petition, according to Ursinus, we are praying “that God outfit us with the power of his Spirit against the Devil and our flesh, so that we not fall into sin” (LC 259); according to Calvin (1954, 128), it is “that the Lord do not permit us either to rush or to fall into sin; that he do not allow us to be overcome by the devil, or by desires of the flesh” (GC 289). And Ursinus and Calvin respond with almost identical answers to the question of how God can lead someone into temptation when that is usually thought of as the work of the devil: LC 261: those whom God wishes to punish he deprives of his grace, strikes with blindness, and hands over to the Devil. GC 293: those whom [God] intends to punish he not only leaves destitute of his grace, but even hands over to the tyranny of Satan, [and] strikes with blindness. (Calvin: 1954, 128)

20

Lyle D. Bierma

Beyond the many verbal parallels between the LC and GC, however, are there any larger Calvinian footprints in the theology of the LC? Could one point, for example, to the way the LC treats the doctrine of predestination? Probably not. The words elect or elected appear 21 times in the text of the LC but never the words predestination or reprobate. Only once does Ursinus refer to “those who are not elected to eternal life” and this is in the context of a question about the impact of the gifts of the Holy Spirit on those in the church who are not saints (LC 111). He does speak in two questions of those whom God has elected “from eternity,” but he does not go beyond that to posit an eternal decree in which election and reprobation are rooted. Even in his discussion of the assurance of election (LC 219), he points only to the experience of faith as evidence that one is elect, not, as Calvin does, to Christ as the mirror of election (see Calvin’s Institutes 3.14.5). Another possible trace of Calvin’s influence is in the LC’s use of the terms “instruments” to describe the sacraments in general (LC 278) and “substance of Christ” to explain what is communicated to believers in the Lord’s Supper (LC 300), both of which were characteristic of Calvin’s, over against Bullinger’s, way of speaking about the sacraments.14 Perhaps the clearest Calvinian footprints in the theology of the LC, however, are found, once again, in the list of verbal parallels between the LC and GC in two doctrines that were original with and unique to Calvin—the threefold office of Christ and Christ’s descent into hell on the cross. With respect to the threefold office, Calvin (1954, 95) responds to the question “What force then has the name Christ?” with “It signifies that he is anointed by His Father to be King, Priest, and Prophet” (GC 34). Ursinus’s answer to the corresponding question in the LC is virtually identical: “That he was anointed by the Father as prophet, priest, and king” (LC 59). But the similarity does not stop there. Both Calvin (1954, 95) and Ursinus understand this christening as an anointing with the Holy Spirit (GC 36; LC 60), both speak of the priestly office as having an intercessory and sacrificial dimension (GC 38; LC 62), and both see Christ in his prophetic role as bringing to fulfillment the prophecies of the Old Testament (GC 39; LC 61). There is also a striking similarity in their interpretation of the clause in the Apostles’ Creed concerning Christ’s descent into hell. According to Calvin (1954, 99 f), Christ literally went through hell on the cross as he experienced “the pains of death,” agonies of soul, and “torment of conscience” in the face of the wrath of God against human sin (GC 65 – 70). Ursinus, too, talks of the “pains of death and horror of God’s wrath” that Christ “experienced in his soul and conscience” as he was dying (LC 84). Calvin and Ursinus also wrestle in this context with the trinitarian conundrum created by the fact that on the cross Christ, who is God, is also forsaken by God. Both Calvin (1954, 99) and 14 Cf. Calvin: 1954, 137 (GC 353). Neuser : 1964, 311 n. 12 notes that in 1557 Bullinger strongly rejected “substance” terminology when Beza, with Calvin’s approval, employed it in a proposed formula of unity.

Ursinus and the Theological Landscape of the Heidelberg Catechism

21

Ursinus limit this experience to Christ’s human nature: for Calvin “[Christ’s] divinity was for a short while concealed, that is, it did not exercise its power” (GC 68); for Ursinus, God “hid his favor and help for a time” (LC 85).

5. Conclusion: The Larger Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism It is not the purpose of this essay to examine the relationship between the texts of the LC and the HC; our task has been only to determine from the LC where Ursinus stood on the theological landscape of the HC in the early 1560s. What we have found is that the three Protestant traditions in which Ursinus had been schooled—Melanchthonian, Bullingerian, and Calvinian—all left distinctive traces in the text and theology of the LC. Nevertheless, because the LC and HC were virtually contemporaneous documents, we will conclude with a few brief reflections on the possible connections between them, particularly when it comes to the theme of this conference, the spirituality of the HC. First, the Lutheran, and especially Melanchthonian, emphasis on the comfort of the gospel that we encounter in LC 1 emerges in the HC in a more strategic role: it provides the theme and sets the pastoral tone for the entire catechism. What is also worth noting, however, is that even though the term comfort appears only six times each in the LC and the HC, four of these occurrences are in the same theological contexts in both documents, and three of those four have no parallel references to comfort in the SC, the primary base text for the HC.15 Whether the LC influenced the HC here or vice-versa, the Melanchthonian theme of comfort clearly had an impact on both—in fact, on the HC at the very center of its theology and piety. Second, the Reformed, especially Bullingerian, doctrine of covenant has a much lower profile in the HC than in the LC—for reasons that we have already explained. Nonetheless, Ursinus’s references to covenant in the LC allow us to interpret parallel passages in the HC covenantally, even though the word itself does not appear in those passages. In HC 1, for example, we learn that our only comfort in life and in death is that we belong to Jesus Christ, who, among other things, has fully paid for all our sins and by his Holy Spirit assures us of eternal life. Covenant is not mentioned here, nor is it in the parallel passage in Luther’s Small Catechism from which this part of HC 1 seems to be derived (Luther : 2000, 355). LC 1, however, answers almost the identical question about our comfort in life and death in covenantal language: our comfort is that God receives us into his covenant of grace, grants us the benefits of Christ’s work, and seals that covenant in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. The comfort of belonging to Christ, therefore, that Ursinus highlights in HC 1 can be read 15 Cf. LC 1, 103, 110, 131; HC 1, 52, 53, 58; and SC 1, 52, 53, 58.

22

Lyle D. Bierma

through the lens of LC 1 as the comfort of being in covenant with God, of experiencing the security and dependability of a covenant relationship. Finally, two of the distinctive Calvinian doctrines in the LC, Christ’s threefold office and his descent into hell on the cross, are both found in the HC as well, not just in their theological content but also in the applications of these doctrines to the practice of the Christian life. To cite just one example, in LC 64 Ursinus notes that believers are made prophets, priests, and kings with Christ. As priests we “offer ourselves and all that is ours as thank offerings to God,” and as kings we “have dominion with him over all creatures for eternity.” The wording is remarkably similar to HC 32: as one who is a member of Christ and thus shares in his anointing, I am, as priest, “to present myself to him as a living sacrifice of thanks,” and as king “to reign with Christ over all creation for eternity (Christian Reformed Church: 2013, 80). These are but a few of many examples that could be cited of possible crossfertilization between the LC and HC. What they all demonstrate is not only that Ursinus’s place on the landscape of the HC was molded by the traditions of Wittenberg, Zurich, and Geneva but also that, through his mediation, those same traditions helped to shape the theological and spiritual topography of the Heidelberg Catechism itself.

Bibliography Alting, Heinrich (1646), Scriptorum theologicorum Heidelbergensium tomus tertius, continens Explicationem Catechesos Palatinae, Amsterdam. – (1701), Historia ecclesiae Palatinae, in Ludwig Christian Mieg, Monumenta pietatis et litteraria virorum in re publica et litteraria illustrium selecta, Frankfurt: Sande. Baker, J. Wayne (1980), Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition, Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Benrath, Gustav A. (1963), Die Eigenart der Pfälzischen Reformation und die Vorgeschichte des Heidelberger Katechismus, Heidelberger Jahrbücher 7, 13 – 32. – (1983), Zacharias Ursinus als Mensch, Christ und Theologe, Reformierte Kirchenzeitung 124, 154 – 158. Bierma, Lyle D. (1982), Olevianus and the Authorship of the Heidelberg Catechism: Another Look, The Sixteenth Century Journal 13/4, 17 – 27. – (2005a), The Purpose and Authorship of the Heidelberg Catechism, in: Lyle D. Bierma, An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 49 – 74. – (2005b), Translations of Ursinus’s Catechisms, in: Lyle D. Bierma, An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 137 – 223.

Ursinus and the Theological Landscape of the Heidelberg Catechism

23

– (2013), The Theology of the Heidelberg Catechism: A Reformation Synthesis, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology, Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Bouwmeester, G. (1954), Zacharias Ursinus en de Heidelbergse Catechismus, The Hague: Willem de Zwijgerstichting. Bullinger, Heinrich (1534), De testamento seu foedere dei unico & aeterno Heinrychi Bullingeri brevis expositio, Zürich: Froschouer. Calvin, John (1954), The Catechism of the Church of Geneva, in: J.K.S. Reid (ed.), Calvin: Theological Treatises, The Library of Christian Classics 22, Philadelphia: Westminster. Christian Reformed Church in North America (2013), Our Faith: Ecumenical Creeds, Reformed Confessions, and Other Resources, Grand Rapids: Faith Alive Christian Resources. Gerobulus, Johannes (1603), Waerachtich verhael van den staet der Gereformeerde Kercke, Utrecht: Jan Willemszoon van Rhenen. Goeters, J.F.G. (1963), Entstehung und Frühgeschichte des Katechismus, in: Lothar Coenen (ed.), Handbuch zum Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 3 – 23. Good, James I. (1914), The Heidelberg Catechism in Its Newest Light, Philadelphia: Publication and Sunday School Board of the Reformed Church in the United States. Gooszen, Maurits (1890), De Heidelbergsche Catechismus: textus receptus met toelichtenden teksten, Leiden: Brill. Graafland, Cornelis (1994), Van Calvijn tot Comrie: Oorsprong en ontwikkeling van de leer van het verbond in het Gereformeerd Protestantisme, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Gunnoe, Charles D. Jr. (2005), The Reformation of the Palatinate and the Origins of the Heidelberg Catechism, 1500 – 1562, in: Lyle D. Bierma (ed.), An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 15 – 47. Henss, Walter (1983), Der Heidelberger Katechismus im konfessionspolitischen Kräftespiel seiner Frühzeit, Zurich: Theologischer Verlag. Hollweg, Walter (1961), Bearbeitete Caspar Olevianus den deutschen Text des Heidelberger Katechismus?, in: Neue Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Heidelberger Katechismus, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche, vol. 13, Neukirchen, 124 – 152. Klooster, Fred H. (1986), The Priority of Ursinus in the Composition of the Heidelberg Catechism, in: Derk Visser (ed.), Controversy and Conciliation: The Reformation and the Palatinate 1559 – 83, Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 73 – 100. Lang, August (1907), Der Heidelberger Katechismus und vier verwandte Katechismen, Leipzig: Deichert. Lillback, Peter A. (2001), The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

24

Lyle D. Bierma

Luther, Martin (2000), The Small Catechism, in: Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (ed.), The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Minneapolis: Fortress, 345 – 375. Melanchthon, Philippus (1855), Examen Ordinandorum [1554], in: C.G. Bretschneider and H.E. Bindseil (eds.), Philippi Melanthonis opera quae supersunt omnia, vol. 23, Corpus Reformatorum, reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1963. – (1955), Examen ordinandorum 1552, in: Robert Stupperich (ed.), Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, vol. 6, Bekenntnisse und kleine Lehrschriften, ed. Robert Stupperich, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. Metz, Wulf (1970), Necessitas satisfactionis? Eine systematische Studie zu den Fragen 12 – 18 des Heidelberger Katechismus und zur Theologie des Zacharias Ursinus, Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag. Muller, Richard A. (1986), Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins, Durham, NC: Labyrinth. Neuser, Wilhelm H. (1964), Die Erwählungslehre im Heidelberger Katechismus, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 75, 309 – 326. – (1979), Die Väter des Heidelberger Katechismus, Theologische Zeitschrift 35, 177 – 199. Richards, George W. (1913), The Heidelberg Catechism: Historical and Doctrinal Studies, Philadelphia: Publication and Sunday School Board of the Reformed Church in the United States. Staedtke, Joachim (1965), Entstehung und Bedeutung des Heidelberger Katechismus, in: W. Herrenbruck and U. Smidt (eds.), Warum wirst du ein Christ Genannt?, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 11 – 23. Sturm, Erdmann (1972), Der junge Zacharias Ursinus: Sein Weg vom Philippismus zum Calvinismus, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Sudhoff, Karl (1857), C. Olevianus und Z. Ursinus: Leben und ausgewählte Schriften, Elberfeld: Friderichs. Ursinus, Zacharias (1584), Theses complectentes breviter et perspicue summam verae Doctrinae de Sacramentis, in: Zachariae Ursini … volumen tractationum theologicarum, 2 vols., Neustadt: Harnisch, 1:339 – 382. – (1612), D. Zachariae Ursini … Opera theologica, ed. Quirinus Reuter, Heidelberg: Lancellot. – (1616), Corpus doctrinae orthodoxae, Geneva: Samuel Crespin, English Translation: The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard, Cincinnati: Bucher, 1851; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954. Visser, Derk (1983), Zacharias Ursinus: The Reluctant Reformer–His Life and Times, New York: United Church.

Andreas Mühling

Caspar Olevian und die Einführung des Heidelberger Katechismus

Der junge, 23-jährige Trierer Jurist Caspar Olevian wurde Ende 1559, als Folge der Niederschlagung jener von ihm angeführten evangelischen Bewegung in seiner Heimatstadt, nach mehrwöchiger Haft des Landes verwiesen (vgl. hierzu insg. Franz: 2009). Doch er blieb nicht lange ohne eine Beschäftigung. Graf Valentin von Erbach erkannte scharfsinnig die hohen juristischen, theologischen und organisatorischen Fähigkeiten und warb ihn deshalb rasch in den kurpfälzischen Dienst an. „Noch zur selben Zeit“, erinnerte sich Piscator (1994, 25), „als Doktor Olevian noch im Gefängnis saß, hat der kurfürstliche Gesandte Valentin Graf zu Erbach ihn im Namen des Kurfürsten Friedrich in den kurfürstlichen Dienst berufen und Olevian auch gleich mit sich nach Heidelberg geführt. Dies geschah im Jahr 1560.“ Ein zur selben Zeit vom Pfalz-Zweibrücker Herzog Wolfgang an ihn gerichtetes Angebot, umgehend in seinen Dienst treten zu können, schlug Olevian umgehend aus. So erschien er zusammen mit dem ehemaligen Metzer Prediger de Cologne in Heidelberg und wurde dort am 22. Februar 1560 an der Universität immatrikuliert (Mühling: 2009a, 48). Die Wahl zwischen der Kurpfalz und der Pfälzer Nebenlinie Pfalz-Zweibrücken wird Olevian nicht schwergefallen sein. Um nachvollziehen zu können, in welcher kirchenpolitischen Lage sich dieses bedeutende Territorium befand, als Olevian in Heidelberg zu leben und zu arbeiten begann, ist an dieser Stelle ein Exkurs zur kirchenpolitischen Entwicklung der Kurpfalz notwendig (vgl. hierzu Mühling: 2009b; Ehmann: 2013). Im Jahr 1559 starb der lutherische Pfälzer Kurfürst Ottheinrich überraschend. Die konfessionell nicht ausdifferenzierte Haltung des Kurfürsten trug nach seinem frühen Tod zur weiteren Entwicklung in der Kurpfalz maßgeblich bei (Engehausen: 2013). Ottheinrich hatte kirchenpolitische Grundentscheidungen getroffen, die den Gang der kommenden Ereignisse wesentlich beeinflussten. Zudem zeigte sich, dass die „Unfertigkeit des gesamten pfälzischen Kirchenwesens“, so ein Diktum des Reformationshistorikers Gustav Adolf Benrath,1 die Hinwendung der Kurpfalz zum reformierten Bekenntnis erheblich erleichterte. Denn das nur in Ansätzen ausgebildete reformierte Beziehungsnetz in Heidelberg hielt nach dem Tod Ottheinrichs. So erwies sich—wie sich rasch zeigen sollte—der Regierungsantritt des neuen Kur1 Zitiert nach Press: 1970, 220.

26

Andreas Mühling

fürsten Friedrich im Jahr 1559 für die Zürcher als ein unverhoffter Glücksfall. Denn als lutherischer Regent trat Friedrich Ende 1559 in Heidelberg sein neues Amt als Kurfürst an—und ließ zugleich die kleine reformierte Gruppe um den Diakon Wilhelm Klebitz, der als Hauptkontrahent des lutherischen Superintendenten Tileman Heshusen galt, Dr. Christoph v. Ehem, Thomas Erast, Stefan Zirler und Petrus Boquin, unangetastet. Im Laufe des Jahres 1560, Olevian lebte erst wenige Wochen in Heidelberg, begann sich ohne seine Mitwirkung in der Pfalz das Kräfteverhältnis zugunsten der Reformierten zu verschieben. Der endgültige Durchbruch zur reformierten Lehre vollzog sich nach der „Heidelberger Disputation“ vom 3. Juni 1560. Die Pfälzer Vertreter Erast und Boquin vertraten bei dieser Disputation in Anwesenheit des Kurfürsten gegenüber den Vertretern des sächsischen Herzogs Johann Friedrich eine ausgesprochen reformierte Abendmahlsposition. Nun geriet die konfessionelle Situation in der Kurpfalz in große Bewegung. Der Kurfürst führte im Dezember 1561 den reformierten Abendmahlsbrauch des Brotbrechens statt der Verwendung von Oblaten ein. Zugleich wurden personelle Verschiebungen in der Führungsschicht vorgenommen. Führende Lutheraner wie Heshusen und seine politischen Parteigänger quittierten den Dienst oder wurden mit weiteren lutherischen Pfarrern entlassen. Statt der früheren Generalsuperintendenten berief Friedrich III. einen Kirchenrat aus Theologen und kurfürstlichen Räten. Die freigewordenen Stellen wurden vom Kurfürsten durchweg mit Anhängern Bullingers und Calvins besetzt. Caspar Olevian, Zacharias Ursinus (1534 – 1583), Emanuel Tremelius (1510 – 1580) und nicht zuletzt der mit von Ehem verwandte und mit Olevian befreundete Wenzel Zuleger—dieser wurde neunundzwanzigjährig zum Kirchenratspräsident bestellt—fanden in Heidelberg beruflich verantwortungsvolle Positionen (Mühling: 2009b). Das Jahr 1561 brachte für die Reformierten weitere erfreuliche Fortschritte. Seitdem der Bullinger-Vertraute und Medizinprofessor Erast Mitglied des Kirchenrats geworden war, nahm der Einfluss Bullingers auf die pfälzische Kirche deutlich zu. Nach Einschätzung des Erast befand sich das Pfälzer Kirchenwesen schon zu diesem frühen Zeitpunkt in einem erfreulichen Zustand. Tatsächlich schätzte der Kurfürst Bullinger und las seine theologischen Schriften. Der Zürcher galt am Hof als unanfechtbare Autorität und galt in den Jahren bis 1566 als wichtigster theologischer Berater des Kurfürsten. Der Zürcher informierte Friedrich III. über die politische Lage in Europa, beriet ihn beim Ausbau des Pfälzer Kirchenwesens und lieferte bereitwillig theologische Schützenhilfe gegen die lutherischen Stände und ihre Vertreter, allen voran Brenz und Andreae, die den Pfälzern weiterhin schwer zu schaffen machten. Auch bei der Abfassung der berühmtesten deutschsprachigen reformierten Bekenntnisschrift, dem noch heute von zahlreichen reformierten Gemeinden verwendeten Heidelberger Katechismus, stand der Zürcher als geistiger Mentor indirekt Pate. Die bislang weithin nur wenig beachtete Tat-

Caspar Olevian und die Einführung des Heidelberger Katechismus

27

sache, dass nämlich Bullinger in diesen Jahren höchsten kirchenpolitischen Einfluss in der Kurpfalz nicht nur beim Kurfürsten besessen hatte, ist daher bei der Frage nach der Zielsetzung des Heidelberger Katechismus zu berücksichtigen (Mühling: 2001, 97 – 104). Zurück zu Olevian: Nach dem maßgeblich von Olevian initiierten, jedoch fehlgeschlagenen Trierer Reformationsversuch wurde der aus seiner Heimatstadt verwiesene Olevian bereits im Januar 1560 in den kurpfälzischen Dienst nach Heidelberg berufen, zunächst als Leiter der Theologenburse, ab 1561 als Professor für Dogmatik und Doktor der Theologie an der Theologischen Fakultät. Es hat den Anschein, als genügte die kurze theologische Ausbildung, die Olevian absolviert hatte, den akademischen Anforderungen wohl noch nicht ganz—bereits 1562 überließ er bereitwillig Ursinus den Dogmatik-Lehrstuhl an der Universität und zog es lieber vor, das Amt eines Pfarrers an St. Peter und die Position eines Ersten Theologischen Rates im Kurpfälzischen Kirchenrat, der leitenden Kirchenbehörde in Heidelberg, zu übernehmen (Mühling 2009a, 60ff). Dieser Schritt stellte keinesfalls eine berufliche Verschlechterung dar. Im Gegenteil: Sein steiler beruflicher Aufstieg setzte sich weiter fort. Im Zeitraum von nur zwei Jahren hatte sich Olevian innerhalb des kirchlichen Führungszirkels der Kurpfalz rasch voran gearbeitet. Mit verantwortungsvollen Aufgaben betraut, zählte der Trierer zu den kirchenpolitischen Schlüsselfiguren innerhalb der ersten reformierten Landeskirche auf deutschem Boden. Tatsächlich entsprachen diese neuen Funktionen den organisatorischen Fähigkeiten Olevians weitaus mehr. Mit Blick auf die Notwendigkeit, in einem theologischen Lehramt dialogisch argumentieren zu müssen, urteilte selbst der gestrenge calvinistische Hofprediger Dathenus (um 1531 – 1588) über Olevian, dass er in der Lehre „zu intractabilis“ sei, also im Gespräch schwer zu behandeln wäre und zu unbeugsam auftreten würde (Press: 1970, 242). Doch angesichts der großen organisatorischen Anforderungen konnte diese charakterliche Eigenschaft dem Trierer Flüchtling nur nützlich sein. Die Ergebnisse der Forschungsdebatten der sechziger und siebziger Jahre über die Quellenlage und Autorschaft des Heidelberger Katechismus—Diskussionen, genährt nicht zuletzt aufgrund des Verlustes von zahlreichen Archivalien im Dreißigjährigem Krieg— sind mittlerweile Konsens in der Forschung geworden. Die ältere Forschung war noch fest davon überzeugt, dass lediglich Caspar Olevian als Verfasser dieser nicht nur für die Kurpfalz zentralen reformierten Bekenntnisschrift in Frage kommen konnte. Eine Überzeugung, die mittlerweile revidiert wurde. Als hauptverantwortlicher Verfasser wird heute nicht mehr Olevian, sondern Zacharias Ursinus betrachtet, der ab 1562 als Professor für Dogmatik in Heidelberg lebte. Ursinus hat wohl bei seiner Ausarbeitung—zwei Entwürfe zum Katechismus sind aus seiner Hand noch überliefert—auf Texte Melanchthons, insbesondere aber auch auf den in Heidelberg ins Deutsche übersetzten und dort auch publizierten Katechismus Theodor Bezas zurückgegriffen (vgl. Ehmann: 2012).

28

Andreas Mühling

Für die Endfassung des Katechismus war nun eine Kommission verantwortlich, die aus den Theologen der Universität und Vertretern des Kirchenrates bestand. Der Kirchenhistoriker J.F. Gerhard Goeters (2006, 89) konstatierte: Beteiligt war auch der Kurfürst in Person, der die Beigabe von Bibelstellen zum Katechismustext anordnete. Nicht länger haltbar ist die alte These, dass Olevian ein Mitverfasser des Katechismus gewesen sei, auch nicht die jüngere Hypothese, dass die Endfassung des deutschen Textes auf ihn zurückgehe. Olevian war ein Kommissionsmitglied unter anderen. Mit dem endgültigen Katechismus war er persönlich nicht zufrieden. Er hätte sich ihn calvinischer gewünscht. Als leitender Kirchenmann war er aber an der kirchlichen Einführung des Katechismus wesentlich beteiligt.

Soweit der Forschungsstand: In der Tat markiert die Veröffentlichung des Heidelberger Katechismus am 19. Januar 1563, an diesem Tage erließ der Kurfürst den Katechismus durch seine Unterschrift, eine öffentlich vorgetragene inhaltliche Kehrtwende der Kurpfalz. Diese theologische Neuorientierung findet durch die Aufnahme eben dieses Katechismus in der Pfälzer Kirchenordnung vom November 1563 ihre weitere Bestätigung. Denn Bestandteil dieser Kirchenordnung war auch eben jener—nun in dritter Auflage und mit der berühmten, auf den Kurfürsten und Olevian zurückgehenden Frage 80 ergänzten Katechismus, der die neue konfessionelle Haltung in der Bevölkerung festigen sollte. Ein kirchenpolitisch äußerst geschickter Schachzug der kurpfälzischen Politiker und Theologen. Dadurch, dass in der Kurpfalz kein reformierter Katechismus übernommen, sondern ein eigens für die Kurpfalz verfasster Katechismus eingeführt wurde, begab sich die Kurpfalz nicht unmittelbar in eine reichsrechtlich unhaltbare Position. Durch die Einführung des „Heidelberger Katechismus“ blieb den Kurpfälzern somit noch ein gewisser politischer Verhandlungsspielraum erhalten. Dennoch: Mit dieser Kirchenordnung vom 12. November 1563 wurde nicht zuletzt auch den Reichsständen endgültig offenbar, dass die Pfalz sich der reformierten Konfession zugewandt hatte. Doch was sind die Ziele und Motive, die sich mit dem Katechismus verbanden? Stellte seine Einführung lediglich ein politisches Versteckspiel dar, oder lassen sich weitere Beweggründe hierfür nennen (Mühling: 2009b, 8ff)? Friedrich III. nannte in seinem Vorwort zum Katechismus2 im Wesentlichen innenpolitische Motive für dieses Katechismusprojekt, und primär keine Gründe, die aus seiner persönlichen Frömmigkeit heraus gespeist wurden. Christliches Regiment wie weltliches Regiment können „keinen Bestand haben“, wenn es keine klaren ethischen Handlungsmaxime gäbe, so der Kurfürst. Lebten seine Untertanen „ohne Zucht, Ehrbarkeit und alle anderen 2 Text bei Neuser : 2009, 174 f.

Caspar Olevian und die Einführung des Heidelberger Katechismus

29

guten Tugenden“, könne sich die Kurpfalz politisch nicht behaupten: Eine Bildungsoffensive sei daher notwendig, in deren Zentrum insbesondere das Bemühen um die Jugend zu stehen habe. So ordne er zweierlei an: „An den Schulen und Kirchen“ der Kurpfalz habe nun ein Unterricht zu erfolgen, der sich inhaltlich nach dem neuen Katechismus zu richten habe. Zugleich werden die „Schulmeister und Prediger“ angewiesen, dass sie sich in Predigt, Unterricht und Lehre anhand des Katechismus „orientieren und darin selbst eine klare Vorgabe haben mögen.“ Hielten sich alle Beteiligten an die Anordnungen, dann sei—mit Gottes Hilfe—die Wohlfahrt des Landes sichergestellt. Kurzum: Dieser Katechismus soll, mit anderen Worten, durch eine ethische Grundlegung in Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kirche eine gesellschaftliche Normierung anstreben mit dem Ziel, einen „Modernisierungsschub“ im Herrschaftsgebiet, konkret in Universität, Schulwesen, Verwaltung, Wirtschaft, Armee und Kirchen, auszulösen. Dieser Gedanke, dass mit dem Katechismus und dem damit verbundenen Wertekanon eine einheitliche gesellschaftliche Neuorientierung und Ausrichtung innerhalb der Kurpfalz angestrebt wurde, findet seine Bestätigung eben nun genau darin, dass der Katechismus Ende 1563 integrativer Bestandteil der neuen—für die Untertanen ebenfalls verbindlichen—Pfälzer Kirchenordnung wurde. Über die außenpolitischen Ziele hingegen schwieg sich der Kurfürst aus: Die Forschung geht davon aus, dass der Katechismus im Wesentlichen aus politischen Überlegungen gegenüber den Reichsständen heraus in der Öffentlichkeit platziert wurde. Die Übernahme beispielsweise des Genfer Katechismus hätte nämlich jedermann vor Augen geführt, dass die Kurpfalz ins reformierte Lager gewechselt sei. Damit hätte sie ihren Gegnern umgehend rechtliche Angriffsflächen geboten (Mühling: 2003, 10 – 17). An dieser Argumentation ist inhaltlich sicher etwas dran. Doch wie wäre es, wenn Friedrich III. den Katechismus nicht als ein Dokument neuerwachten reformiert-konfessionellen Behauptungswillens, sondern als einen auf kirchenpolitischen und zugleich theologischen Ausgleich mit den Lutheranern angelegten Versöhnungsversuch verstanden hätte? In der Tat spricht einiges für diese Überlegung: Der Katechismus enthält sich gegenüber der lutherischen Theologie jeder Schärfe—die umstrittene Abendmahlsfrage wird mit Ausnahme eines Nebensatzes in Frage 78 auf Konsens hin dargestellt. Umstrittene Themen wie Kirchenzucht, Prädestination und Lehre von der Kirche fehlen im Heidelberger Katechismus weitgehend. Diese von Ursinus ausgearbeitete „irenische“ Grundhaltung des Katechismus, in der die konfessionellen Besonderheiten gegenüber dem Grundtenor evangelischen Glaubens und Lernens zurücktreten, war sicher politisch vom Kurfürsten so gewollt: Denn der zu dieser Zeit wichtige theologische Berater Friedrichs, eben der Zürcher Heinrich Bullinger, legte ihm „irenische“ Konzepte einer organisatorischen Union mit dem Lutheranern vor, die zu

30

Andreas Mühling

beiderseitigem politischem Nutzen der Reformierten und Lutheraner sein sollten.3 „Irenik“ meint hier das Bemühen von Politikern und Theologen, auf der Basis eines theologischen Minimalkonsenses zu einer kirchenpolitischen Einigung zu gelangen. Als entscheidend galt in dieser Argumentation die Suche nach einer gemeinsamen und auch tragfähigen Basis. Von dieser Basis aus konnten dann weitere theologische Differenzen unter den Konfessionen als „Adiaphora“, also als nicht „heilsnotwendige Mitteldinge“, interpretiert und abgehandelt werden. Auf diese Weise sollte auf der Reichsebene ein politisches Miteinander zwischen den reichsrechtlich anerkannten Lutheranern und den weiterhin als „Ketzer“ geltenden Reformierten ermöglicht werden. Die beiden, von tiefer Frömmigkeit erfüllten, äußerst versierten Kirchenpolitiker hatten nämlich eines erkannt—dass nur der kirchenpolitische Ausgleich mit den Lutheranern auf der theologischen Basis „irenischer“ Argumentation die Pfälzer Reformation, und somit die politische Herrschaft Friedrichs, zu retten vermag (Mühling: 2009b, 10). Allerdings sollte dieses angestrebte friedliche Miteinander nur für die Beziehungen der Reichsstände untereinander gelten. Die Lutheraner in der Kurpfalz hingegen wurden ausgewiesen oder hatten die reformierte Konfession anzunehmen. Denn nach Überzeugung des Kurfürsten schien die Modernisierung seines Territoriums eine konfessionell einheitliche Ausrichtung der Pfälzer Untertanen zu bedingen. Und da konnten Lutheraner nur hinderlich sein. Olevian war sich seines kirchenpolitischen Einflusses in der Kurpfalz, den er ab 1561 dort besaß, durchaus bewusst— und schon zu diesem frühen Zeitpunkt an fest entschlossen, die Genfer Kirchenlehre in der Kurpfalz verbindlich einführen zu wollen. Die ersten Meinungsverschiedenheiten in dieser Frage wird es schon vor 1566 in den Sitzungen des Kirchenrates gegeben haben. Doch es kam zu diesem Zeitpunkt noch nicht zum offenen Kampf, weil bei der politisch instabilen Lage der Kurpfälzer Kirche bis zum Reichstag von 1566 eine Lösung im Sinne der „Calvinisten“, also den Anhängern der in Genf praktizierten reformierten Konfession, undurchführbar war. Doch Olevian sollte sich mittelfristig durchsetzen Seit seiner Berufung in den Kirchenrat agierte er in Absprache mit Calvin und Beza intensiv zugunsten der Einführung einer Kirchenzucht Genfer Prägung. Er ließ in den Gesprächen sogar durchblicken, nicht mehr das Abendmahl spenden zu wollen, solange nicht eine Kirchenordnung nach Genfer Vorbild eingeführt worden sei. Im Kirchenrat protestierte lediglich der enge Vertraue Bullingers, der Mediziner Thomas Erast, der anfangs ein gutes Verhältnis zu Olevian unterhalten hatte, gegen diese von Olevian vertretenen Tendenzen. Vergeblich. Es gelang Olevian in dem Zeitraum von April 1560 bis zum September 1562, nahezu alle führenden Theologen und Kirchenpolitiker einschließlich des 3 Siehe hierzu auch Goeters: 1989, 304 f.

Caspar Olevian und die Einführung des Heidelberger Katechismus

31

Kurfürsten für die Genfer Kirchenzucht zu gewinnen (Mühling: 2009a, 62 – 66). Am 24. September 1562 vermeldete Olevian seinen Erfolg nach Genf und betonte in diesem Schreiben befriedigt, dass er den Kurfürsten für sich gewonnen hätte. Calvin antworte am 27. Oktober 1562 hoch erfreut, legte einen konkreten Vorschlag zur Einrichtung der kirchlichen Zuchtverfassung in der Kurpfalz vor, mahnte jedoch zur Mäßigung in dieser brisanten Angelegenheit. Und Vorsicht war vor dem Augsburger Reichstag des Jahres 1566 für die Pfälzer in der Tat geboten. Die Kurpfälzer Bestimmungen aus den Jahren 1563 und 1564, die die Ordnung der Kirche zu regeln hatten, suchten dieser Gefahr geschickt Rechnung zu tragen. Ordnete noch die Kirchenordnung sowie der in ihr integrierte Heidelberger Katechismus aus dem Jahr 1563 die Disziplinierung der Sünder dem Aufgabenbereich der Kirche zu, trug die Kirchenratsordnung von 1564 hingegen dadurch den gegebenen Verhältnissen Rechnung, indem nun eine obrigkeitliche Polizeigewalt postuliert wurde. Nicht ein Presbyterium, sondern letztlich die Obrigkeit hatte jetzt die Ordnung in der Kirche sicherzustellen. In dieser widersprüchlichen Grundhaltung lag jedoch der Keim jenes heftigen Konflikts, der ab 1568 in der Kurpfalz ausbrechen sollte (vgl. zum folgenden Mühling: 2009a, 64 – 80). Olevian nahm sich ab 1562 tatkräftig der Leitung und Gestaltung des reformierten Kirchenwesens in der Kurpfalz an. Unablässig bedrängte Olevian den Kurfürsten, die ersten Ansätze zur Kirchenzucht im Sinne Genfs entschlossen weiterzuentwickeln. In der Einführung und Durchsetzung der Kirchenordnung sowie des Heidelberger Katechismus lag in jenen Jahren sein eigentliches Aufgabenfeld. Dieser Durchsetzung der neuen Lehre und Ordnung anhand des Heidelberger Katechismus diente auch eine im Jahr 1564 von Olevian initiierte und wesentlich von ihm durchgeführte Landesvisitation— eine wirkungsvolle Maßnahme, die er in Nassau-Dillenburg wiederholen sollte. Zudem widmete sich Olevian tatkräftig in Predigten und Schriften der theologischen Verteidigung und dem organisatorischen Ausbau der Heidelberger Kirche. Seine vier Abendmahlspredigten, in denen er nicht nur die Hörerinnen und Hörer auf die neue Liturgie und Abendmahlspraxis einzustimmen suchte, sondern zugleich auch die neue Abendmahlstheologie zu verteidigen suchte, fanden eine hohe Resonanz in der Bevölkerung. Ende 1563 erschienen diese Predigten in Buchform, bereits 1564 war eine Neuauflage notwendig geworden. Auch außerhalb der Kurpfalz wurden diese Predigten aufmerksam gelesen. Der bekannte lutherische Theologe Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520 – 1575), ein vehementer Streiter für die lutherische Orthodoxie, wurde durch Olevians Predigten regelrecht provoziert. Illyricus fühlte sich genötigt, bereits 1564 öffentlich in einer „Widerlegung vier Predigten eines Sakramentierers mit Zunamen Olevians“ vor Olevian warnen zu müssen. Diesem Werk trat nun

32

Andreas Mühling

seinerseits Olevian im März 1565 mit seiner Streitschrift, dem Libell „Hauptursachen allen Irrtums im Heiligen Abendmahl“, vehement entgegen.4 Olevian gehörte neben Ursinus und anderen Theologen auch zu jener Pfälzer Delegation, die vom 10. bis 16. April 1564 mit Württemberger Theologen, darunter den einflussreichen Johannes Brenz (1499 – 1570) und Jacob Andreae (1528 – 1590), über umstrittene Abendmahlsfragen diskutierten. Es war der letzte Versuch zwischen dem reichspolitisch ambitionierten lutherischen Herzogtum Württemberg und der reformierten Kurpfalz, auf dem Wege über die theologische Einigung in dieser Frage eine neue gemeinsame politische Basis zu finden. Ergebnislos. Die Disputanten einigten sich nicht. Das politische Band zwischen Württemberg und der Kurpfalz war seitdem endgültig zerschnitten. Wie kommentierte Bullinger die Bemühungen Olevians in den Jahren bis 1566? Mit großem Wohlwollen. Die drei erhalten gebliebenen Briefe Olevians aus den Jahren 1563 und 1564, Olevian bat in seinen Schreiben den Zürcher um eine kollegiale Beratung in der umstrittenen Abendmahlsauseinandersetzung, zeichnen sich durch Respekt und hohe Wertschätzung Bullinger gegenüber aus. Der Zürcher äußerte sich wiederholt in Gesprächen und Briefen positiv über Olevian und lobte seinen hohen Einsatz für die Pfälzer Kirche überaus. Die ab 1566 ausbrechenden schweren Konflikte zwischen Olevian und Bullinger waren für Bullinger zu dieser noch nicht zu erkennen. Damit ist die kirchenpolitische Haltung Olevians in diesen Jahren deutlich: In hoher Loyalität zum Kurfürsten trug Olevian dessen kirchenpolitische Grundhaltung eines Ausgleiches mit den Lutheranern auf Reichsebene mit. Der Heidelberger Katechismus sollte den theologischen Nachweis hierfür erbringen. Zugleich kritisierte Olevian scharf die Versuche insbesondere Württemberger Theologen, die Kurpfälzer Kirche insgesamt als „ketzerisch“—und damit außerhalb des Religionsfriedens stehend—zu bezeichnen. Die heftigen Angriffe Olevians auf die Zürcher Kirche—diese fanden ihren Höhepunkt zu Beginn der siebziger Jahre—sollten das ihre dazu beitragen, reichspolitisch weiterhin als Augsburger Konfessionsverwandt zu gelten. Auch innenpolitisch folgte Olevian loyal seinem Landesherrn—nicht zuletzt durch die ab 1564 vom ihm durchgeführten Visitationen trug Olevian maßgeblich zur Verbreitung des Heidelberger Katechismus in der Kurpfalz bei. Und dies sicher auch in der Hoffnung, dass sich die innenpolitischen, nicht zuletzt auch wirtschaftlichen Ziele realisieren ließen (Mühling: 2012, 54).

4 Vgl. auch mit Blick auf den Heidelberger Katechismus Dingel: 2013.

Caspar Olevian und die Einführung des Heidelberger Katechismus

33

Literatur Dingel, Irene (2013), Der Heidelberger Katechismus in den konfessionellen Debatten des 16. Jahrhunderts, in: Karla Apperloo-Boersma/Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Macht des Glaubens. 450 Jahre Heidelberger Katechismus, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 41–51. Ehmann, Johannes (2012), Von Breslau in die Pfalz—die Wege des Zacharias Ursinus, in: Martin Heimbucher e.a. (ed.), Zugänge zum Heidelberger Katechismus. Geschichte—Themen—Unterricht, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 33 – 42. – (2013), Der Heidelberger Katechismus in seinem Territorium, in: Karla ApperlooBoersma/Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Macht des Glaubens. 450 Jahre Heidelberger Katechismus, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 107 – 112. Engehausen, Frank (2013), Strategien des Konfessionswechsels im 16. Jahrhundert—Das Beispiel der Kurpfalz, in: Karla Apperloo-Boersma/Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Macht des Glaubens. 450 Jahre Heidelberger Katechismus, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 85 – 90. Franz, Gunther (2009), Caspar Olevian und der Reformationsversuch in Trier vor 450 Jahren. 1559 – 2009, Trier : Ev. Evangelischer Kirchenkreis. Goeters, J.F. Gerhard (1989), Caspar Olevianus als Theologe, in: Heiner Faulenbach e.a. (ed.), Caspar Olevian (1537 – 1587) ein evangelisch-reformierter Theologe aus Trier, Bonn, 287 – 319. – (20063), Zur Geschichte des Katechismus, in: Heidelberger Katechismus. Revidierte Ausgabe 1997, Neukirchen. M]hling, Andreas (2001), Heinrich Bullingers europäische Kirchenpolitik, ZBRG 19, Bern. – (2003), Bemerkungen zum „Bekenntnis der Theologe und Kirchendiener zu Heidelberg“ aus dem Jahr 1574, in: Vicco von Bülow/Andreas Mühling (ed.), Confessio. Bekenntnis und Bekenntnisrezeption in der Neuzeit, Zug, 9 – 27. – (2009a), Caspar Olevian. Christ, Kirchenpolitiker und Theologe, Studien und Texte zur Bullingerzeit, Zug: Achius. – (2009b), Der Heidelberger Katechismus im 16. Jahrhundert, in: MEKGR 58. – (2012), „Vornehmstes Stück unseres Regimentes“. Die Entstehung des Heidelberger Katechismus, in: Martin Heimbucher e.a. (ed.), Zugänge zum Heidelberger Katechismus. Geschichte—Themen—Unterricht, Neukirchen-Vluyn. Neuser, Wilhelm H. (2009), Heidelberger Katechismus von 1563, in: A. Mühling, P. Opitz (ed.), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften Band 2/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 167 – 212. Piscator, Johannes (1994), Kurtzer Bericht Vom leben und sterben Herrn D. Gasparis Oleviani, in: Gunter Franz e.a. (ed.), Caspar Olevian. Der Gnadenbund Gottes 1590, Bonn: Habelt. Press, Volker (1970), Calvinismus und Territorialstaat. Regierung und Zentralbehörden der Kurpfalz 1559 – 1619, KiHiSt 7, Stuttgart: Klett.

Frank van der Pol

Aspects of the Theology of Controverse Two Early Modern Polemical Approaches of the Heidelberg Catechism

In this 450th anniversary year of the publication of the Heidelberg Catechism, a Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus has been published, in which one of the authors, Hans-Georg Ulrich (2013), rightly remarks that the story is as much about the criticism of the Heidelberg Catechism as it is of its reception.1 In this contribution we firstly follow some fundamental issues of the confessional polarization in the German Palatinate after the Roman Catholic politicalreligious shift. In the second place we look to an early polemical approach of the Heidelberg Catechism within the Low Countries in the late sixteenth century.

1. Confessional Polarization in the German Palatinate 1.1 The Reformed Heidelberg Catechism transformed into a Roman Catholic Catechism Looking to the Palatinate, the area where the confessional document originated from, the most important protagonists in the conflicts over the Heidelberg Catechism—Lutheran theologians as well as Roman Catholic controversialists—published works which were very critical of it. After the Palatinate had become Roman Catholic, particularly as a consequence of the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War, the confessional conflict intensified. In 1622, Heidelberg was conquered by Bavarian troops. The majority of Reformed professors had already left the city, and the famous Bibliotheca Palatina was removed to Rome. Teaching at the university was halted, and the university was finally closed. The religious-political developments resulted in a special attack on the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism. A local parish priest, the Dominican Johannes Andreas Coppenstein, published the booklet: Uncalvinisch Heydelbergischer Catechismus, veruncalvinisiert und in Römisch Catholisch bekehrt (1624, Latin: 1621). This booklet of eighty-five pages was written as a catechetical tool for the inhabitants of the Palatinate, seeking to shape a new Catholic identity. In the preface Coppenstein declares: 1 Esp. Ulrich: 2013, 147.

Aspects of the Theology of Controverse

35

After I have changed a Calvinistic Heidelberg Catechism into a Roman Catholic Catechism for the benefit of my beloved parish-children, citizens and inhabitants of the capital of Heidelberg, and for the whole Palatinate—my beloved fatherland, and also for the German nation.2

Coppenstein changed the Calvinistic Heidelberg Catechism, because according to him, a catechism is a mirror of faith.3 In the preface he typifies the HC as an eronneous-Reformed doctrine (“die ubelreformiert Heydelbergische Cat. Lehre”). He is convinced, that he had the right to change the HC, because many young and old had committed this Calvinistic catechism to memory and it was deeply imprinted on their minds.4 Coppenstein felt himself obliged to change the Reformed catechism in an improved Roman Catholic Catechism, because a catechism functions as a foundation stone (“ein Fundamentstein”) for a religion, and therefore—with a somewhat ironical play on words regarding his own name ‘Coppenstein’—the author foresees that against his doctrinal “Kopff und Stein,” many ministers of the Word will fall in the depth of the sea of controversialism, and he presumes that they will organize a piratic attempt (“ein Piratisch Versuchens”) against his Roman Catholic restyled Heidelberg Catechism.5

1.2 Comparing the two Reformed and Roman Catholic apologies: religious education of the youth as an analogical responsibility Coppenstein’s presumption was right, for a few years later, an exhaustive response of 550 pages was published, entitled: Rettung der Christlichen Catholischen Lehr, welche in dem Heidelbergischen Catechismo auss Gottes Wort verfasset, und mit zeugnussen des Worts Gottes befestiget ist (Morenbachianus: 1627). This Reformed apology was written by Johannes Morenbachianus, a former pastor of the Palatinate. His publication contains three prefaces, one of them addressed to Coppenstein. That preface demonstrates a fundamental confrontation, as Morenbachianus remarks. Coppenstein’s veruncalvinisierten Catechismus has deviated from the Word of 2 Coppenstein: 1624, Dedicatoria: “Nachdem ein Calvinisch Heidelbergischer Catechismus von mir Romisch-Catholisch gemacht ist worden für die vielgeliebten Pfarrkindern, Bürgern und Inwohnern der Churpfaltzischen auptstat Heydelberg: und dan auch meine hochgeliebten Vatterland gäntzer Churpfalz und Teutscher Nation.” 3 Coppenstein: 1624, Dedicatoria: “Mir auch in Druck gegebenen Glaubespiegel.” 4 Coppenstein: 1624, Vorredt an den Leser : “Mit recht zu versetzen, [denn] menniglich Jung und Alt durch die den Heydelb. Cat., das ist Calvinischen Catechismum gäntzlich und tief in Sinn/ Verstand und gedächtniss gefasst haben.” 5 Just as Ursin and Paraeus had earlier done against the Roman Catholic confessional position: “Wie in den Ursino-Paraischen Erklärung schon langs zuvor haben gemacht Ursinus und sein Paraeus.” Coppenstein probably refers to Explicationum Catecheticarum D. Zachariae Ursini. Ed. David Pareus (1603), Palatinate, Neustadt: Harnasius.

36

Frank van der Pol

God (Morenbachianus: 1627, 8), and the author “clashes with his head against the keystone Christ. Coppenstein fights against the truth, changes light into darkness, wanting to make light out of darkness.”6 Morenbachianus ends his preface with the wish, that Coppenstein will not further walk with his head against the rock and cornerstone Christ, in order to avoid destruction (1627, 9). His doctrinal statements are evaluated as horrible errors.7 The damnable audacity, as Morenbachianus puts it, detracts from the honor of God, and scorns the Savior Jesus Christ (1627: 13, 15). When we look more closely at their apologetic methods, we note, that Coppenstein explicitly declares that the HC was deeply anchored in the minds and hearts of many inhabitants of the Palatinate. Taking this fact into account, we understand that Coppenstein followed step by step the layout, order and sequence of the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism; and so for 129 times he followed the HC’s question-and-answer structure, meanwhile incorporating carefully chosen expressives of Roman Catholic doctrinal positions. With this format the content of the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism became corrected along well-known, deeply internalized textual lines, transformed, and corrected by specific Roman Catholic terms. On the catechetical level this apologetic strategy was very effective. A catechism was produced which totally incorporated the HC, transforming the Reformed statements into a diametrically opposite confessional text: Heydelbergischer Catechismus, veruncalvinisiert und in Römisch Catholisch bekehrt. The booklet created a clear boundary between Reformed and Catholic confessional positions, with the intention to reconcile and reaffirm laymen with the Roman Catholic Church. It was part of a re-Catholicization program. The booklet especially functioned in shaping Catholic confessional identity ; it specifically served as a catechetical instrument for young people; it was a useful tool for their religious education. With support of the authorities, in this way Coppenstein tried to block the former Reformed confessional standard of the Palatinate. The apologetic method of his opponent Morenbachianus is more complex. The former Reformed pastor of the Palatinate cited all of Coppenstein’s newly incorporated terms; all the diverging quotations that were integrated into the fifty-two Sundays of the HC. I have checked the way Morenbachianus has done this, by comparing his publication with Coppenstein’s own booklet. The outcome is that all of Coppenstein’s newly implanted words are reliably quoted. The next step is that the Roman Catholic confessional statements are highlighted, followed by an extensive Reformed commentary and apologetic 6 Morenbachianus: 1627, 5 declares, that Coppenstein “mit dem kopff wider den eckstein Christum lauffet, wider die Wahrheit streitet, und auss liecht finsternuss, aus finsternuss liecht machen will.” 7 Morenbachianus: 1627, 12: “Die rechte uralte Catholische Religion […] von dem gedachten Coppenstein nicht in die rechte wahre Catholische Religion durch seine veränderung bekehret, sondern viel mehr in abschewliche irrthumb verkehret worden seye.”

Aspects of the Theology of Controverse

37

reaction. For the latter Morenbachianus chose the format of a fictional dialogue between two Reformed close friends, Johannes and Hermannus. Their vivid discussion always starts from the material of Coppenstein’s catechism. The intention of their dialogue is to explain how Coppenstein has corrupted the original, Reformed Heidelberg Catechism. The aim was the weakening of the Counter-Reformation stance in Heidelberg, and to reestablish, if possible, the Reformed identity of the Palatinate. Both authors, Coppenstein as well as Morenbachianus, are especially concerned about the wrong influence on young believers. They take into account the possibility that young people still remembered the old Heidelberg Catechism, or had come into contact with it (so Coppenstein), or just with the new Roman Catholic counterpart (so Morenbachianus). We have already noted that Coppenstein was motivated to change the Heidelberg Catechism in a Roman Catholic for the benefit of his beloved parish-children, and that, according to him, many young people had the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism deeply ingrained in their minds and memory. The same presumption we can see in the Reformed publication. In his preface to Coppenstein, Morenbachianus complains that Coppenstein has little eye for the youth (“die liebe Jugend nicht wohl bedacht,” 1627, 8). And in the first fictional Reformed dialogue of Johannes and Hermannus we hear a similar complaint about the erroneous and seducing influence of Coppenstein’s Catholic catechism on the poor youth.8 The dialogue of both friends further tells us that in Heidelberg, because of the introduction of Coppenstein’s catechism, the original Heidelberg Catechism will, more and more, be wiped from the memory of the youth (1627, 41). Morenbachianus warns the beloved youth of Heidelberg and of the whole Palatinate, that they should take careful heed against Coppenstein’s doctrine (1627, 195). Throughout the Reformed apology we find many similar complaints about the wrongful influence of Coppenstein’s catechism upon young people.9 The controversy between Coppenstein and Morenbachianus reflects their respective catechetical interests. It includes an awareness of being responsible for religious education of the younger generation. We note how the human condition figures their deliberations. A large part of their paper war involves confessional discussion about human nature.

8 Johannes declares: “Dieses bekümmert mich am allermeisten, dass die wahre Religion und Gottesdienst zu Heidelberg auffgehaben, und dargegen Menschen-lehr eyngeführet worden: insonderheit dass der Christliche Catechismus […] nunmehr in Römisch-Catholisch verkehret, und der armen Jugend zu verführung vorgehalten und eyngebildet wird.” Morenbachianus: 1627, 38. 9 More complaints about the destructive influence of Coppenstein’s Catholic Heidelberg Catechism in Morenbachianus can be found in Morenbachianus: 1627, 62, 131, 171, 185, 195, 225, 227, 231, 296, 301, 219, 375, 383, 473, 482, 499, 518, 521, 524.

38

Frank van der Pol

1.3 A Reformed and Roman Catholic paper war about diverging concepts of human capacities The controversy about the conditio humana in both apologies is intensely connected with the field of theology. My investigation of how the debating parties set forth their cases, focuses especially upon Coppenstein’s theological approach by which he distinguishes the characteristics that humans tend to have naturally, their ways of thinking, their feeling, and their acting. And, connected with this, we note that this debate also involves an inquiry into the possibilities of the human condition after one has become a believer. The diverging concepts of human capacities represent different ways of thinking about human nature. According to Morenbachianus, the old Heidelberg Catechism depicts humanity in its natural state, as being totally corrupted by sin, and that by nature one cannot uphold the law of God.10 Instead he is inclined to hate God and his neighbor (1627, 12, 21, 129). Coppenstein denies this sinful, corrupt state of human nature in a post-lapsarian situation, because he says that one by nature wants to love God and his neighbor, although human nature has been weakened to a considerable extent.11 Here Coppenstein and the HC are opposite to each other, as Hermannus remarks to his friend Johannes in the dialogue: “This is totally against the Word of God, that teaches that all men are sinners and offenders of the law of God.” (Morenbachianus: 1627, 132, 136) On the same issue—where the HC 7 asks where the depraved nature of man comes from—Coppenstein inserted some words, namely, that we “wear in us the original sin as the tinder of sin.”12 He mentioned original sin to be only a tinder of sin, meaning that the nature of original sin is not the corrupted human nature itself, but only an inclination to sin, a potential to become enflamed.13 In his comment, the Reformed dialogue friend Hermannus links Coppenstein’s view with the Roman Catholic theological controversialist Albert Pighius, who earlier had also denied that original sin means a total corruption 10 Morenbachianus: 1627, 136: “Wann Coppenstein auff dise weise das Gesatz in acht genommen, und in disem klaren hellen spiegel seine verderbte natur und werck betrachttet hette, so wurde er nimmermehr so vermessen gewesen seyn, dass er gesagt, Er könnte das Gesatz vollkömlich halten.”; 138: “So ist es nun der ehren Gottes und versicherung unserer seligkeit viel nutzlicher, dass wir unsere verderbte art und natur, auch unsere unvollkommenheit bekennen.” 11 Coppenstein: 1624, 4: “Ja, mit Gott, nach menschlicher blödigkeit: denn ich bin von Natur geneigt, Gott und meinen Nächsten zu lieben: ob gleich die natur vast sehr geschwächet und verderbet worden.”; compare Morenbachianus: 1627, 13, 129. 12 Coppenstein: 1624, 5: “Dass wir den erbsünd wie ein Zundel der sünden in uns tragen.” 13 As Hermannus explains: “Dass Coppenstein anzeigen wöllen, was durch die erbsünde zu verstehen sey : namlich, nicht die verderbnuss der menschlichen natur selbst, […], sondern allein ein zundel zu der sünde: dass, wie ein zundel leichtlich fewer empfanget und doch selbst nicht fewer ist; also habe der Mensch von natur eine inclination, zuneygung und begierde zu der sünde: doch solche begierde nicht selbst sünde sey.” Morenbachianus: 1627, 141.

Aspects of the Theology of Controverse

39

of the human nature (cf. Morenbachianus: 1627, 141 f).14 The two Reformed dialoguing friends estimate Coppenstein’s opinion, that humanity is born with only an inclination of evil, and not born sinful, as very audacious. They characterize this anthropological interpretation as a fundamental clash with Scriptures (Morenbachianus: 1627, 140 – 143). According to them, the corruption of the state and nature in all children of Adam, is not only a defect in the image of God, but also a “corruptio facultatum animae,” that means a corruption of the human powers in the mind, will, feeling and desire; in sum, it is evident in all human powers. So, by such corruption, human nature is unwilling to do the good, and inclined to the evil.15 Or, with the words of Hermannus (Morenbachianus: 1627, 505): Coppenstein bedencket nicht die verderbte art aller Menschen, welche so gross und starck in ihnen ist. […] Dasselbige böse menschliche herz […] ist die brunquell solcher bösen gedanck.

The Reformed dialogue partners further attack Coppenstein’s understanding of justification. For also with respect to this topic, Coppenstein’s catechism has a more optimistic understanding of the capacities of human nature. In the article concerning how a person is justified, Coppenstein is convinced that man by his own free will can do something that precedes justification; with his will he is able to prepare himself to receive the grace of God. With such preparation a human being can gain merit, and in response God helps him with grace, with the so called “meritum congrui.” This means the merit of equity, namely that it is equitable that God should come to help him with his grace, because of the preceding righteousness.16 Coppenstein, with other Roman Catholic theologians, is convinced that we have to do good works in order to merit something, to become justified by God, and to gain eternal life. According to Morenbachianus this preceding meritorious works reduce and defame the honor of God, and also Christ’s merit, who by his death perfectly 14 See for example Pighius: 1542, 79a: “Tota natura hominis non adea corrupta est, ut plane perierit nobis universa libertas arbitrii […] Mansit itaque quae prius fuit natura in origine, etiam post peccatum …’. 15 Morenbachianus: 1627, 146: “Ich verstehe nun wol, dass Coppenstein sehr geirret, in dem er die verderbte natur aller Adams-kindern, so sie auss dem fall Adams herhaben, nicht hat sünde, sondern nu rein zundel der sünden genennet, und solches der H. Schrift zu-wider.” See also Morenbachianus: 1627, 153, 505. 16 Hermannus: “Darumb, dass sie in dem articul von der rechtfertigung des Menschen für Gott desto besser fortkommen können, und ihrer Lehr etwas behülff haben: namlich, dass sich der Mensch durch seinen eygenen freyen willen könne zur gnade Gottes bequemen, vorbereiten, und mit solcher vorbereitung veridene, dass ihme Gott mit seiner gnade zu hülff komme …”; “und dahero kommt das meritum congrui, das ist, der verdienst der billichkeit: dass es namlich billich sey, dass Gott mit seiner gnade zu hülff komme denjenigen, welche nicht ganz und gar verderbet seind, sondern durch die kräfften des freyen willens sich zu der gnade Gottes bequemen, und bereiten.” Morenbachianus: 1627, 153, 154.

40

Frank van der Pol

and alone has paid for all our sins.17 Human beings are always burdened with sin, thus unworthy of God’s grace, mercy and the merit of Christ (1627, 103). Before one’s conversion, man is death in sinfulness, not able to will or accomplish good works; just like in death a person is not able to move. Or, with the words of Hermannus (Morenbachianus: 1627, 155): Dass wir in sünden von natur ganz und gar todt seyen, und auss gnaden von Christo lebendig gemachet werden, da ist die gnad Gottes uberschwäncklich gross, und wird aller verdienst der Menschen aussgeschlossen, und der barmherzighkeit Gottes und dem verdienst Jesu Christi der anfang, das mittel und ende unserer erlösung zugeschrieben.

Only by conversion and regeneration one can be made alive, is one made capable of doing good works. But this is not due to one’s own power since such power comes from God (Morenbachianus: 1627, 118). When the Heidelberg Catechism asks whether we can pay the penalty ourselves, Coppenstein adds a meaningful word into the answer. He integrates the term ‘partly.’18 So, according to him, by nature human beings can partly satisfactorily pay for their sins. So in works preceding justification, Coppenstein sees an increase in human power, and he claims that one’s own good works bring merit. How is it then with works that follow justification? What are the possibilities of the human condition after one has become a believer? The Reformed Morenbachianus states, that in this life all works are imperfect and infected with sin. The works of reborn believers in themselves are impure (1627, 162). However God, for the sake of Christ’s satisfaction, will no more remember their sins, nor their sinful nature; yet it is with this that they have to struggle their whole life long. Coppenstein is partly of another opinion, namely that the believer can meritoriously pay with his thankfulness, for he adds some words to the Heidelberg Catechism answer 21 (Coppenstein: 1624, 12): “dazu kommet eines jeden verdienstliche mitwürckung, als ein zuständlin.”19 With this addition, the human response to the merit of Christ becomes a part of his salvation. The addition means a way of cooperation, and is also based on a more optimistic understanding of the capacities of human nature than is found in the Reformed viewpoint. Comparing both publications, we can say that the Uncalvinisch Heydelbergischer Catechismus and Morenbachianus’s voluminous Reformed reaction contain two fundamentally diverging anthropological lines. With this insight we have seen something of the intensive confrontation of an important confessional paradigm-shift after the re-Catholicization in the early seventeenth century German Palatinate. 17 For Christ’s merit as a Redeemer, and the imputation of his payment for sins without any human preceding works, see Morenbachianus: 1627, 14, 18, 21, 22. 18 Coppenstein: 1624, 9 adds: “Zum theil.” See also Morenbachianus: 1627, 174 f, 233 ff. 19 Compare Morenbachianus: 1627, 181 f.

Aspects of the Theology of Controverse

41

2. Confessional Polarization in the Low Countries 2.1 A Catholic Catechism with refutation of the Heidelberg or Reformed Catechism Let us now pay attention to the confessional controversy in the Low Countries of the late sixteenth century. After 1585—the year of the fall of Antwerp, in which the split between the Northern and Southern part of the Low Countries took place—the reception and impact of the Reformation in the South was effectively blocked. As an outcome of socio-political developments the Roman Catholic Church in the South maintained monopoly-status, and adherence to any competing confession was suppressed with great effect. Social life became subject to increased confessionalization, and the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism became the target of a concerted Roman Catholic strategy, which produced literature that identified the Reformed heresy by strict contrast with the old, orthodox belief. An impressive example of this polemical literature is the Catholijcke Catechismus met wederlegginghe van der Heydelbergsche oft ghereformeerde Catechismus met vraghe ende antwoort (Catholic Catechism with refutation of the Heidelberg or Reformed Catechism, with question and answer). The Roman Catholic booklet had been printed in Antwerp, thirty years before Johannes Andreas Coppenstein in Heidelberg published his Uncalvinisch Heydelbergischer Catechismus. The Dutch booklet intensively deals with the HC, follows its question-and-answer format, thereby demonstrating significant apologetical interaction between the Reformed and Roman Catholic confessional traditions in the Low Countries. It was written by the Roman Catholic controversialist Martinus Duncanus (Latin for Maarten Donck 1505 – 1590),20 the last parish priest of Amsterdam before that city joined itself to William of Orange.21 As a Roman Catholic theologian and pastor, Duncanus had been parish priest of Wormser, and in the city of Delft. In both places he had seen how people left the Mother Church, even at risk to their lives. His Amsterdam-period started enthusiastically. Six years after the festive arrival he was expelled and banished, along with the whole Roman Catholic clergy. He travelled to Amersfoort, where he spent the last twelve years of his life, without a parish, but always occupied in study, right up until his death in 1590. It was in this Amersfoort period, that Duncanus wrote his Catholic Catechism. On his deathbed, he ordered his friends to publish the manuscript unchanged. They promised him that they would do so: “Nos 20 As Coppenstein’s small publication of 85 pp in the Palatine 30 years later, Duncanus’s booklet of 112 pages was published in a time of confessional transition, and the Catholijcke Catechismus was also used to promote a renewed Catholic confessional identity on the level of catechetical education. 21 More about Martinus Duncanus in: Hezius/Vuestrenus: 1594; Hensen: 1896; Rütten: 1906; Noordeloos: 1948; Klaiber : 1978.

42

Frank van der Pol

ultimae suae voluntatis executores elegit, et sancte monuit, ne quid scriptis ipsius adderemus, aut subtraberemus.”22 In the preface the Antwerp printer Verdussen refers to the teaching from Scripture that in the last days people will forsake the truth, a prophecy being fulfilled in his own time. Verdussen introduced the Catholijcke Catechismus as an excellent stimulus and apology for genuine Catholic belief, confronting the Reformed doctrine as a dangerous threat. The preface reflects a fundamental cleavage between Roman Catholic and Reformed doctrine. The main text makes clear, that Duncanus is one of the rare Roman Catholic polemicists who, for tactical reasons, concentrates totally on the evidence from Scriptures, and who by such argumentation rarely appeal to patristic views.23 By employing this method, he fully takes his Reformed opponents into account, as well as those who sympathizing with the Reformed opinion have become interested in the Heidelberg Catechism. In his apologetic method Duncanus has evidently been influenced by his opponents, although the use of Scriptures of both sides is anchored in a totally different way. While the Reformed position is based on the autopisty (self-authentication) of the Holy Scriptures, Duncanus’s understanding relies upon its consonance with ecclesiastical teaching. The Catholijcke Catechismus follows step by step the layout, order and sequence of the Reformed catechetical work. The author considers the issue, puts forward the answers of the HC, evaluates and completes them, and then more precise instructions are given. Sometimes the phraseology he uses is very harsh. The answer about the fifth petition of the Lord’s Prayer,24 for example, is designated as the stupid tearing of Scripture (“Schriftschoorich onvertant”). And of the second petition,25 Duncanus had already concluded: “Those, who held it with your booklet, trample underfoot the prayer of the Lord.” From the first sentences it is evident that a passionate and virulent antiHeidelberg rhetoric frames the argument. Such a polemical stance on HC 1 serves to create a clear boundary : “First of all, your booklet is no Catechism, it is a Pseudochism, or Antichism.” And on HC 20 and 21 the rhetorical invectives are: “Your Parechism answers insufficiently. ‘Read on, what your Antichism answers.’” With such polemic—discrediting the Reformed Cate22 Citation in the Preface of his friends and first biographers Iac. Hezius, and Hen. Vuestrenus (see the previous note). 23 In the Catholijcke Catechismus the patres are marginal. On but a few occasions is a churchfather cited: Cyprian, Hieronymus, Ambrose and Augustine. “En somme, ils furent tr{s rares les polmistes catholiques qui se contentaient d’opposer aux protestants des arguments scripturaires.” Polman: 1929, 493; see also Polman: 1929, 506: “Aussi furent-ils fort rares les polmistes catholiques quie consentaient y abandonner dans la controverse l’argument patristique; encore le faisaient-ils par simple tactique.” On this point, only F. Sonnius, the bishop of ’s-Hertogenbosch, is comparable with Duncanus. Sonnius wrote a Latin work (1557), that also was published in the Dutch language: Claer Bewijs uten Woordt Godts van ‘t gene dat men kerstelijck behoort te ghelooven ende te beleven (1567). 24 “Forgive us our sins as we also have forgiven those who have sinned against us.” 25 “Your kingdom come.”

Aspects of the Theology of Controverse

43

chism as an Antichism, a Pseudochism, and a Parechism—Duncanus seeks to affirm the integrity of the Roman Catholic position. One of the theological disagreements is the belief about the church. According to Duncanus (1578), the church is the focal point.26 For him, the ecclesiastical interpretation of the Scriptures is binding, and the Kingdom of God meets us in the sacrificial service of the Church. Whereas the HC points out, that belief is from hearing the Word of God, Duncanus declares: “We have a legal obligation to believe what we hear in the Church, and conform our understanding to the Church” or about the Kingdom of God, he is convinced, that this meets us in “den sacrificiael dienst der Ecclesie,” and: “So moetmen geloouen dat men van sulcx wettelijck hoort in dtcclesie ende naert verstant der Ecclesie.”27 Belief is primarily belief of what the Church says, rather than a personal trust in God. Another point of difference is in the way each deals with human nature. Duncanus criticizes the HC’s view of humanity in its natural state, namely totally corrupted by sin, as deficient and foolish.28 When the booklet from Heidelberg says, that our good works merit nothing, because the reward comes not of merit but of grace (HC 63), the questioner, asking if this is right, becomes the answer : “These words are brought from hell.” The phrase of the HC, that one only is justified through belief in Christ, belongs to Lucifer.29 In this warning against the Reformed heresy, and proclaiming the need of good works that are meritoriously, the vocabulary of Duncanus becomes very harsh. He uses expressions like “these words may be rightly for those who are on the

26 Earlier Duncanus already had rejected Philips van Marnix van St. Aldegondes Bijencorf der H. Roomsche Kercke (1568), the very popular parody against the Roman Catholic Church. 27 Duncanus’s view of the dominant role of the church clearly comes out in one of his earlier publications (1566), also published in Antwerp. This publication contains a remarkable sentence, which clearly shows his purposeful choice of working with evidence from Scriptures, and to forego mention of the patres. By this method he expects to provide a remedy for Protestants to easily forsake their errors: “eorumque erroribus mederi ardebam, idque cogitabam conficere rationibus non nisi ex ipsa scriptura desumendis: omnibus interim tacitis patribus quantumlibet authoritate plenis.” 28 On HC 2 – 5: “Canmen dat alles volcomelijck houden? Antwoort: Jaemen nae die maet der gratie ende des strijts, so veel als Godt daer inne van ons eyscht, om niet te vervallen in verdoemtheyt, maer niet nae die volcomenheydt, […], ende oock niet nae die maet der glorie ende des triumphs, dien Godt op der eerden van ons niet en eyscht,” followed by a next question, in which Duncanus criticizes the Heidelberg Catechism as follows: “Mijn Boecxken antwoordt, secht sonder onderscheydt, datment niet volcomelijck houden en mach bij dese reden: Want wy sijn van natueren gheneycht Godt ende onsen naesten te haeten, is dat dan qualijck geantwoort? Antwoort: Tis onvolcomelijc ende onuerstandich geantwoort, etc.” 29 In contrast, the Catholijcke Catechismus draws attention to the wrath and judgment of Christ, and is clearly connected to the late-medieval pedagogy of threat. Instead of true belief, fear is appropriated, for one can never be sure that one is worthy to receive God’s favor. Because the sentence will be carried out according to works, only those who live obedient and virtuous, pure and unpunishable lives, may hope to obtain salvation.

44

Frank van der Pol

way to the hell, not for those who are on the way to heaven’, and: ‘this doctrine is from Lucifer.”30 The discussion of the Catechism’s treatment of the Sacraments opens with the questioner, asking whether Isaiah 63:3 (I have trodden the winepress alone) excludes our cooperation in our redemption. Duncanus answers this question with a denial: Christ has not redeemed us without cooperation of our belief, our obedience and our longing for salvation. We have to do good works in order “to merit the promised reward.”31 Moreover, sacramental infusion of power by the church is needed to do any good. The Sacraments as signs whereby divine grace is given, function as a center of gravity.32 About the Lord’s Supper he is convinced, that this is only legally to be found in the Roman Catholic Church, while the Sacrament of the opponents, according to him, is insincerely, lifeless, prepared by sinful hands, by children of the darkness and the night, and the wine they use, is making unchastely and unclean. The Supper of the Reformed adversaries is a horrible godliness, a destruction of the sacrifice of Christ, an antichristly falseness. Duncanus declares, that it is an antichristly falseness to deny that Christ must be adored on earth, in the elements of bread and wine.33 He concludes, that those who do not want to sacrifice and eat the real Lamb of God, will never be blessed and redeemed from death. The way the Heidelberg Catechism mentions the Mass

30 “Zijn sulcke woorden wel bedocht? Antwoort: Wt der hellen zijnse gebrocht”; “Seyt mijn boexken, konnen onse goede wercken voor Godt niet die gerechticheydt noch een stuck der selven zijn, is dat wel geseyt? Antwoort: Neen certeyn; sulcke leere comt wt der hellen van Lucifers gesellen.” This is not unusual in controversy-literature, for instance Martens: 2010 – 2011, 251 refers to Costerus (1598): “Ghy anders niet en soeckt, dan hen te bedrieghen, ende hen met u inden afgrondt der hellen te voeren.” 31 “Heeft dan Christus oock die verdoemde menschen verlost, die nochtans onghesalicht sullen blijuen? Antwoort: Jae voorwaer … Maer dat Judas onverlost bleef in hem seluen, die nochtans in Christo verlost is, dat coemt wt hem seluen […], om dat hy die mededeelinge des verlossincx niet ghesocht en heft..”And: “Worden dan alle menschen door Christum gesalicht, die in Adam verloren zijn geworden? Antwoort: Het is te voren geseyt dat alle menschen in Christo verlost ende gesalicht zijn verdienstelijc. Want hij heeft die salicheyt aller menschen volcomelijck verdient.” According to Duncanus, Christ died as Saviour for all people, however not unconditionally. The example of Judas shows how human effort and endeavour is meritorously to be united with Christ’s redemption, to get the promised salvation. Also: “Wy moeten goede wercken doen, zoo veel alst mogelijck is […] tot verdieninge om te vercrijgen het beloofde loon.” 32 One can only take part in salvation by seeking and obeying the Church: “Int Cruys heeft Christus alle menschen verlost verdienstelijck […]. Die dan in Christo verlost zijn verdienstelijck, so wy altesamen zijn, die moeten noch van hem in d’Ecclesie versoecken, in haer selven oock medeelentlijck verlost te worden.” 33 The “oprechte avontmael Christi, dwelck alleen is in die Roomsche kerck […] is het licht der Sonnen ende den dagen,” while the Reformed are “kinderen des nachts ende der duysternissen,” who prepare “onkuyschmaeckende wijns.” Het “nachtmael der adversanten” is “een grouwelijcke Godloosicheyt ende een vernielinge des offers Christi.” To mention the mass an idolatry, “is Antechristelijck ende Godlooselijck gesproken […]. Ende met sulcke blasphemische woorden, maeken sy Christum een logenaer, ende een afgodts dienaer.”

Aspects of the Theology of Controverse

45

as an idolatry is an antichristly and godliness way of speaking. They are blasphemic words, which make Christ to be a liar and idolater.34 We can conclude, that the diverging theological lines between the Catholijcke Catechismus and the Heidelberg Catechism are fundamental. We have detected the most important to be the anchoring of the Scriptures, the ecclesiastical and sacramental viewpoint, the anthropological position, the doctrine of sin and justification, and linked with that, the certainty of faith.

2.2 The Catholijcke Catechismus in the context of polarization and confessionalization Finally, I will try to answer the question about the position of the Catholijcke Catechismus in its sixteenth century context of religious-political polarization and confessionalization. For this, particularly, we have to look for the situation in Antwerp, the city where Duncanus’s publication was printed. After the Spanish re-capture of Antwerp, thousands of its citizens, most of them Reformed, left the city, outgoing to the Northern Netherlands or by going abroad. The post-1585 ecclesiastical leaders, trying to purify the Scheldt-city of heretical influences, initiated a re-Catholicization offensive. After the massive exodus, persons who wanted to remain Protestant were still given permission over the next four years to stay in the city, on condition that they were quiet, and without disorder or scandal. This temporary-measure was formed with the intention of reconciling as many people as possible with the Roman Catholic Church. During this period about three thousand Protestants became reconciled with Catholicism. As well, with the closure of this amnesty, the Antwerp bishop decided that it was important to try to convert the heretics. Reformed citizens were obliged to conform themselves outwardly, that means, they had to attend the Mass and to partake of the Sacraments. Within one and a half years another three thousand had transferred their allegiance to Roman Catholicism. Yet, in 1607, the bishop declared that among Antwerp’s citizens were many who were still infected with the Reformed heresy (Thijs: 1990, 40, 48). In the process of religious-political polarization, the city of Antwerp more and more became the most important ContraReformation bastion of The Netherlands (Thijs: 1990, 8, 62, 102, 229). Antwerp in the South became the center for the production of Dutch Roman Catholic polemical literature. It was Post-Tridentine Catholicism, together with the socio-political situation of the Scheldt-town after the split, which 34 Earlier, in 1567, when he was a pastor in Delft, Duncanus already wrote an apologetic treatise on the Lord’s Supper, Vant rechte Evangelische Avontmael Chr. Jesu, tegen den val der Roomscher Kercken. This polemical work against the Reformed sacramental thinking, was published in 1583 in Antwerp. Meanwhile in this Brabant city, there was also published his Van het nieuwe sacrificum des Christendoms, dwelck is het Lam Godts (Antwerp, 1580).

46

Frank van der Pol

forms the context for the Antwerp printing of Duncanus’s Catholijcke Catechismus. The document was useful in developing Antwerp as a homogeneous and assertive post-Tridentine stronghold, by which the most important commercial town of the Low Countries became a bulwark of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. From this type of tracts, produced by Duncanus and other controversialists like Franciscus Costerus, the confessional concepts of the Reformed in the North would be attacked. That literature responded to, and reacted against the confessional identity of Reformed ministers, consistories and synods in the Dutch Republic (Martens: 2010 f, 268). So the Scheldt-city can be typified as a frontier of the old faith, a barrier against the Reformed Protestantism of the newly formed political entity, the Dutch Republic in the North. There in the North pamphlets were circulating on a regular basis, warning people against holding Roman Catholic conventicles and meetings for the practice of the papal religion; these were supported by anti-Catholic placards of the States-General. Meanwhile Provincial States in the Dutch Republic also issued bulletins, in which Catholic worship was prohibited, denouncing Jesuits, priests, and monks. In practice, however, the enforcement of these edicts in the Dutch Republic was very different at a local level. In the course of the seventeenth century the Reformed Churches there maintained the Heidelberg Catechism as part of their confessional distinctives, but their ecclesiastical presence in the local communities became significantly weaker than the Reformed theocratic ideal suggested. In the course of the century the Northern cities became increasingly involved in implementing changes that had an impact upon religious practice. The Reformed Church there was greatly concerned about the problem of religious pluralism in the Reformed towns. Within the growing multi-confessional landscape in the Republic, Roman Catholics received somewhat more freedom so that, by the end of the seventeenth century religious freedom in the cities had been enlarged. The religious monoculture was replaced by a full spectrum of tolerated Christian practices. And thus began the cautious if unofficial experiment in confessional pluralism within the Dutch Republic. So in the Northern Netherlands the signs of a modern religious culture were appearing and could not be erased.35 In the Spanish South, however, the confessional monoculture remained established. The ecclesiastical and political leaders strictly maintained the Roman Catholic religion. With their religious reform program they tried to purify society of heretical influences. And during the seventeenth century the city of Antwerp remained the production center of Dutch Roman Catholic polemical and devotional literature.36 With its pronounced anti-Heidelberg Catechism

35 Developments in the city of Kampen—an example on the local level—reflect this process in detail, cf. Van der Pol: 2002, 16 – 72. 46In the late sixteenth century, for example, Costerus: 1591; 1595; 1598; 1599. In the second half of

Aspects of the Theology of Controverse

47

stamp, the Catholijcke Catechismus of Martinus Duncanus supported the confessional concept of the new established Roman Catholic Church with its sole, officially recognized religion in the South. 2.3 The polemical approaches of the Heidelberg Catechism in Germany and The Netherlands We have followed some fundamental lines of Coppenstein’s Uncalvinisch Heydelbergischer Catechismus and of Duncanus’s Catholijcke Catechismus. What emerges from these early modern polemical approaches of the HC in German and The Netherlands? Firstly, that both publications have chosen the method of a public attack, positioning the Roman Catholic viewpoint over against the Heidelberg Catechism. This detailed Roman Catholic controversy with the HC started in the Netherlands, not in Heidelberg. Duncanus’s Catholijcke Catechismus is rather unique; it was the first integral Roman Catholic attack on the HC, printed even thirty years before Coppenstein published his polemical booklet in the Palatinate. However a comparable situation of religious-political polarization and confessionalization links both works. Secondly, both publications function as instruments to promote a renewed Catholic confessional identity on the level of catechetical education. Both documents exactly follow the question-answer format and content of the HC. This structure in detail directed against the HC, indicates, that the Reformed catechism indeed has been successfully introduced in the Palatinate, as well as across The Netherlands. Published in a time of confessional transition, this purposefully chosen approach of both apologetical documents reflects a deeply internalized Heidelberg Catechism. We finally can say, that both specimen of polemical literature constitute important critical moments, not only in the 450 years history of the Heidelberg Catechism, but also in the clash of religious cultures in the Low Countries, as well as in the Palatinate.

Bibliography Buitendijk, C. (1942), Het calvinisme in de spiegel van de Zuidnederlandse literatuur der Contra-Reformatie, Groningen: J.B. Wolters. Coppenstein, Johannes Andreas (1624), Uncalvinisch Heydelbergischer Catechismus, veruncalvinisiert und in Römisch Catholisch bekehrt, also, dass der Catholisch im Text, der Calvinisch am Rand und im gemeinen text zu lesen und zu the seventeenth century, for instance, Hazart: 1669; 1671. See also Polman: 1936 and Buitendijk: 1942.

48

Frank van der Pol

underkennen ist, Heydelberg: Leonhart Neander [Wolfenbüttel: Herzog August Library, 1262 Theol. (2)]. Costerus, Franciscus (1591), Schildt der Catholijcken Teghen de Ketterijen, Antwerp. – (1595), Bevviis der ouder catholiicker leeringhe, Antwerp. – (1598) , Apologia Catholica, Antwerp. – (1599), De tweede apologie, Antwerp. Duncanus, Martinus (1566), Van die warachtighe Ghemeynte Christi dwelck is die heylige Kerck oft de Ecclesie Gods, een eeuwighe bruyt des bruydegoms Christi, Antwerp: Peter van Keerberghe. – (1578), Corte confutatie ende wederlegghinghe van een fenijnich boeck des Byencorf der. H. Roomscher Kercken, s.l. [Amsterdam]. Hazart, Cornelius (1669), Ghebouwsel sonder Grondt dat is Calvinisten gheloof sonder Schiftuere bewesen, Antwerp. – (1671), Ontsteltenisse vanden Ghereformeerden Kercken-Raet ende Ghemeente van Dordrecht over het uytghegheven van den Roomschen Uylenspieghel, Antwerp. Hensen, A.H.L. (1896), Martinus Duncanus in zijne betrekking tot het onderwijs, in: Bijdragen voor de geschiedenis van het bisdom Haarlem, Vol. 21, 92 – 113. Hezius, Iac./Vuestrenus, Hen. (1594), Corte beschrijvinghe van ‘t leven, conversatie, manieren ende sterven vanden weerdigen hoochgeleerden Heer, Meester Martinus Duncanus, Deken in den Haeghe, &c.: Antwerpen: Hieronymus Verdussen, [UB Antwerpen]. Klaiber, Wilbirgis (1978), Katholische Kontroverstheologen und Reformer des 16. Jahrhunderts, Münster : Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, s.v. Duncan (Dunck), Marti(j)in (1505 – 1590). Martens, B. (2010 f), Nederlandstalige religieuze controversepublicaties en de kunst van het argumenteren in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden (1591–ca. 1688), Trajecta, vol. 19 f (2010 f/3 f), 241 – 272. Morenbachianus, Johannes (1627), Rettung der Christlichen Catholischen Lehr, welche in dem Heidelbergischen Catechismo auss Gottes Wort verfasset, und mit zeugnussen des Worts Gottes befestiget ist; newlicher zeit aber von dem Edelen und R.P.F. Johan Andrea von Coppenstein in new Römisch-Catholisch verkehret worden, Basel: Johan Jacob Genath [digit. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Sign.: Polem. 1884]. Noordeloos, P. (1948), Pastoor Maarten Donk, 2 Vol., Batavia Sacra, Utrecht/ Brussel: Spectrum. Pighius, Albertus (1542), De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia, Coloniae: Melchior Novesianus. Pol, Frank van der (2002), Religious diversity and everday ethics in the seventeenthcentury Dutch city Kampen, Church History, Studies in Christianity & Culture (Vol. 71/1 March 2002). Polman, P. (1929), La mthode polmique des adversaires de la rforme, in: Revue d’Histoire Ecclsiastique, 25/3, 471 – 506.

Aspects of the Theology of Controverse

49

– (1936), Roomse en antiroomse strijdliteratuur uit de dagen der Republiek, in: Studia Catholica, 12, 89 – 104. R]tten, Felix (1906), Martin Donk (Martinus Duncanus) 1505 – 1590. Biographischer Beitrag zur niederländischen Kirchengeschichte, Munster : Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Sonnius, Franciscus (1557), Demonstrationum religionis christianae ex verbo Dei libri tres, Antverpiae: apud Martinum Nutium. Thijs, A.K.L. (1990), Van Geuzenstad tot katholiek bolwerk. Maatschappelijke betekenis van de Kerk in contrareformatorisch Antwerpen, Turnhout: Brepols. Ulrich, Hans-Georg (2013), Kritiek op de Heidelbergse Catechismus, in: Arnold Huijgen e.a. (ed.), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok, 147 – 158.

Henk van den Belt

Anabaptist Spirituality and the Heidelberg Catechism

Although the Anabaptists are not explicitly mentioned in the Heidelberg Catechism, it is generally acknowledged that the catechism is not only influenced by the debates with Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism, but also with the representatives of the so-called radical reformation.1 The catechism seems to expresses a comparatively mild attitude towards the Anabaptists. Whereas it calls the mass a condemnable idolatry (HC 80) and the invocation of the saints a denial of Christ the only Savior (HC 30), it counters Anabaptist errors with exclusively positive statements: “Are infants also to be baptized? Yes: For they are included in the covenant and church of God” (HC 74) and “May we swear an oath in God’s name if we do it reverently? Yes, when the government demands it, or when necessity requires it” (HC 101).2 It is self-evident that these two questions and answers aim at Anabaptist convictions, but it is probable that there are also other anti-Anabaptist elements in the text.3 Frederick III had to defend himself against suspicions not only of being too lax against the Anabaptists, but even of sympathizing with them.4 To find other possible hints at the positions of the Anabaptists in the catechism one has to turn either to related writings or to the immediate historical context. This paper assesses Zacharias Ursinus’ Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism and the report of the 1571 Frankenthal disputation in order to get a clearer picture of what Lyle Bierma calls “the unnamed target of the HC” (Bierma: 2005, 79). It closes with some conclusions regarding the interpretation of the Heidelberg Catechism from the perspective of the debate with the Anabaptists and considers the implications of the findings for the spirituality of the catechism. 1 There is hardly any secondary literature on the relationship between the Anabaptists and the Heidelberg Catechism. The Handbook on the Heidelberg Catechism only mentions the radicals Caspar Schwenckfeld and Michael Servet. (Huijgen: 2013, 214, 231). 2 For the English translations of the Heidelberg Catechism cf. CRC: 1979. 3 For a discussion of the Anabaptist convictions on the magistrate and the oath related to the catechism, see Van den Belt: 2014. 4 In 1564 Frederik wrote to John William, duke of Saxe-Weimar (1530 – 1573), that the baptism of children in the Palatinate was not postponed until they had reached the years of discernment and in 1567 to Christoph, Duke of Württemberg (1515 – 1568) that Anabaptists were admonished and if they were not teachable they would be expelled from the country. (Krebs: 1971, 161, cf. Bouma: 1992, 141ff).

Anabaptist Spirituality and the Heidelberg Catechism

51

1. Ursinus’ Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism The textual history of Zacharias Ursinus’ Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism is rather complicated. The book is based on Ursinus’ academic lectures on the catechism, but there are several versions of the lecture-notes and the printed editions also differ. It would be wrong to read the Commentary as the decisive explanation of the Heidelberg Catechism as originally intended, because it also resembles the developing opinion of Ursinus and even might mirror the opinion of the editors in debates after his death (Voorwinden/Van den Belt: 2013). Nevertheless the Commentary is fit for tracing those parts of the catechism in which the debate with the Anabaptists probably plays a role. Where Ursinus mentions them, it is likely the debate with the Anabaptists was already of importance when he wrote the catechism. For a detailed study of Ursinus’ opinion on the Anabaptists the different Latin editions should be compared, but for the sake of listing the possible points of influence, use of his final edition by David Pareus (1548 – 1622) suffices.5 In the Commentary the Anabaptists are sometimes only mentioned in a list together with others; “Arians, Papists, Anabaptists, and all other heretics” are said to “add their errors to the little that they have copied from the apostolic doctrine” (Ursinus: 1888, 4). Most interesting for now are those places where they are explicitly mentioned other than in the contexts of baptism (367), and the oath (551).6 Three different fields of topics, arise from the Commentary. In the first place, the Anabaptists are mentioned in the context of the doctrine of sin. According to Ursinus, they teach that sin is only a matter of imitation and not of propagation and therefore oppose the teaching that the holiness and good works of the righteous are imperfect (65). Ursinus refers to Calvin who writes in the Institutes that the restoration of the believer “is not accomplished in a single moment, or day, or year; but by continual, and sometimes even slow advances, the Lord destroys the carnal corruptions of his chosen, purifies them from all pollution, and consecrates them as temples to himself” (475).7 Apparently the Reformed and Anabaptists differed on sin and sanctification. This possibly influenced some of the questions and answers. The 5 This paper follows the nineteenth century English translation Ursinus 1888. The translator George W. Williard used a Latin edition edited by David Pareus (Geneva, 1616) and a 1585-copy that he does not specify and had only seen after he had already translated a substantial part of the 1616-edition. He compared this with a copy of the English edition of Henry Parry that contained some material not found in the two Latin copies. 6 Sometimes their rejection of paedobaptism is mentioned in passing, as for instance in the discussion of ecclesiology : “Infants born in the church are also of the church, notwithstanding all the cant of the Anabaptists to the contrary.” (Ursinus: 1888, 293) 7 The reference is to Calvin, Institutes 3.3.9.

52

Henk van den Belt

phrasing of the catechism, that the fall of Adam and Eve “has so poisoned our nature that we are all conceived and born in a sinful condition” (HC 7) might be too general to be interpreted as explicitly anti-Anabaptist, but in his explanation Ursinus claims that they believe and teach that there is no original sin, just as the Pelagians formerly did (39). The phrasing of the catechism that “those converted to God cannot obey the commandments perfectly” and that “in this life even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience” (HC 114) might also have been inspired by Anabaptist perfectionism. In his Commentary Ursinus does not mention the Anabaptists, but speaks in general of “our opponents” and “our adversaries” (610, 611). In his comments on original sin (HC 7), however, he says that considering the origin of sin in the world and in ourselves, is not only beneficial for “constant humiliation and penitence,” but also that we may turn away from “the errors and corruptions of the Anabaptists and Libertines, who deny that they have any sin” (37). There the Commentary states there that the objections of the Anabaptists against the “imperfection of the holiness and good works of the righteous” will be dealt with in the exposition of HC 114 (65).8 Secondly, Ursinus mentions the Anabaptists in relation to the resurrection of the body and the immortality of the soul, because of the idea of the soulsleep. “It is argued by some Anabaptists that the soul after it is separated from the body, lies dormant until the future resurrection, when it will again be reunited to the body.” (309 f) According to Ursinus, the Anabaptists also deny the continuity of the resurrection body with the present body, but believe in a nova creatio at the second coming of Christ (313). He does not explain how these two positions are interconnected nor if different groups of Anabaptists held these views. He claims that the Anabaptists “deny that the very same bodies which we now have will rise again, and contend that God will create new bodies at the second coming of Christ” (313). According to Ursinus, the bodies in the resurrection, will not only be human, but “the very same which we now have, and not other and different bodies created by Christ, as the Anabaptists affirm” (315). The Anabaptists refer to 1 Corinthians 15 where the apostle Paul says that flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God. The Commentary phrases this objection as a syllogism: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. These bodies of ours consist of flesh and blood. Therefore they cannot inherit the kingdom of God; consequently not these, but other bodies shall rise in the resurrection.” (315). Ursinus makes a ‘scholastic’ distinction between flesh and blood as evil quality of the substance of the body and flesh and blood as the substance itself. “They jump from the fact that mortal and corrupt flesh

8 It is likely that this reference is from the editor Pareus, because he also refers to the Opera of Ursinus.

Anabaptist Spirituality and the Heidelberg Catechism

53

and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God to the conclusion that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God at all” (315). It is in accordance with this discussion, that the text of the Heidelberg Catechism emphasizes both that the soul of the believers will be in heaven and that their very flesh will rise again: “Not only will my soul be taken immediately after this life to Christ its head, but also my very flesh will be raised by the power of Christ, reunited with my soul, and made like Christ’s glorious body.” (HC 57) Finally, Ursinus also mentions the Anabaptists in the context of the fourth commandment, because they object to the observance of the first day of the week, seeing that the New Testament forbids any distinction between days. “Therefore, say they, the observance of the first day is as much condemned as that of the seventh” (565). Ursinus answers that the Scriptures only forbids Christians to make a distinction between days when they would intend reestablishing ceremonial worship. It is not sure if the phrasing of the catechism is influenced by this controversy, but possibly the facts that the Sunday is called a “festive day of rest” and that the life of sanctification is called the beginning of the “eternal Sabbath” (HC 103) may have partly been intended to counter criticism from this side. Thus at the background of the catechism’s statements on original sin or the remaining power of sin, the resurrection of the body, and the fourth commandment (HC 7, 8, 57, 103, and 114) the Anabaptists might have been in mind, though it is sometimes difficult to prove if and how the phrasing of the Heidelberg Catechism was influenced. In different ways these topics relate to spirituality, either regarding the correct Christian view of the power of sin, or of the body as a temple of the Spirit or more generally of the life of sanctification. In the meantime, the Anabaptists are not treated mildly in Ursinus lectures. Sometimes they are even demonized; the denial of infant baptism “and similar follies of the sect of the Anabaptists should be carefully avoided, since they have, without doubt, been hatched by the devil, and are detestable heresies which they have fabricated from various errors and blasphemies” (368).9 Further research would be necessary to find out if there is a stronger opposition in the development of reformed theology as it appears in the lectures of Ursinus and in the subsequent additions of these lectures on his students like David Pareus.

9 According to Gary K. Waite the Reformed, compared to Catholic and Lutheran intolerance, only rarely depicted the Anabaptists as demonic but generally used biblical and rational arguments against them (2007, 60 f). This seemingly mild attitude, however, may be more strategic than out of principle. In the Reformed sources the Anabaptists are also demonized quite often.

54

Henk van den Belt

2. The Frankenthal Disputation of 1571 Our second source is the Frankenthal disputation of 1571.10 Eight years after the publication of the Heidelberg Catechism Friedrich III invited Anabaptists from the Palatinate and from abroad for a theological discussion. Their safety was guaranteed for fourteen days before and after the debate, although some of Frederick’s political advisors, like Thomas Erastus (1524 – 1583) advocated a more rigorous attitude (Krebs: 1971, 196, cf. Bouma: 1992, 151). The disputation took place every day except Sunday from May the 28th to June the 19th; and the first session began at six in the morning. The representatives from Anabaptist side where so-called “Swiss Brethren” from the Palatinate and from abroad. There were no Hutterites from Moravia and no Mennonites from the Low Countries, to the disappointment of the elector and the Reformed pastors.11 Peter Dathenus, court chaplain at Heidelberg, led the discussion from the Reformed side assisted by six other pastors.12 Ultimately the disputation was also of importance for the development of the Anabaptist theology in the circle of the Swiss Brethren. As Snyder demonstrates, the protocol of the Frankenthal Disputation served as a starting point for further reflection (1999, 2000). Roth suggests that the safe haven of Frankenthal and other places where similar disputations were held enabled the lay theologians to develop their theological identity (2007, 355). The record of the disputation, the so-called Protocol of 806 printed pages served to prove that the Anabaptists were wrong, but recorded the debate accurately (Yoder : 1962a, 34); it was immediately translated into Dutch. The mandate of the elector, who was only present at the opening session, lists the topics the Reformed thought they disagreed on with the Anabaptists: 1.

2. 3.

Concerning Holy Scripture: Whether the Scriptures of the Old Testament have as much authority for the Christian as those of the New Testament. That is: Whether the doctrine of the main articles of Christian faith and life can and must be proved from the Old Testament as well as from the new. Concerning God: Whether the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are a single divine being, though distinguished in three persons. Concerning Christ: Whether Christ has taken the essence of his flesh from the substance of the flesh of the Virgin Mary or from somewhere else.

10 On the disputation see Hege: 1908, 112 – 135, Güss: 1960, 73ff, and Bouma: 1992, 148 – 155. 11 “Swiss Brethren” is a collective name for German-speaking Anabaptists who did not belong to the Hutterites or the Mennonites and were located in Switzerland and South and Middle Germany and not an exclusively geographical designation (Bender : 1959). 12 According to Yoder, Dathenus was a skillful debater and expert in Anabaptist issues with which he was familiar from Anabaptist materials collected in Holland (1962a, 27). Yoder refers to Güss: 1960, 77.

Anabaptist Spirituality and the Heidelberg Catechism

4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

55

Concerning original sin: Whether the children are conceived and born in original sin and therefore by nature children of wrath and guilty of eternal death. Concerning the church: Whether the believers in the Old Testament are one congregation and people of God with the believers in the New Testament. Concerning justification: Whether the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ accepted by true faith is the only and exclusively sufficient atonement for our sins and cause of our eternal salvation. Or otherwise whether we are saved partly by faith in Christ out of grace and partly by the cross and good works. Concerning the resurrection of the flesh: Whether the essence of this flesh will rise again on the last day or whether any other one will be created by God. Concerning marriage: Whether excommunication and unbelief dissolve a marriage. Concerning the communion of goods: Whether the Christian is allowed to buy and have his own property without violating Christian charity. Concerning the magistrate: Whether a Christian can be a magistrate and is allowed to punish the wicked with the sword. Concerning the oath: Whether the Christian is allowed to swear lawfully by the name of God; that is call upon God as a witness of the truth. Concerning baptism: Whether the children of Christians should be baptized. Concerning the Lord’s Supper : Whether the holy supper is only a mere and empty sign and exhortation to patience and love, or whether it is also the powerful seal of the blessed communion that all believers have with Christ unto eternal life (cf. Yoder : 1962a, 22).

The only issue on which the parties agreed according to the recapitulatio was justification (770). Divorce after excommunication was particular for the Dutch Mennonites. One of the spokesmen of the Palatinate Anabaptists, Rauff Bisch of Odernheim,13 distanced himself from Menno Simons and stated that nothing could be a reason for divorce except adultery (603). The communion of goods characterized the Hutterites, who were also absent.14 Rauff Bisch claimed that a Christian may buy, sell and possess his own property. “However, everyone according to the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 must […] have it 13 Rauff Bisch was the main spokesman from Anabaptist side, a few times Diebold Winter also played an important role (Yoder : 1961a, 26). 14 Dathenus concludes that no ‘Huterischen’ or ‘Merherländer’—Anabaptists from Moravia—are present (609), but it is not clear whether Dathenus has one or two groups in mind. Older scholarship identified three of the participants as Hutterites and claimed that they decided to keep silent on these issues (Wolkan: 1903, 51 f and Hege: 1908, 115 f), but this is interpreted as a mistake by Friedmann: 1959. Krebs (1971, 182 f) follows the older view.

56

Henk van den Belt

as though he had it not” (610). He refused to defend the Hutterite position (614, cf. Stayer: 1994, 161). Although it is clear that the Reformed saw possible Anabaptist errors on these points, it does not seem likely that the Heidelberg Catechism’s explanation of the communion of saints or of the seventh commandment were composed with these errors in mind, although for instance the explanation of the communion of saints as sharing in the gifts of Christ and sharing one’s own gifts with other Christians (HC 55) might be read as an implicit rejection of literal communion of goods. Two of the three issues discussed above from Ursinus’ Commentary also appear in the Frankenthal list: Original sin and the resurrection of the body. In Protocol the Anabaptists are condemned for holding that the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David, and all the faithful, were conceived and born in sin. After Christ has fulfilled the obedience of the death on the cross, however, he has redeemed them from this heritage and from all other sins, thus abolishing Adam’s sin. So he has placed the human race in the liberty again, that no human being is conceived and born in sin any more. (772)

The Protocol does not deal explicitly with perfectionism, but Dathenus does refer to Romans 7:14 in the discussion of original sin and argues that Paul “does not say I was carnal, but I am carnal” (260).15 On the resurrection of the body the recapitulation summarizes: “The dark way in which they speak about it, gives us a lot to think about” (774). It is hard to tell from the discussion what the Anabaptists precisely believed, because they tried to stick as closely as possible to the literal texts of Paul, but it is clear that their Reformed opponents thought that they denied the continuity between the present and the resurrected body. Four other fields of debate are interesting for the correct understanding the unnamed Anabaptist target of the Heidelberg Catechism. In the first place the doctrine of the Trinity was at stake. The Anabaptists in Frankenthal were hesitant to use the word ‘Person’, because they deemed it unbiblical. The recapitulatio claims that “it was made clear enough by our ministers, and [the Anabaptists] did not know a better word to explain the three hypostases (selbstständigkeiten) in the eternal divine essence” (771). The Reformed concerns about Anabaptist errors might have influenced the way the Heidelberg Catechism speaks about the Trinity : “That is how God has revealed himself in his Word: these three distinct persons are one, true, eternal God” (HC 25). Of course, the phrasing is too general to be exclusively antiAnabaptist, but the emphasis on God’s revelation in the Bible probably flows from the fact that many anti-trinitarian radicals appealed to Scripture to refute the doctrine of the Trinity. In the second place, it is clear that the Anabaptists were blamed of holding 15 According to Beachy the way in which the sixth topic—on justification—is discussed illustrates the general suspicion that the Anabaptists were not orthodox on the doctrine of grace (1977, 9).

Anabaptist Spirituality and the Heidelberg Catechism

57

an invalid view of Christ. The Anabaptist doctrine of the celestial flesh of Christ originated from the spiritualist Caspar Schwenckfeld (1489/90 – 1561) who influenced Melchior Hoffman (ca. 1500 – 1543) and through him Menno Simons (ca. 1496 – 1561). The issue was so important at Frankenthal that for this reason the Reformed claimed that the eternal wellbeing and salvation of the Anabaptists was at stake (12). Anabaptist pastors tell their flocks that they are ‘the only holy and elect people.’ (18) This, however, is a delusion. Because even if you would lead a much holier life—as all God’s children are obliged to live holy according to the eternal will of God—and would exceed the angels in humility and spirituality—as Paul writes in Collossians 2 about some deceivers— that would all help you nothing, because you do not have the head, which is Jesus Christ, whom you do not know either in his natures or in his offices, as the reports of this disputation demonstrate. (18)

The statement in the Heidelberg Catechism that “the eternal Son of God […] took to himself, through the working of the Holy Spirit, from the flesh and blood of the virgin Mary, a truly human nature so that he might also become David’s true descendant” (HC 35) is directed against this Anabaptist error. It is surprising that Ursinus’ Commentary does not mention the Anabaptists explicitly in this context, although he does claim that the exposition of the doctrine of Christ’s two natures is “necessary on account of ancient and modern heretics, who have denied, and who now deny, that the flesh of Christ was taken from the substance of the Virgin” (205).16 This absence of an explicit reference to the Anabaptists shows that it would be a mistake to lean exclusively on the Commentary for the explanation of the catechism. In the third place, the Reformed ecclesiological principle that Christ gathers, defends, and preserves his church from the beginning to the end of the world (HC 54) or rather the catholicity expressed in this answer, can be read as not only polemical against the Roman claim of exclusive catholicity, but also against the Anabaptists. As the introduction to the Protocol says: “God was never without a people or congregation from the very beginning and the eternal King Jesus Christ was not without a kingdom.” ([19])17 The Anabaptist confession, however, only started in the year 1522, with Niclas Storch and Thomas Müntzer. The Reformed copy the arguments the Roman Catholic polemicists used against them and the Lutherans, for instance referring to the disagreements among the Anabaptists: “The Mennonites baptize those who turn from your 16 Ursinus compares the Anabaptist Christology to the doctrine of the ancient Eutychians who held that the flesh of Christ came from the Holy Spirit and from the body of Mary. It is debated if Anabaptist views were really similar to the ancient heresies, but more contemporaries blamed them of Eutychianism and Monophysitism. (Webb: 2011, 156). 17 The introduction does not have page numbers therefore the numbers of the pdf-file are used here.

58

Henk van den Belt

sect to them for a third time, as is publicly known, because those Mennonites do not recognize you as the congregation or Church of Christ any more than us, although you also rebaptize.” ([20]) The Reformed see their own church as the catholic church. The Anabaptists wanted to return to the apostolic church, but the Reformed denied that you can really be apostolic, without being catholic, that is without continuity with the church of all ages. The Anabaptists criticized the Reformed for the impurity of their churches, but according to the Reformed the impurity of the church is no reason for separation, because the church was already imperfect in the times of the prophets and apostles. They invite the Anabaptists to return to the true body of Christ “to help to repair and build the church of God” [(21)]. Finally, there is a strong disagreement about the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments. In Frankenthal this was “the most burning issue that separates the two groups” (Klassen: 1968, 104). On the one hand the Anabaptists are blamed for underestimating the Old Testament, but on the other hand, they are also blamed for turning Christ into a new Moses (18). Dathenus claims that the patriarchs saw the power of the passion of Christ that would happen in the future by faith as something in the present (337). The Anabaptists did not acknowledge the authority of the Old Testament in Christian life and doctrine wholeheartedly. According to the recapitulation, the Anabaptists teach that “the Old Testament does not prove anything regarding the Christian doctrine and life” (771) But if only the New Testament counts, God would not be steadfast. The position of the Anabaptists implies that the Spirit of Christ has only spoken through Christ and the apostles and not through the prophets. This opens the door for all heresies and errors. Because of this different hermeneutical approach it is possible that the phrasing regarding the gospel in the Old Testament in the catechism not only expresses polemics with the Lutherans, but also with the Anabaptists. “God began to reveal the gospel already in Paradise; later God proclaimed it by the holy patriarchs and prophets and foreshadowed it by the sacrifices and other ceremonies of the law; and finally God fulfilled it through his own beloved Son” (HC 19).

3. Analysis and Conclusion The implicit polemics against the Anabaptists in the Heidelberg Catechism can only be found by studying the theological positions held by or ascribed to the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century. The main hermeneutical issue was as the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments and the main theological difference was on Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity. This is important to understand the sharp tone against the Anabaptists, who not only had a different view regarding one of the sacraments, but, according to

Anabaptist Spirituality and the Heidelberg Catechism

59

the Reformed, also placed themselves doctrinally outside of the catholic church of all ages. In the topics shortly discussed above from Ursinus’ Commentary and from the Frankenthal Protocoll—the nature of sin, the resurrection of the body, the Sabbath, the doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ, ecclesiology, and the relationship of the Old and New Testaments—some relationship with the phrasing of the Heidelberg Catechism is probable or at least possible, although specific influence is difficult to prove. At least the discussions on these topics show that some knowledge of the Anabaptist convictions is important to understand the contemporary background of the text of the catechism. In all the topics mentioned above the Anabaptists reveal a certain dualism. In their Christology they separate the divine Christ from the real human flesh, in their perfectionism they separate the saving work of the Spirit from fallen human nature, in their ecclesiology they separate the church from the world, and hermeneutically they separate the New Testament from the Old. In these cases the Reformed had a different spirituality. They reject Anabaptist dualism between the divine and human natures of Christ, between the present flesh and the eschatological body, between the church and the world, between sinful human nature and the grace of the Spirit, and of course between the Old and New Testaments. The spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism can be characterized as a spiritualisty of continuity between creation and recreation, between ‘Paradise Lost’ and ‘Paradise Regained’. Over against the restitution of the church it advocates its reformation and instead of a new creation it expects the redemption of the fallen world from the power of sin and death.

Bibliography Battles, Ford Lewis (ed.) (1986), Institutes of the Christian religion. London: Collins. Beachy, Alvin J., (1977), The Concept of Grace in the Radical Reformation, Leiden: Brill. Belt, Henk van den (2014), Sword and Oath: The Anabaptist Convictions and the Heidelberg Catechism—forthcoming in the proceedings of the ETF-conference ‘The Heidelberg Catechism in Ecumenical Perspective’ (Leuven, 18 – 19 April 2013). Bender, Harold S. (1959), Swiss Brethren, Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, retrieved 28 October 2013, gameo.org. Bierma, Lyle D. (ed.) (2005), An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Bouma, T.D. (1992), Wegwijs in de Reformatie: Gerard Verstege uit Garderen over de juiste geloofskeus, Goes: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre.

60

Henk van den Belt

G]ss, E.F.P. (1960) Die Kurpfälzische Regierung und das Täufertum bis zum Dreissigjährigen Krieg. Stuttgart, Kohlhammer. CRC (1979), Ecumenical Creeds and Reformed Confessions, Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church. Friedmann, Robert (1959), Walpot, Peter (1521 – 1578), Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, retrieved 28 October 2013, from gameo.org. Hege, Christian (1908), Die Täufer in der Kurpfalz: ein Beitrag zur badischpfälzischen Reformationsgeschichte, Frankfurt am Main: Kommissionsverlag von Hermann Minjon. Huijgen, Arnold e.a. (ed.) (2013), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok. Klassen, William (1968), Covenant and Community : The Life, Writings, and Hermeneutics of Pilgram Marpeck, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Krebs, Manfred (1971), Quellen zur Geschichte der Wiederta¨ ufer. IV. Bd., IV. Bd. Quellen Zur Geschichte Der Wiederta¨ ufer. New York [etc.]: Johnson Reprint. Reprint of Manfred Krebs and Karl Schornbaum (1951), Quellen Zur Geschichte Der Ta¨ ufer : Bd. 4, Gu¨ tersloh: Gütersloher Verlag. Packull, Werner O. (1995), Hutterite Beginnings: Communitarian Experiments During the Reformation, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. – (2000), Die Hutterer in Tirol: frühes Täufertum in der Schweiz, Tirol und Mähren, Universitätsverlag Wagner. Protocoll, (1571), Protocoll, das ist, Alle Handlung des Gesprechs zu Franckenthal inn der churfürstlichen Pfaltz, mit denen so man Widertaüffer nennet, Heidelberg: Johannes Mayer (pdf-file is available via books.google.com). Protocol, (1571), Protocol, dat is de gansche handelinge des gesprecks, te Franckenthal, inder Cuervorstelicker Paltz, met dien, welcke men wederdoopers noemt, transl. Gasper van der Heyden, [Dordrecht]: [Jan Canin] (pdf-file is available via books.google.com). Roth, John D., (2007), Marpeck and the Later Swiss Brethren, 1540 – 1700, in John D. Rothand James M. Stayer, A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism, 1521 – 1700, Leiden [etc.]: Brill, 347 – 388. Snyder, Arnold (1999), The (Not-So) “Simple Confession” of the Later Swiss Brethren: Part I: Manuscripts and Marpeckites in an Age of Print, Mennonite Quarterly Review 73, 677 – 722. – (2000), The (Not-So) “Simple Confession” of the Later Swiss Brethren: Part II: The Evolution of Separatist Anabaptism, Mennonite Quarterly Review 74, 87 – 122. Stayer, James M. (1994), The German Peasants’ War and Anabaptist Community of Goods, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Voorwinden, T./Belt, H. van den (2013), De complexe ontstaansgeschiedenis van het Schatboek van Zacharias Ursinus (1534 – 1583), Theologia Reformata 56, 136 – 153. Waite, Gary K. (2007), Eradicating the Devil’s Minions: Anabaptists and Witches in Reformation Europe, 1525 – 1600, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Anabaptist Spirituality and the Heidelberg Catechism

61

Webb, Stephen H. (2011), Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Wolkan, R. (1903), Die Lieder der Wiederta¨ ufer : Ein Beitrag zur deutschen und niederla¨ ndischen Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte, Berlin: B. Behr. Ursinus, Zacharias (1888/1954), The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, George W. Williard, ed., Cincinnati: Elm Street Printing Company, reprint Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Yoder, Jesse (1962a), The Frankenthal Debate with the Anabaptists in 1571: Purpose, Procedure, Participants, The Mennonite Quarterly Review 36, 14 – 35. – (1962b), The Frankenthal Disputation: Part II. Outcome, Issues, Debating Methods, The Mennonite Quarterly Review 36, 116 – 146.

Kyle J. Dieleman

The Heidelberg Catechism, Calvin’s Genevan Catechism, and Spirituality A Comparative Study The Heidelberg Catechism, quite obviously, was not formed in a theological or historical vacuum. The sources from which the Catechism draws has been the subject of much scholarly attention. Scholars have long noted the influence of Ursinus’s Smaller and Larger Catechisms. Scholars have proposed similarities with a number of other catechisms, including ones by Bullinger, Calvin, and a Lasco.1 Other scholars have noted similarities with catechisms composed by Luther, Melanchthon, and Beza.2 Yet, a scholarly consensus of the exact sources for the Heidelberg Catechism has not been achieved. My goal in this paper is not to attempt to determine the definite historical sources of the Heidelberg Catechism. Such a project requires far more attention than could ever be addressed here. Instead, I will focus on the relationship between the theology of the Heidelberg Catechism and Calvin’s Genevan Catechism. What I largely assume is that Calvin’s Genevan Catechism has at least some degree of influence on the Heidelberg Catechism. While the debate over exactly how influential Calvin’s Genevan Catechism was on the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, that the Heidelberg Catechism was at least partially influenced by the Genevan Catechism is a given by almost all scholars.3 Comparing the two will demonstrate where Calvin’s theology has most strongly impacted the Heidelberg Catechism and, more pertinently, where the theology of the Heidelberg Catechism departs from Calvin’s theology. Specifically, I will focus on the “question-and-answers” of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Genevan Catechism pertaining to the Apostles’ Creed. While the Heidelberg Catechism clearly follows the Genevan Catechism regarding the Apostles’ Creed, the Heidelberg Catechism departs from the Genevan Catechism in important ways. These variations are largely due to the emphasis on spirituality found in the Heidelberg Catechism, emphases that 1 Gooszen: 1890, 1 – 241; Lang: 1907, I – CIV. 2 For Luther, see Neuser : 1979, 181 f. For Melanchthon and Beza, see Hollweg: 1961a, 42 – 47 and Hollweg: 1961b, 111 – 123, respectively. 3 Furthermore, we know that Olevianus studied with Calvin and Ursinus had met Calvin. It is, as most scholars concede, virtually impossible for both Olevianus and Ursinus to have been unaware of the Genevan Catechism. For an accessible and brief summary of Olevianus’ and Urinsus’ biography reference the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary’s website on the Heidelberg Catechism: http://www.heidelberg-catechism.com/en/history/?s=15.

The Heidelberg Catechism, Calvin’s Genevan Catechism, and Spirituality

63

are not absent in Calvin’s Genevan Catechism but are not as prominent. This spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism is brought to the forefront when a comparison and contrast with Calvin’s Genevan Catechism is undertaken. My paper, then, will highlight these variations and subsequently demonstrate the emphases on spirituality found in the Heidelberg Catechism, particularly in the section on the Apostles’ Creed. Before examining the two catechisms, it is first necessary to explain what is meant in “spirituality.” What does it mean to talk about the “spirituality” of a catechism, and what does it mean to say the Heidelberg Catechism was concerned with the “spirituality” of its audience? The fact that “spirituality” can mean almost anything in a contemporary setting significantly complicates the task of giving the term a definition. In an article focused on understanding Calvin’s spirituality, Richard Gamble gives a two-part definition to spirituality : first, knowledge of the nature of God himself and his action on behalf of the elect and second, the human response to that knowledge (Gamble: 1996, 337 f). While such a definition may not be perfect, it is sufficient for our purposes here. When I speak of “spirituality” I am drawing particularly on Gramble’s second part of his definition, the human response to the knowledge of God and his action. Thus, when I argue the Heidelberg Catechism is concerned with the spirituality of its audience, I mean that the Catechism guides its audience in a more complete understanding of how knowledge of God and his works impacts his or her response. In other words, to speak of the Heidelberg Catechism’s spirituality is to address how the knowledge of God affects the physical and spiritual state and action of a person’s life. The first significant difference in their sections on the Apostles’ Creed between the Genevan Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism occurs in how they understand the phrase “he descended into hell.” Calvin addresses the phrase of the Apostles’ Creed specifically in question and answer 65. Calvin understands Christ’s descent into hell as “those dreadful agonies by which his [Jesus’] soul was straitened.”4 Interestingly, Calvin has seven more question and answers before he moves on to the next phrase of the Creed. These seven question and answers appear to deviate from the topic of Christ’s descent into hell, but they actually deal more deeply with what it meant for Christ to suffer the agonies of hell. Calvin moves from discussing Jesus “horrible distress of soul” as he was forsaken by the Father and how such an experience could happen to Jesus since he was God and the Son of the Father. Calvin then addresses how Christ “subdued and destroyed” the power of hell, the reality of hell for unbelievers, and the benefits believers derive from the death of Christ. Calvin clearly sees all of these topics as following from Christ’s experiencing hell on the cross as he suffered for sin and was forsaken by God. Calvin is concerned with the spiritual benefits given to the believer, evidencing a 4 Calvin, CO 6:30: “Hoc autem nomine horribiles angustias intelligo, quibus eius anima constricta fuit.” Translation Calvin: 1815, 24.

64

Kyle J. Dieleman

concern for spirituality, but his clear emphasis is on the theological importance of Christ’s descent into hell. The Heidelberg Catechism deals with Christ’s descent into hell in a significantly different manner. The Heidelberg Catechism devotes only one question, question and answer 44, to Jesus’ descent into hell. Many of the topics Calvin deals with under this article of the creed, such as the benefits of Christ’s death, are dealt with prior to Christ’s descent into hell in the Heidelberg Catechism. Most significantly, the Heidelberg Catechism attributes a much different importance to Jesus’ descent into hell than Calvin. The Heidelberg Catechism answers that the phrase is added to the creed “To assure me during attacks of deepest dread and temptation that Christ my Lord, by suffering unspeakable anguish, pain, and terror of soul on the cross but also earlier, has delivered me from hellish anguish and torment” (HC 44). The emphasis here is clearly on the assurance that the believer gains from Christ’s suffering. The Heidelberg Catechism does speak, like Calvin, of Christ’s “terror of soul” but the effect is to deliver believers from attacks of “dread and temptation” (HC 44). Thus, while Calvin’s concern was primarily theological, the Heidelberg Catechism’s emphasis is clearly on how the article of the creed affects the Christian. That is to say, the Heidelberg Catechism here is deeply concerned with spirituality. A second notable difference between the Genevan Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism occurs in the benefits for believers of Christ’s ascension into heaven. Calvin lists the “fruit” as twofold. First, Christ has “opened to us also that door, which, on account of sin, was before shut.”5 Second, Jesus “appears in the presence of God as our Intercessor and Advocate.” Both of the benefits Calvin addresses deal with the believer’s justification with God. In a sense, for Calvin, in his ascension Jesus is applying or enacting the justification he has carried out for believers. In his ascension Jesus opens the door that sin had shut, the open door being a result of being made right with God. Similarly, Jesus appears as our Intercessor and Advocate before the Father, things that also occur because of the justification with God Jesus has won for believers. The Heidelberg Catechism shares both of these benefits Calvin lists, though it lists them in different order. The first benefit listed is that Jesus “is our advocate in heaven in the presence of his Father” (HC 49). Here the Heidelberg Catechism follows Calvin almost word for word, picking up in particular the language of advocate.6 The second benefit is that “we have our own flesh in heaven as a sure pledge that Christ our head will also take us, his members, up to himself” (HC 49). The benefit is similar to Calvin’s point of having the door 5 Calvin, Cat. Gen., Q&A 77 (CO 6:34): “ut iam aperta sit nobis ianua, quae propter peccatum ante clausa erat.” 6 The language of “advocate” is missing from Ursinus’s Smaller Catechism, though it is included in his Larger Catechism.

The Heidelberg Catechism, Calvin’s Genevan Catechism, and Spirituality

65

opened for us, though here the Heidelberg Catechism follows much more closely Ursinus’s Smaller Catechism. The Heidelberg Catechism continues to follow Ursinus’s Smaller Catechism and deviates from the Genevan Catechism in listing a third benefit of Christ’s ascension to heaven. This final benefit, the Heidelberg Catechism says, is that Jesus “sends his Spirit to us on earth as a corresponding pledge. By the Spirit’s power we seek not earthly things but the things above, where Christ is, sitting at God’s right hand” (HC 49). This language matches almost identically the language used in Ursinus’s Smaller Catechism.7 What is significant for our purposes is the palpable spirituality of the final benefit the Heidelberg Catechism lists. The result of Christ’s ascension is not just an eschatological hope, but it enables the believer to even now turn from earthly things and turn to the things above, where Christ is. The Heidelberg Catechism, here again, is explicitly concerned with the spirituality of the believer that results from Christ’s ascension. Calvin’s Genevan Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism also differ in how they approach the article regarding Christ being seated at the right hand of God. Calvin addresses three questions to the topic. First, the catechumen answers that the words “signify that the Father has given to him [Jesus] the dominion of heaven and earth, that he should govern all things.”8 The second question deals with the imagery of being at the right hand and sitting; an image Calvin links with that of earthly princes.9 The third question expands on the article, noting that in it “Christ is constituted head over all things to the Church” and has a name above all names.10 The theme here is quite obvious. Calvin’s emphasis is clearly on Christ’s reign over all things. As Christ sits at the right hand of the Father, he act as the head of all things including, notably, the Church. To use anachronistic language that Calvin never did, the theme is Christ’s rule over every square inch of creation. The Heidelberg Catechism contains much of the same. In its two questions the Heidelberg Catechism answers that the article is added “Because Christ ascended to heaven to show that he is head of his church, the one through whom the Father rules all things” (HC 50). Again, the emphasis is on Christ’s reign over all things. Significantly, the Heidelberg Catechism also notes Christ as head of the church just as Calvin does.11 However, the Heidelberg Catechism takes a vastly different approach with its second question than Calvin does. The second question, question and answer 51, asks, “How does the glory of 7 Ursinus, Smaller Catechism, Q&A 34, in Bierma: 2005, 146: “He [Jesus] might send us his Spirit from heaven as a reciprocal guarantee, by whose power we meditate not on earthly things but on things above.” 8 Calvin, Cat. Gen., Q&A 80 (CO 6:36): “Haec verba significant, patrem illi coeli et terrae imperium contulisse, ut omnia gubernet.” 9 Calvin, Cat. Gen., Q&A 81 (CO 6:36). 10 Calvin, Cat. Gen., Q&A 82 (CO 6:36). 11 Ursinus’s Smaller Catechism also notes that Jesus is “Lord over all creatures and head of the church”; Q&A 37 in Bierma: 2005, 147.

66

Kyle J. Dieleman

Christ our head benefit us?” The answer : “First, through his Holy Spirit he pours out gifts from heaven upon us his members. Second, by his power he defends us and keep us safe from all enemies.” The question itself is innovative; neither Calvin nor Ursinus’s Smaller Catechism contain any question about the benefits of Jesus being seated at the right hand of God. In its answer the Heidelberg Catechism is clearly borrowing from the Smaller Catechism.12 The answers the Heidelberg Catechism gives are also significant in demonstrating its clear emphasis on the spirituality of the believer. The Heidelberg Catechism’s concern is clearly with the spiritual consequences of the theological doctrine. How is it that Christ being seated at the right hand of God affects the spirituality of believers? The Heidelberg Catechism answers that the spirituality of believers is enhanced through the pouring out of the Holy Spirit by Christ from heaven and by Christ on his throne defending believers from all enemies. Believers can be sure they receive Christ’s gifts because Christ pours them out from heaven upon all his members. Likewise, as Christ sits at the right hand of God he is defending all believers from their enemies. Thus, the benefits of Christ being seated at the right hand of God are given clear emphasis in the Heidelberg Catechism. The final two differences I will highlight are slightly more subtle but evidence well the Heidelberg Catechism’s concern with spirituality. The Genevan Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism differ slightly in how they appropriate the article of the Apostles’ Creed which refers to believe in the Holy Spirit. Calvin has four shorts questions pertaining to belief in the Holy Spirit.13 Throughout these question and answers, Calvin is clear the Holy Spirit’s main role is to “make us partakers of this redemption” and allow us to “receive the gifts of salvation.” The Holy Spirit also “regenerates us and makes us new creatures.” Calvin, somewhat surprisingly, leaves aside some of the theological discussion regarding the Holy Spirit. For instance, he does not address the divinity, eternality, or procession of the Holy Spirit at all. What Calvin does stress is the benefits the Holy Spirit is able to bring to the believer. Thus, here it is absolutely necessary to recognize the deep spirituality of Calvin’s Genevan Catechism. However, the Heidelberg Catechism is not without its own spirituality regarding the Holy Spirit. The Heidelberg Catechism lists two things that are believed about the Holy Spirit. First, “that the Spirit, with the Father and the Son, is eternal God” (HC 53). Second, “that the Spirit is given also to me, so that, through true faith, he makes me share in Christ and all his benefits, comforts me, and will remain with me forever” (HC 53). The Heidelberg Catechism is sure to emphasize the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Heidelberg Catechism seems to be walking a sort of middle ground between Calvin and 12 Ursinus, Smaller Catechism, Q&A 37 in Bierma: 2005, 147: “So that he [Jesus] might fill us with the gifts of his Spirit and most powerfully guard and preserve us from all his and our enemies.” 13 Calvin, Cat. Gen., Q&A 88 – 91, 30 f (CO 6:38).

The Heidelberg Catechism, Calvin’s Genevan Catechism, and Spirituality

67

Ursinus’s Smaller Catechism. Calvin leaves the issue out completely ; Usrsinus addresses the Holy Spirit’s divinity, procession from the Father and the Son, and coeternality and consubstantiality with both.14 But, the Heidelberg Catechism goes beyond a mere statement of belief. The Holy Spirit also allows the believer to participate in the benefits of Christ, a point both Calvin and Ursinus make. Here the Heidelberg Catechism adds a point that Calvin does not include but Ursinus does. The Holy Spirit will remain with the believer forever, a point meant to assure the believer. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is to comfort the believer, a point included neither by Calvin or Ursinus. The spiritual assurance given to the believer by the Holy Spirit is a point the Heidelberg Catechism wants to emphasize; again, the idea of spirituality is central to the point the Heidelberg Catechism seeks to highlight. The final article I will focus on in which the Heidelberg Catechism is significantly different than the Genevan Catechism is “the communion of saints.” Calvin addresses the phrase with three questions.15 First, he asks what is meant by the article, then asks if the holiness of the church is already perfect, and, finally, inquires as to whether the Church can be known by any other means than faith. In response to the first question, Calvin stresses the clear “unity which is among the members of the Church” and “whatever benefits God bestows on the Church.”16 Calvin goes on in the following questions to explain that the Church remains impure until it will one day be completely united to Christ. In the final answer, Calvin distinguishes between the visible church which can be known by certain signs and an invisible church which cannot be “discerned by the eyes.”17 The Heidelberg Catechism deals with the communion of the saints in only one question and places it under the same Lord’s Day as the articles concerning “the holy catholic church” and “the forgiveness of sins.” The Heidelberg Catechism’s question is similar to Calvin’s first question, asking what is to be understood by the phrase. The Heidelberg Catechism’s answer also begins in a manner similar to Calvin’s. The answer replies that “believers one and all, as members of this community, share in Christ and in all his treasures and gifts” (HC 55). Here one finds both the unity of believers Calvin talks about and benefits of Christ that result from being a member of the community. However, the Heidelberg Catechism goes on in its answer with a response that is completely absent in Calvin. The Heidelberg Catechism continues, “Second, that each member should consider it a duty to use these gifts readily and joyfully for the service and enrichment of the other members” (HC 55). This section follows clearly Ursinus’s Smaller Catechism. 14 Ursinus, Smaller Catechism, Q&A 39 in Bierma: 2005, 147. 15 Calvin, Cat. Gen., Q&A 98ff (CO 6:41 f). 16 Calvin, Cat. Gen., Q&A 98 (CO 6:41): “quae inter ecclesiae membra est, unitatem… quidquid beneficiorum largitur Deus ecclesiae.” 17 Calvin, Cat. Gen., Q&A 100 (CO 6:42): “Ea autem nec cernitur perpetuo oculis.”

68

Kyle J. Dieleman

The emphasis hardly needs explanation; the Heidelberg Catechism follows Ursinus in stressing the service of others that naturally results from being a member of “the communion of the saints.” Significant in its absence is any mention by the Heidelberg Catechism about either the impure nature of the church on earth or the distinction between the visible and invisible church. The Heidelberg Catechism is clearly much less concerned with these more technical dogmatic points than is Calvin. Rather, the Heidelberg Catechism focuses its attention on how the “communion of the saints” affects the spiritual lives of those who are a part of the communion. The effects, the Heidelberg Catechism says, are receiving the benefits of Christ but also using these gifts for the service of other members (HC 55). The Heidelberg Catechism is, again, concerned with how this point relates to the spirituality of its members. In comparing the Heidelberg Catechism with the Genevan Catechism it is crucial to understand what each catechism was seeking to accomplish. Different goals will, obviously, lead to different methods and emphases. Bierma has convincingly argued that Frederick had at least three objectives for his catechism: to serve as a catechetical tool for teaching children, as a preaching guide for instructing common people, and as a form for confessional unity (Bierma: 2005, 51). The purpose of the Heidelberg Catechism is, then, quite wide. Yet, the Catechism was clearly aimed at education in the faith. Frederick believed educating children in the faith was his responsibility because he was to lead those in his realm “to devout knowledge and fear of the Almighty and his holy word of salvation as the only foundation of all virtue and obedience” (Richards: 1913, 185). Important to note is that the knowledge of doctrine is to lead to an obedient and virtuous life. Thus, it is not difficult to see why the Heidelberg Catechism continually directs its doctrinal points to the impact they are to have on the believer’s life. Likewise, the emphasis of doctrine leading to piety is clearly found in Calvin’s thought.18 Nonetheless, Calvin’s purpose in his Genevan Catechism is quite different than that of the Heidelberg Catechism. Given Calvin’s historical setting, it should not be surprising that Calvin’s purpose for his catechism is to ensure that “children be rightly brought up in Christian doctrine” (Calvin: 1954, 88). As Randall Zachman has noted (2006, 146), Calvin was concerned that children were to “be able to know both what they believe and why they believe it.” So, while on the whole Calvin understands theology as the handmaiden to piety, the purpose of his Catechism is to instruct in the knowledge of the faith. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the emphasis in the Genevan Catechism is declaring and explaining specific beliefs and doctrines. To apply this point to the topic at hand, in his Catechism, Calvin is most concerned with a proper understanding and explanation of true Christian belief. The Heidelberg Catechism is similarly concerned with 18 See, for instance, Calvin, Institutes 1.2.1.

The Heidelberg Catechism, Calvin’s Genevan Catechism, and Spirituality

69

properly understanding doctrine but contains more of an emphasis, in its purpose and execution, of how such doctrine affects the life of the believer. In conclusion, while the theology of Calvin’s Genevan Catechism has a clear impact on the Heidelberg Catechism, the Heidelberg Catechism departs from the Genevan Catechism in significant ways. A brief examination of the section of each catechism on the Apostles’ Creed shows several places where the Heidelberg Catechism makes important theological points that are either absent in or have a different emphasis than the Genevan Catechism. As I have shown, these differences often demonstrate the Heidelberg Catechism’s concern with the spiritual impact of what the Catechism teaches. It would undoubtedly be unfair to declare Calvin’s theology as a whole or even his Catechism as being unconcerned with spirituality. Nonetheless, comparing the Heidelberg Catechism with Calvin’s Genevan Catechism makes clear the Heidelberg Catechism’s dedicated concern with the spirituality of its audience.

Bibliography Bierma, Lyle D e.a. (2005), An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History, and Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Calvin, John (1863 – 1900), Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, 59 vols., edited by Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss, Corpus Reformatorum 29 – 87, Brunsvigae: Schwetschke. – (1815), The Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Translated by Elijah Waterman, Hartford: Sheldon and Goodwin Printers. – (1954), Theological Treatises, ed. J.K.S. Reid, Philadelphia: Westminster. Christian Reformed Church in North America (2013), The Heidelberg Catechism: 450th Anniversary Edition. Grand Rapids: Faith Alive Christian Resources. Gamble, Richard A. (1996), Calvin and Sixteenth-Century Spirituality : Comparison With the Anabaptists?, in: Calvin Theological Journal 31, 335 – 358. Gooszen, Maurits (1890), De Heidelbergsche Catechismus: textus receptus met toelichtenden teksten, Leiden: Brill. Hollweg, Walter (1961a), Zur Quellenfrage des Heidelberger Katechismus, in: Neue Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Lehre des Heidelberger Katechismus, BGLRK 13/28, Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 38 – 47. Hollweg, Walter (1961b), Die beiden Konfessionen Theodor von Bezas. Zwei bisher unbeachtete Quellen zum Heidelberger Catechismus, in: Neue Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Lehre des Heidelberger Katechismus , BGLRK 13/28, Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 86 – 123. Lang, August (1907), Der Heidelberger Katechismus und vier verwandte Katechismen, Leipzig: Deichert.

70

Kyle J. Dieleman

Neuser, Wilhelm H. (1979), Die Väter des Heidelberger Katechismus, Theologische Zeitschrift 35, 177 – 199. Richards, George W. (1913), The Heidelberg Catechism: Historical and Doctrinal Studies, Philadelphia: Publication and Sunday School Board of the Reformed Church in the United States. Zachman, Randall C. (2006), John Calvin As Teacher, Pastor, and Theologian: The Shape of His Writings and Thought, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Kees de Wildt

Interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism in the Sixteenth Century Commentaries and Sermons on HC 53: the Holy Spirit The sixteenth-century commentaries on the Heidelberg Catechism are witnesses to its earliest interpretation. Being trained in Christian doctrine with this catechism, ministers had to wrestle with its contents in the preparation of their catechism sermons, which sometimes resulted in a commentary. Their printed sermons still show how they read the new catechism with their congregations. It is my intention to introduce these commentaries and sermons from the sixteenth century—which until now have not received much scholarly attention—to rouse interest in this part of the reception history of the catechism.1 In this paper I concentrate on the way commentators and preachers comment on Question and Answer 532— discussing the Holy Spirit—which reads: Q. What do you believe concerning “the Holy Spirit”? A. First, that the Spirit, with the Father and the Son, is eternal God. Second, that the Spirit is given also to me, so that, through true faith, He makes me share in Christ and all his benefits, comforts me, and will remain with me forever.

Characteristic of the Reformed reformation, it not only confirms the deity of the Holy Spirit, but also emphasizes the personal, comforting element of his work. Elements not expressed in this answer are the filioque, the special gifts of the Spirit, and his role in creation. Of course, the catechism has much more to say on the Spirit. Not only does the section “On God the Holy Spirit” range from HC 53 – 64,3 but the whole catechism is implicitly and explicitly permeated by references to the Spirit and his work (Kooi: 2013). 1 Cf. Jetter : 1988, 745; 772; Burchill: 1986, 580 n. 48. Platt: 1982 forms an exception, but he is studying the way Dutch commentators use arguments for the existence of God, not how they explain the catechism. Studies relating to the sixteenth century devote much energy to bibliographical questions of either Ursinus’ commentary (Smid: 1940; Wagner-Peterson: 2013; Voorwinden-Hofman: 2013a) or all commentaries published before 1621 (De Wildt: 2013), while De Wildt: 2011 studies a single sixteenth-century commentary. Other studies mainly focus on commentaries from a later period: Graffman: 1963; Verboom: 1996; Baars: 2012. 2 Therefore, what I state is not automatically valid for other parts of these commentaries without additional research. 3 Perhaps in deliberate reply to the later amplification of this section heading by “and our sanctification,” later Dutch editions of the catechism separate question 59 – 64 under a new heading, “On justification.” Does this signal a theological development?

72

Kees de Wildt

Let us now look to these commentaries and sermons in turn and see how they deal with the content of HC 53.

1. Commentaries on the Heidelberg Catechism 1.1 Caspar Olevianus Caspar Olevianus (1536 – 1587) was the foremost preacher of Heidelberg and he took primary responsibility for the design of the Palatinate church order that included the Heidelberg Catechism. He also authored Vester Grundt (1567), the first commentary on a part of this catechism (Goeters: 1994; Wittmütz: 1993). Herein he discusses only the catechism’s section on the Apostles’ Creed. After citing HC 53 in an amplified form, he weaves its words into his own questions and answers (1567, 156 – 167; 1995, 90 – 95). He previously discussed the deity of the Spirit in connection with the discussion of the trinity in HC 25 and now explains the office of the Spirit by the titles or names given to him in the Bible. Olevianus’ list contains “Holy Spirit because He both regenerates and sanctifies us,” but also “Spirit of adoption,” “seal and deposit of our inheritance,” “water,” “fire,” “anointing,” and “comforter” (1567, 157 – 160; 1995, 90ff). This recalls similar lists by Bullinger, Calvin, and Bucer,4 a feature also found in most subsequent catechism commentaries in this period. Olevianus pastorally concentrates on the benefits of Christ brought to us by the Spirit. He is the bond of union between Christ and us, necessary to get all the fruits mentioned. Olevianus’ other questions—“How do we receive and retain the Holy Spirit?” and “How do we know that we have the Holy Spirit?” (1567, 160; 164; 1995, 92ff)—appear also in later commentaries. According to Olevianus, Christ gives the Spirit through preaching, although the visible gifts of the Spirit have ceased. We receive the Spirit through faith and prayer and He is retained in the same way as He is given and received. With his “how do we know that we have the Spirit?,” Olevianus questions the “given to me” in the answer and so reassures believers that from his effects they can know they have the Spirit. 1.2 Zacharias Ursinus Elements found in Olevianus’ Vester Grundt turn up in later commentaries, starting with the posthumously published catechism lessons of Zacharias Ursinus (1534 – 1583), Doctrinae christianae compendium (1584). Of this first 4 Bullinger : 2008, 670 – 674; Calvin: 1959, 3ff; Bucer: 1553, 24r–v and 229r. See references below for other catechism commentaries. This subject is worth further investigation.

Interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism in the Sixteenth Century

73

full commentary printed, I traced some sixty-five editions and translations until the middle of the seventeenth century, so it must have been one of the more influential theological works.5 Ursinus introduced students to doctrinal theology on an academic level in the first place to prepare them for preaching Scripture, not catechism. His commentary, therefore, does not analyze the words of the catechism; he is not discussing the catechism at all, not even referring to its text. The catechism only indicates the doctrines to be discussed and their order. This approach is similar to Ursinus’ exegetical method, as can be observed in his sermon outlines where he hurries on to the doctrines that can be deduced and to the comfort that their correct application will bring to the elect (Van ’t Spijker : 1991, 159). Already his contemporaries valued Ursinus’ work primarily as systematic theology. Nevertheless, many others, such as Festus Hommius, the Dutch translator, valued it as an exposition of the catechism, giving special praise for his refutation of heresies, though not without acknowledging its lacunas (Ursinus: 1602, fol. *iiii). Though I am well aware of the problems surrounding the reliability of Ursinus’ text in general, comparison between student lecture notes from 1572 and several of the printed editions leads me to conclude that the chapter on the Holy Spirit is reliable (1572, 82r–88r ; 1584, 385 – 407; 1587, 610 – 627).6 His discussion of the Spirit can be summarized by his list of the ten “chief questions of the Holy Ghost” (1572, 82r–v ; 1584, 385; 1587, 610) of which at least four immediately recall Olevianus’ questions. He first asks what the name signifies7, and goes on to discuss the deity, trinity, and the filioque next. The 5 The bibliographical history of Ursinus’ work is complex and not yet fully researched. In De Wildt: 2013, 86 – 87 I list more than thirty Latin editions until 1653, nine editions of the English translation until 1645, one Rhaeto-Romanic edition in 1613, and eighteen editions of the Dutch translation until 1736. Meanwhile I discovered two further editions of the Dutch translation and found archival indications for the existence of even more printings. Wagner-Peterson (2013, 372 – 387) lists the editions and translations in more detail. Though he might add some editions to my findings, others are lacking in his list and so are several of the translations. 6 I compared the manuscript lecture notes (1572) with the first Latin (1584) and first English (1587) editions. Though the phrasing and the order of the questions in the manuscript differ slightly from the first printed edition, all of its content is already present in summary form. The first English edition, which I cite here, is a fair rendering of the Latin, though the material has been slightly edited and rearranged. The content of this chapter in the 1584 edition did not change much in later printings edited by David Pareus. Only two of his corrections seem of importance: he lets Ursinus no longer state that man is ‘almost dead in sinne’ and that the elect are ‘willing and desirous’ to receive the Holy Spirit (1572, 87v ; 86r; 1587, 620; 623; against 1591, 175 f; 180). Strangly, the ‘pene mortuos’ reappears in Ursinus’ Opera Theologica of 1612. For other chapters the differences are larger (cf. Voorwinden 2013b). Apart from the changes after the “Zeitbedürfnissen” made in later editions and translations, Wagner-Peterson detects material from different phases of Ursinus’ theology, even inside the first printed edition in the parts on providence and predestination (2013, 325ff). 7 Cf. the marginal note of the translator : “It is here to be noted, that this Question serveth more properlie for the latine, which useth this name, Spiritus, only, when as we in English use as much, or more rather, the word Ghost, than Spirit, when wee speake of the third Person.” (Ursinus: 1587, 610).

74

Kees de Wildt

third question brings Ursinus closest to the words of the catechism, when he explains the work and the names of the Spirit. He then asks by whom, to whom, and how the Spirit is given, and how He is retained by using Word and Sacrament. Bringing up the example of Saul, Ursinus asks whether the Spirit can be lost. He closes by explaining his necessity and that by faith and repentance we may know that the Spirit dwells in us. Ursinus uses the medieval quaestio-method to define what he believes concerning this doctrine. Each question forms a heading, under which he defines, divides, and defends Reformed teaching, all of this amply confirmed by Biblical texts, which number vastly grows in subsequent editions. Through syllogisms he defends the doctrines against all possible objections. He lists the titles of the Holy Spirit in the same order as Olevianus, only inserting a few: “life,” “fountain,” “Spirit of prayer,” “oil of gladness,” “intercessor,” and “Spirit of truth, wisdom and joy” (1572, 87v–88r ; 1584, 397 f; 1587, 620 f). Where Ursinus poses the same practical questions as Olevianus, his tone becomes pastoral, different from other parts of his lecture on the Holy Spirit.

1.3 Jeremias Bastingius Jeremias Bastingius (1551 – 1595) studied in Heidelberg and Geneva, so he might have heard Ursinus reading his catechism or loci communes lessons. Bastingius soon became a respected minister of the Reformed congregation of Antwerp, where he acquired a wide reputation with his catechism sermons (Nauta: 1983). Asked to publish them, he instead reworked them into an “enchiridion,” a handbook to the catechism for ministers. The first edition of his In Catechesin religionis Christianae […] exegemata was published in 1588. Bastingius expounds the principal words of the catechism text and follows its order and divisions carefully, though he inserts arguments not found there. He is modeling his words after Calvin’s Institutes (Bastingius: 1588, fol. §vr–v ; Bastingius: 1589, fol. A2r). Bastingius opens his comments on HC 53 (1588, 163 – 170; 1589, 67r–70v)8 with the remark that the third part of the Creed is of utmost importance. For— and he quotes Calvin’s Institutes (1959, 5) without mentioning this—“until our minds be set upon the Spirite, Christ lyeth in a manner idle” and He seems to be “farre from our selves” (1589, 67r). In a shorter and more accessible way than Ursinus did in his first questions, Bastingius explains the name “Holy Spirit” and defends his deity. The second part of the Answer concerns our salvation: the Spirit is given to us as well. The catechism states that we know him dwelling in us because of his 8 I use the first Latin edition of 1588, comparing it with and citing from the first English edition of 1589, which seems to be an accurate literal translation. Henricus vanden Corput published an expanded Dutch translation, which therefore is of less use for the study of Bastingius.

Interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism in the Sixteenth Century

75

work in us. Bastingius supplements from Romans that the Spirit also witnesses to our spirit. More than other commentators, he emphasizes the instrumental role of faith by which the Spirit works. According to Bastingius the benefits of Christ are those mentioned already in HC 18: knowledge of Christ unto salvation, justification, and sanctification. The names of the Spirit, which Bastingius puts in the same order as Calvin (1959, 3ff), show different aspects of the Spirit’s work. He is not only the Spirit of sanctification, but “also water, oyle, anointing, fire, and last of all a fountain.” As our “comforter,” the Spirit certifies us of our reconciliation with God and purifies our consciences (Bastingius: 1589, 69v). That He remains with us forever is not the least part of this comfort and it will spur us to a holy life. He concludes his chapter by rejecting several heresies related to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. As he states in his introduction, concluding each chapter this way is an idea he picked up from the “commentarie upon the Catechisme of Geneva” by “the minister of the Italian Church that is in Geneva” (Bastingius: 1589, fol. A2r). He no doubt means Niccol~ Balbani’s Il Catechismo di messer Giovan. Calvino, con una brieve dichiaratione (Geneva 1566). Other commentators on the catechism did not follow their approach. Bastingius pays more attention to the shorter first part than to the much longer second part of the Answer. His approach is more or less analytical, though he does not often mention the words of the catechism explicitly. On many points his commentary recalls what Ursinus brings up in his Compendium. Judging from the number of printings in Latin, English, Dutch, and German, Bastingius’ commentary became the second most influential commentary in the sixteenth century (De Wildt: 2013, 89 f; 92 f). 1.4 Cornelis Corstens A remarkable commentary is the posthumously published Uutlegghinge des Catechismi (‘Exposition of the Catechism’) (1598) by Cornelis Corstens, a Dutch village minister without university education who died in 1582 (De Wildt: 2011). His work is characterized by a strict analytical approach to the text of the catechism. Corstens only occasionally digresses on points of difference with Catholics or Anabaptists. His exposition is interspersed with comparisons with daily life, sayings, stories from church history or personal experience, and simple syllogisms. He emphasizes that God is faithful and points to lessons to be learned. It is clear that many sentences originate from his sermons (De Wildt: 2011, 97; 102). His plain language makes it a pleasure to read. Corstens always starts with an analysis of the Question, while other commentators take that for granted and immediately set upon the Answer. The motivation he detects behind HC Question 53 is that there are heretics that deny the deity of the Spirit and others that consider his work in the believer a

76

Kees de Wildt

fancy. He always concludes his introduction with similar words: “From this it is clear that dealing with this question is imperative.” (1598, 134v). He divides the Answer to this necessary Question regarding the Holy Spirit in the parts best fitting the text, which here results in a fourfold division: firstly, the knowledge of his deity, secondly, that He dwells in us, thirdly, his work in us, and fourthly that He will never abandon us. If necessary, Corstens subdivides these parts into smaller ones, and so considers each phrase or word in turn, illustrating them by Biblical texts to show that even the smallest parts conform to Scripture. After proving the deity of the Spirit Corstens discusses in a way similar to Olevianus how we can know for sure that He lives in us. The Spirit uses our faith “like a hand by which we receive Christ and all his benefits” (1598, 138r). While the Spirit remains with us forever, we can never be deprived of our salvation. From the thirteen Biblical names which Corstens mentions “one can easily infer what kind of a person the Holy Spirit is and how He works in men” (1598, 140r). Corstens’ exposition seems to be informed partly by Olevianus—especially his interpretation of the indwelling of the Spirit—and by Calvin and Bullinger, at least in his list of the titles of the Holy Spirit. He is an impressive commentator, being faithful to the letter and spirit of the catechism (cf. Platt: 1982, 62). Nevertheless, his straightforward analytical interpretation of the catechism was not what contemporaries were looking for. Indeed, it is the sole commentary not used by Festus Hommius to supplement his Ursinustranslation. The Uutlegghinge was not translated and when it was finally reprinted in 1650 it met with no success again (De Wildt: 2011, 103 f).

2. Sermon Series on the Heidelberg Catechism Though a commentary is a genre distinct from a sermon series, the difference may not always be large. Several commentaries on the catechism originated in sermons series and commentaries were published in hope that they would be useful for other ministers in preparing their catechism sermons. That the catechism sermon is a forgotten wing of homiletical history (Jetter : 1988, 765) still applies, at least concerning the sixteenth century. 2.1 Daniel Tossanus Being a refugee since the St Bartholomew’s Day massacres, Daniel Tossanus (1541 – 1602) had arrived in the Palatinate in 1573 to become court preacher to Frederick III (Cuno: 1902). The following year he preached on the Heidelberg Catechism. A beautiful manuscript containing outlines of his sermons in Latin has been preserved in the library of the University of Heidelberg since 1904

Interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism in the Sixteenth Century

77

(Henss: 1983, 65 f), but somehow it stayed virtually unknown. Though the literature on Tossanus does not mention it, it still is an important source, containing an exposition of the catechism that is by far the eldest one available, dating from ten years before Ursinus’ commentary was first published. Ursinus highly respected Tossanus and he wished all theologians to be like him (Bodenmann: 1997, 285). If this applies to his sermons as well, it would be unwise to neglect these outlines, even though it is unclear whether they originate directly from Tossanus or are a hearer’s reworked sermon notes. In any case, this witness of the earliest interpretation of the catechism certainly deserves a scientific edition. Tossanus opens his sermon (1574, 44r–45v) by stating that he will now discuss the restoration of the image of God in man through the Spirit. He first explains the article from the Apostles’ Creed. It teaches us to trust that the Spirit will supply us with everything God promised in his Word. This Spirit is a real person because He was active in creation. With some speaking examples he makes clear that we are not acceptable to God without the recreating work of the Spirit and will have no rest without his sustaining work. Our faith that the Spirit will lead us even in the midst of death can only rest on God’s promises. It is only in the last few paragraphs of his sermon that Tossanus touches upon the words of the catechism itself. Without the Spirit Christ’s benefits are to no purpose. The Spirit works the faith in us by which He makes us one with Christ. Just as our soul vivifies our body and limbs, so the Spirit vivifies the Church, which is Christ’s body. Tossanus uses the titles of the Spirit to characterize his work: living water, seal, fountain, and paraclete (1574, 45r). He will give us what his titles promise us. He will stay with us forever and because he lives in us, we should make sure not to grieve this Holy Spirit but be obedient to the Word. In his thematic approach Tossanus shows himself an able communicator. Even in this short outline of his sermon, most of the message of the catechism comes through, especially the second part of the Answer. 2.2 Balthasar Copius Balthasar Copius (c. 1528–c. 1598) started his studies in Heidelberg in 1563, the year in which the catechism was first published. He became professor at the Collegium Casimirianum and was superintendent in Neustadt (El Kholi: 2010; cf. Bratvogel: 2011). Copius published several popular works in German, one of these his Vier und fünfftzig Predigten uber den […] Catechismum. This first homiletical exposition of the catechism to be published appeared in 1585. In the dedication he states that he made one series of sermons out of three or four. This would relieve him from the burden to produce new catechism sermons each year and he expected his sermons to be helpful for young ministers.

78

Kees de Wildt

Copius does not follow the catechism’s division in Lord’s days strictly.9 By starting each sermon with a short rsum of the one before, he threads them like beads on a lace. When discussing the eighth article on the Holy Spirit in his twentieth sermon, he structures it by the three subjects he finds in HC 53: the person of the Holy Spirit, his office, and how we receive him.10 The way Copius defines and defends the deity of the Spirit recalls Ursinus’ lectures on the catechism, which he might have attended. The whole office of the Holy Spirit can be contained in one word: sanctifying. The gifts relating to faith, renewal, and the Christian life are not common to all humanity, but are for the elect only. Because of these gifts Holy Scripture applies different glorious names to the Spirit. He is called “the Spirit of truth, comfort, grace, and prayer, a fire, water, oil, the anointing, a comforter and helper, a pure and clear water, etc.” (Copius: 1585, 210). The last part of the sermon raises Olevianus’ question: “How we receive and retain the Holy Spirit” (ibid., margin). With Ursinus he stresses the importance of preaching and sacraments, faith and prayer, and striving for a true Christian life. God’s elect will never lose the Spirit completely. Copius’ approach is not analytical. He is following the catechism text in a more meditative way, reflecting on the themes of the answer more than following its exact wording. Polemic occupies only minor place in his sermons. Just like Ursinus—whose influence seems clear throughout this sermon—he gives not much attention to the comforting element of the Answer. His colleagues clearly appreciated these sermons for they were reprinted twice and translated into Dutch as well (De Wildt: 2013, 88; 90; Vogler : 1976, 271). 2.3 Philippus Lansbergius The only Dutch minister who published catechism sermons during the sixteenth century is Philippus Lansbergius (1561 – 1632), now remembered most as a mathematician and astronomer (De Bie: 1943). He published his sermons in 1594 in Latin, thus primarily for his colleagues. Three reprints in Germany testify to the popularity of his Catechesis religionis christianae […] sermonibus LII. explicata there, but it took twenty-two years until the first Dutch translation appeared, to be twice reprinted in the next thirty years (De Wildt: 2013, 89 f). In his twentieth sermon Lansbergius deals with the Holy Spirit (1595, 181 – 9 Several times Copius either combines two Lord’s days or parts of these into one sermon, or divides one Lord’s Day over two sermons. Apart from the introductory sermon, the exceptions are sermons 8, 17 – 19, 21, 22, 44 – 47, 53, and 54. 10 Pareus inserted the same threefold division of HC 53 in his 1598 edition of Ursinus’ commentary (p. 368), although it has no function there.

Interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism in the Sixteenth Century

79

190; 1616, 150r–157r), successively commenting on his person and office.11 He first defends his deity, then the trinity and the intertrinitarian relationship. He argues in a strict logical way making heavy use of syllogisms, finally concluding that the catechistes is right when in the first part of the Answer he states that the Holy Spirit is the true and eternal God, of the same substance with the Father and the Son, really a person, and different from the Father and the Son. The second part of his sermon is more heartening, but only takes up less than one third of the total sermon, though discussing seventy percent of the Answer. Lansbergius states that believing in the Holy Spirit is not only knowing and consenting the truths rationally demonstrated from Scripture in the first part of his sermon, but also believing God’s promise that the Spirit “has been given to me—that is, to every Christian believer” (1595, 187; 1616, 155r). He discusses the Spirit’s twofold office only summarily. Firstly, he states the Spirit to be the indispensable bond joining the elect to Christ and his blessings, which he defines as cleansing, sanctification, and justification. Secondly, to preclude doubts, the Spirit comforts the elect by assuring them of their reconciliation with God. To do so, He remains with us forever, so that we will never have to doubt our salvation. For us this is an incentive to a holy life. The first part of the Answer clearly appealed most to this scientist’s logical mind. Here Lansbergius follows Bastingius closely, though he rearranges material and also adds some elements of his own. The second part of the sermon is still inspired by Bastingius, but he follows him only loosely. To characterize Lansbergius’ sermon on HC 53 as Bastingius’ commentary in a homiletical form might be an accurate description.

2.4 Georg Spindler The originally Lutheran minister Georg Spindler (ca. 1525 – 1605) became a Reformed minister in the Upper Palatinate in 1582 (Knedlik: 2003, 1456ff). When he was no longer able to preach, he published his Zwo und funffzig Predigten uber den Heidelbergischen Catechismus in 1595. A slightly revised second edition was published in 1597, possibly reprinted in 1607. These sermons characterize their author as a pastoral preacher. The twentieth sermon, dealing with HC 53 (1597, 252 – 261) opens with an overview of sanctification as a summary term for the third part of the Apostles’ Creed. Sanctification is a rebirth by which we are being conformed to the image of God, though still our sanctity rests fully in Christ only. The rest of his sermon he divides in two parts, firstly, on the person of the Holy Spirit and secondly on his office and blessings for us. In the first section, he discusses the 11 I use the second Latin edition of 1595 and compare it with the first Dutch edition of 1616, which seems to be an accurate literal translation.

80

Kees de Wildt

trinity and more specifically the deity of the Spirit, closely following Ursinus’ arguments. Against heretics, Spindler wants to instruct his congregation in positive doctrine. Heresies should not be discussed with laymen, as this might only be counterproductive, while people more easily pick up false than sound doctrine, or in Spindler’s own words, “damit man nicht Leuse in Peltz setze, die sonst wol drein kommen” (1597, 256). Spindler opens the second part of his sermons with an extended paraphrase of the second half of Answer 53, stressing that the Spirit is the indispensable link between Christ and us to receive his benefits. He delves deeper into the work of the Spirit in the believer by elaborating on his names already mentioned by Ursinus, though in a different order (1597, 258 f). Judging from the space allotted to the Spirit’s remaining with us forever, this is the most important theme to Spindler. He develops a fuller and more pastoral answer to the objection—originally mentioned by Ursinus—that the Spirit departed from Saul. Spindler closes his sermon with an exhortation to be patient in affliction and, like Bastingius and Lansbergius, urges his readers not to grieve the Holy Spirit by an unholy life, but to live in gratitude. He closes with a short prayer to the Spirit—“love in essence, source and fountain of all holiness” (idem, 261)—summarizing the sermon in a few lines.

Conclusion Looking to the method and content of these commentaries and sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism gives an impression of how they did Reformed theology using this catechism as a starting point. In interpreting HC 53 content seems to differ less than method. There are clear indications that the authors influenced one another in the topics to be discussed, Ursinus immediately ranking highly. It would be interesting to trace how the theology of Melanchthon, Bullinger, Calvin, and others informed the interpretation of the catechism as well. It is also important to note here that from its earliest start the sermons have not been “adapted to the apprehension of children” as they were meant (Tossanus: 1574, 2r). All commentators and preachers do their utmost to show the conformity of the catechism to Scripture. The emphases differ. Some appear to be more interested in proving the deity of the Spirit using logic and in defending right doctrine. Others stress the personal aspects of the second point of the Answer and the comfort believers may draw from it. We may also note a kind of implicit criticism in those commentators who add elements missing in the catechism, like creation. It is striking that none of them—except Tossanus to a certain extent—seems interested in the working of the Spirit with the Word and that no one mentions the special visible gifts of the Spirit, except Olevianus who holds them to have ceased. No one refutes the Spiritual

Interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism in the Sixteenth Century

81

immediacy of the early Anabaptists to understand the Scriptures without learning, or the Spiritualist mysticism of the inner Word and the immediate experience of the Spirit, though we have to take into account that we have studied only one catechism Question. Because there is no authoritative interpretation of the HC, not even the one by Ursinus, I hope to have shown that when the catechism is used in present day Reformed churches it can be worthwhile to see how the range of these early commentaries and sermons interpreted it. Secondly, by now it should be clear that the way in which early commentators read the catechism may add an important facet to the study of the reception history of the Heidelberger.

Bibliography Baars, A. (2012), ‘De eenvoudige Heidelberger …!’ Een korte geschiedenis van de Catechismuspreek in Nederland, Apeldoornse Studies 59, Apeldoorn: Theologische Universiteit. Bastingius, Jeremias (1588), In Catechesin religionis Christianae […] exegemata sive commentarii, Dordrecht: Jan Canin. – (1589), An Exposition or Commentarie upon the Catechisme of Christian Religion, London: [Abraham Kitson]. Bie, J.P. de (ed.) (1943), Article “Lansbergen (van Lansberghe, Lansbergius) (Philips of Philippus)”, BWPGN 5, 549 – 554. Bodenmann, Reinhard (1997), Daniel Toussain (1541 – 1602): Auteur inconnu d’un trait contre les luthriens (1576) et diteur inattendu d’un texte de Martin Bucer, ARG 88, 279 – 321. Bratvogel, Friedrich W. (ed.) (2011), Bernhard Copius und das Lemgoer Gymnasium, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bucer, Martin (1553), In Sacra Quatuor Evangelia, Enarrationes perpetuae, [Geneva]: Stephanus. Bullinger, Heinrich (2008), Sermonum Decades quinque de potissimis Christianae religionis capitibus (1552), ed. Peter Opitz. HBTS 3, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Burchill, Christopher J. (1986), On the Consolation of a Christian Scholar : Zacharias Ursinus (1534 – 83) and the Reformation in Heidelberg, JEH 37, 565 – 584. Calvin, John (1959), Opera Selecta, vol. 4, 2nd ed., ed. Peter Barth/Wilhelm Niesel, München: Kaiser. Copius, Balthasar (1585), Vier und fünfftzig Predigten uber den alten Churfürstlichen Heidelbergischen […] Catechismum […], Neustadt: Matthaeus Harnisch. Corstens, Cornelis (1598), Uutlegghinge des Catechismi der gereformeerde christelicke kercke, ed. Willem Vinck, Leiden: Henrick Haestens. Cuno, Fr.W. (1902), Daniel Toussain, Sieur de Beaumont, nach seiner Bedeutung für die Gemeinden des pfälzischen Refuge, GBDHV XI.4.

82

Kees de Wildt

El Kholi, Susann (2010), Article “Copius (eigentl. Koep), Balthasar”, BBKL 31, 285 – 291. Goeters, J.F.G. (1994), Olevians Fester Grund: Entstehung, Geschichte, Inhalt, in: Caspar Olevian, Der Gnadenbund Gottes 1590: Faksimile-Edition mit einem Kommentar, ed. Gunther Franz/J.F. Gerhard Goeters/Wilhelm Holtmann, Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 467 – 490. Graffmann, Heinrich (1963), ‘Die Erklärung des Heidelberger Katechismus in Predigt und Unterricht des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts’, in: Lothar Coenen (ed.), Handbuch zum Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 63 – 77. Jetter, Werner (1988), Article “Katechismuspredigt”, TRE 17, 744 – 786. Heidelberg Catechism: 450th Anniversary Edition, Grand Rapids: Faith Alive, 2013. Henss, Walter (1983), Der Heidelberger Katechismus im konfessionspolitischen Kräftespiel seiner Frühzeit. Historisch-bibliographische Einführung der ersten vollständigen deutsch[e]n Fassung, der sogenannten 3. Auflage von 1563 und der dazugehörige lateinischen Fassung, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Knedlik, Manfred (2003), Article “Spindler, Georg”, BBKL 21, 1456 – 1458. Kooi, Cornelis van der (2013), De Heilige Geest volgens de Heidelbergse Catechismus, in: Arnold Huijgen/John V. Fesko/Aleida Siller (ed.), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok, 239 – 248. Lansbergius, Philippus (1595), Catechesis religionis christianae […] sermonibus LII. explicata, 2nd ed., Neustadt: Matthaeus Harnisch. – (1616), Den Catechismus ofte onderwijsinge inde christelijcke religie […]. In LII. predicatien […], Amsterdam: Cornelis Lodewijcsz vander Plas. Nauta, D. (1983), Article “Bastingius (Bastinck), Jeremias”, BLGNP 2, 46 – 48. Olevianus, Caspar (1567), Vester Grundt, das ist, Die Artickel des alten, waren, ungezweiffelten Christlichen Glaubens […], Heidelberg: Michel Schirat. – (1995), A Firm Foundation: An Aid to Interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism, transl. and ed. Lyle D. Bierma, TSRPRT, Grand Rapids: Baker. Platt, John (1982), Reformed Thought and Scholasticism: The Arguments for the Existence of God in Dutch Theology, 1575 – 1650, SHCT 29, Leiden: Brill. Smid, T.D. (1940), Bibliographische opmerkingen over de Explicationes Catecheticae van Zacharias Ursinus, GThT 41, 228 – 243. Spijker, W. van ‘t (1991), Ursinus praedicator, in: J. van Genderen e.a. (ed.), Ten dienste van het Woord. Opstellen aangeboden aan prof. dr. W.H. Velema […], Kampen: Kok, 158 – 179. Spindler, Georg (1597), Zwo und funffzig Predigten uber den Heidelbergischen Catechismum […] jetzt wider mit fleiß übersehen, 2nd ed., Amberg: Michael Forster. Tossanus, Daniel (1574), Conciones in Catechismum: habitae Anno Salutis M.D.LXXIIII, Heidelbergae. UB Heidelberg, Sign. Heidelberger Handschriften 994.

Interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism in the Sixteenth Century

83

Ursinus, Zacharias (1572), Dictata In Catechismum Heidelbergensem a Zacharia Ursino: in Aedibus Sapientiae. Incoepta Mense Julio. Anno 1572. UB Heidelberg, Sign. Heidelberger Handschriften 994. – (1584), Doctrinae christianae compendium, seu, Commentarii catechetici […], Gen{ve: Eustatius Vignon. – (1587), The Summe of Christian religion […], Oxford: Joseph Barnes, printed for Thomas Cooke, London. – (1591), Explicationum catecheticarum doctoris Zachariae Ursini Silesii […] retexta, Neustadt: Matthaeus Harnisch. – (1602), Het Schat-boeck der Christelycke Leere, Leiden: Andries Clouck. – (1612), Opera Theologica, vol. 1, ed. Quirinus Reuter, Heidelberg: Johann Lancelot, 46 – 413. Verboom, W. (1996), De theologie van de Heidelbergse Catechismus. Twaalf thema’s: de context en de latere uitwerking, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Vogler, Bernard (1976), Le clerg protestant rhnan au si{cle de la Rforme (1555 – 1619), Paris: Editions Ophrys. Voorwinden-Hofman, T./Belt, H. van den (2013a), De complexe ontstaansgeschiedenis van het Schatboek van Zacharias Ursinus (1534 – 1583), Theologia Reformata 56, 136 – 153. – (2013b), De noodzaak van de ellendekennis in de verschillende edities van het Schatboek van Zacharias Ursinus (1534 – 1583), Theologia Reformata 56, 207 – 224. Wagner-Peterson, Boris (2013), Doctrina schola vitae: Zacharias Ursinus (1534 – 1583) als Schriftausleger, R5AS 13, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wildt, Kees de (2011), Cornelis Corstens (†1582) en zijn verklaring van de Heidelbergse Catechismus (1598), in: Christel de Lange/Roos Mulder (ed.), Vijf continenten, vijf eeuwen. Vijf jaar geschiedbeoefening in het Kerkhistorisch Gezelschap S.S.S., Leiden: Kerkhistorisch Gezelschap S.S.S., 92 – 104. – (2013), Commentaren op de Heidelbergse Catechismus, 1567 – 1620, in: Arnold Huijgen/John V. Fesko/Aleida Siller (ed.), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok, 85 – 95. Wittm]tz, Volkmar (1993), Article “Olevian, Caspar”, BBKL 6, 1197 – 1200.

Riemer A. Faber

The Function of the Catechism’s Spirituality in the Synopsis of Purer Theology (1625)

For the purposes of this chapter ‘spirituality’ is defined by its usage in the latter decades of the sixteenth century. As noted in the dictionaries and lexicons, in late antiquity the term spiritalis meant “endowed with breath (of life)” (Souter : 1949, s.v.). However, due to the influential use of Spiritus to denote the third person of the Trinity in the Latin translation of the Scriptures, words like spiritaliter came to mean ‘by the Holy Spirit’. Thus in ecclesiastical writings the adjective spiritalis meant “conceiving of things from the supernatural point of view” (Niermeyer/Van de Kieft: 2002, s.v.). Accordingly, we may define the word spiritualitas as ‘the nature of the efficacious outward operation of the Holy Spirit, or the condition of being affected by such operation.’1 It is in the context of this effective working that the Heidelberg Catechism mentions the Holy Spirit forty times in twenty-one questions and answers.2 It is the Holy Spirit who makes certain, kindles, anoints, makes partakers, confirms, teaches, renews, dwells, unites, makes alive, governs, engrafts, and works. He performs these works in the human heart and soul, and he does so by his operation, strength, and efficacy. When taken in this strict sense of the external working of the Holy Spirit, spirituality appears to permeate the Heidelberg Catechism. And it is in light of this contemporary understanding of spiritualitas that we shall examine the reception of the Catechism’s spirituality in the Synopsis of Purer Theology, the theological

1 For the history of the term spiritualitas see Sheldrake: 1995, 514 – 520); for the doctrine of the holy Spirit in Reformed Scholasticism see Wisse/Meijer : 2013, 465 – 518). 2 In the Latin text of the Heidelberg Catechism, the words Spiritus sanctus occur in Question and Answer 1, 21, 31, 35, 51, 65, 67, 70; 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 79, 80, 86, 103, 109, 115, 116, 127. The combination verbo et Spiritu occurs in Answer 31, and sanguine et Spiritu in Answers 69 and 73. On the workings of the Spirit there are the following expressions: (Dominus) Sancto Spiritu (…) certum facit (1); (fiducia) a Spiritu Sancto (…) accensa (21); (Christus) Spiritu Sancto unctus sit; operatione Spiritus sancti (35); cuius (i. e., Spiritus) efficacia (49); (me) participem faciat (53); qui (i. e., Spiritus Sanctus) accendit (…) et confirmat (65); Spiritus Sanctus docet (…) et confirmat (67); Spiritu Sancto renovari et (…) membrum Christi fieri (70); Spiritus Sanctus fidei effector (74); qui (i. e., Spiritus) (…) in nobis habitat (76); per Spiritum Sanctum (…) uniri (76); eodemque Spiritu vificemur et gubernemur (76); (nos) per operationem Spiritu Sancti (…) participes esse (79); nos per Spiritum Sanctum inseri Christo (80); (Christus) (…) renovat nos quoque suo Spiritu (86); (Dominus) ut per Spiritum Sanctum in me suum opus faciat (103); Spiritus tui robore (127).

Function of the Catechism’s Spirituality in the Synopsis of Purer Theology 85

handbook that was used in the Netherlands for much of the seventeenth century. Published in 1625, the Synopsis is a comprehensive treatise of early Dutch Reformed orthodoxy. Building upon doctrines expressed at the Synod of Dort in 1618 – 19, the Synopsis presents an exhaustive exposition of the Reformed faith. Jointly composed by four professors of Theology at the University of Leiden, the Synopsis was to serve as a consolidating factor in the church and the academy of the Lowlands. It would function as a textbook of Reformed doctrine in the training for the ministry, as a unifying force in the churches’ teaching, and as an illustration of the new-found collegiality of the professors. Written at a time when the Heidelberg Catechism was well-entrenched as an authoritative confession in the Reformed churches in the Lowlands, the Synopsis may be expected to reveal extensive influences. Thus it may be seen as an appropriate case-study for the reception of the Catechism’s spirituality a little more than one generation after the confession was published. On first reflection one may be inclined to think that the Heidelberg Catechism must have impacted the composition of the Synopsis extensively, for its influence in the Lowlands was pervasive almost immediately after it was published in 1563 (Van der Pol: 2013, 123 – 133). Dutch translations were produced as early as 1566, and in 1568 the Synod of Wesel approved the Catechism for use in the churches. An edition of the first commentary on the Catechism, Zacharias Ursinus’ Doctrinae Christianae Compendium seu Commentarii Catechetici, appeared in Leiden in 1584, shortly after it had been published in Geneva in April of that year.3 It was also in Leiden, in 1602, that the first Dutch translation of Ursinus’ Explicationes Catecheticae appeared; by this time, the academic disputations were being held that would later be revised and published as the Synopsis (Sinnema/van den Belt: 2012, 509 – 513). In 1619 the Synod of Dort, in which three of the authors of the Synopsis participated, formally adopted the Catechism as one of the ecclesiastical standards. In short, as a confessional document, the Heidelberg Catechism provided the parameters for the pursuit of theology in Leiden (Muller : 2008, 24 – 31).4 It should be noted, however, that the Catechism is not quoted or referred to anywhere in the Synopsis.5 This surprising silence may be due to the 3 On editions of the Heidelberg Catechism see Platt: 1982, 49 f, 59 f). For a list of the Dutchlanguage editions of the Catechism see Heijting: 1989 and De Wildt: 2013, 89 ff. 4 Personal connections between the Leiden theologians and Heidelberg reinforce the notion that they must have been well-acquainted with the Catechism. For example, Antonius Thysius (1565 – 1640), who would be appointed professor of theology in Leiden in 1619, attended the Heidelberg academy from 1581 – 1585. His colleague Antonius Walaeus (1572 – 1639) had visited Heidelberg and there listened to lectures given by David Paraeus, editor of Ursinus’ commentary on the Catechism in 1598 (Borsius: 1848, 17). 5 Whenever “catechism” occurs in the Synopsis it refers to Roman Catholic or other instructional treatises: catechismus Romanus (Disp. 27.6), in publicis catechesibus (27.32), a Pontificiis in

86

Riemer A. Faber

ecclesiastical and political circumstances of the time. The Leiden professors were disinclined, on grounds of academic independence, to subscribe to the Catechism at the request of the States of Holland. They preferred to present a unified theological front that was not explicitly subject to the confession but one that supplemented and augmented its teachings.6 Moreover, the authors’ aim was to produce an impartial handbook of Reformed theology. In fact, in the fifty-two disputations, even the recently-held Synod of Dort is mentioned only once, in passing.7 Yet, as Van Itterzon (1931, 64ff) and others have pointed out, the Synopsis enters into discourse with numerous exegetical, literary, theological, and philosophical sources that range from classical antiquity until the Reformation period and beyond (Tukker : 1975, 38 f; Faber : 2012). It is a highly intertextual treatise. And it is the thesis of this chapter that the Synopsis makes very conscious use also of the Heidelberg Catechism, and in particular its teaching about the efficacious outward operation of the Holy Spirit. In fact, in two disputations the Synopsis employs the Catechism extensively, explicating the spiritual quality of the Catechism purposefully and applying it to the theological concerns of its own time. In order to demonstrate this reception of the Catechism’s spirituality most convincingly, we shall consider only the strongest, that is, direct verbal evidence, rather than broader thematic or theological factors. For this reason we shall compare the text of the Synopsis with the Latin edition of the Heidelberg Catechism that appeared in 1563, shortly after the German one.8 We commence with Disputation 31 (over which Andreas Rivetus presided), on the central doctrine of faith. Following five preliminary theses about different types of faith and the importance of distinguishing ‘justifying faith’, the disputation offers the following complete definition, in a manner conventional to Scholastic disputations:

catechesi (46.44), doctrina catechetica (47.13), catechesi Trident. (47.14), catechismus Tridentini Concilii (47.18), catechisi 181 (47.37). 6 The communication between the Leiden faculty and the States of Holland in 1622 is preserved in Eekhof: 1921, 25 – 30) and Kuyper : 1879, 9 f, 100 ff. Tukker summarizes the attitude of the faculty thus: “Wel is de Synopsis vrucht van het verlangen der Leidse faculteit om niet volgens kerkelijke eis van de Zuid-hollandse synode door ondertekening van de formulieren van enigheid, maar door een eigen verklaring uiting te geven aan haar rechtzinnigheid en om diezelfde reden de Staten van Holland en West-Friesland lof toe te zwaaien” (1974, 237). 7 Explicit reference to the Canons of Dort occurs in a summary statement that synergism and similar “errors were rejected by the Reformed Churches at the Synod of Dort” (Disputation 17.46). It is tempting to see, in the same disputation, a verbal allusion in the simile “man does not behave with his free choice like some block of wood” (17.29) to that of God’s grace “not working in man as if in wooden blocks” (Article III/IV, 16). 8 The edition of the Synopsis here used is Bavinck: 1881, and of the Catechism Schiat/Mayer : 1563. the Catechesis religionis Christianae, quae traditur in Ecclessiis et Scholis Palatinatus. Heydelbergae. Excudebant Michael Schirat et Joannes Mayer. Anno 1563.

Function of the Catechism’s Spirituality in the Synopsis of Purer Theology 87 Estque fides illa salvifica, ex revelationis divinae notitia, firmus a Spiritu Sancto per verbum Evangelii animis nostris ingeneratus assensus, omnibus quae nobis Deus in verbo suo patefecit, sed praesertim promissionibus salutaribus in Christo factis, quo certa fiducia in Deo acquiescens, firmiter unusquisque fidelis statuit, non solum promissam esse credentibus in genere remissionem peccatorum, sed sibi in particulari concessam, aeternamque justitiam, et ex ea vitam, ex Dei misericordia propter unius Jesu Christi meritum donatam esse. And that saving faith, from the knowledge of divine revelation, is a firm assent which the Holy Spirit has implanted in our hearts through the Word of the Gospel, an assent to everything that God has revealed to us in his Word and especially to the promises of life that were made in Christ; hereby each and every believer, relying with a sure confidence in God, has steadfastly determined that forgiveness of sins not only was promised to believers generally but also granted to him in particular, and that he himself has received eternal righteousness and from it, life, out of God’s mercy because of the merit only of Jesus Christ. (Disputation 31.6)

This definition of faith may be compared with the one in Question and Answer 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism: Quid est fides? Est non tantum notitia, qua firmiter assentior omnibus, quae Deus nobis in verbo suo patefecit, sed etiam certa fiducia, a Spiritu sancto per Evangelium in corde meo accensa, qua in Deo acquiesco, certo statuens, non solum aliis, sed mihi quoque remissionem peccatorum, aeternam justitiam, et vitam donatam esse, idque gratis, ex Dei misericordia propter unius Christi meritum.9 What is faith? Faith is not only a knowledge whereby I accept as true all that God has revealed to us in his Word but also a firm confidence worked in my heart by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel whereby I rely upon God, knowing for certain that not only to others, but also to me forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and life has been granted—and that out of mere grace, by God’s mercy for the sake of Christ’s merit alone.

The juxtaposition of these two passages reveals several verbal echoes from the Catechism. In the Synopsis the definition of faith as firmus assensus recalls the Catechism’s firmiter assentior. And the two documents express the object of faith, i. e., everything that God has revealed to us in his Word, in identical language: omnibus quae nobis Deus in verbo suo patefecit. The confidence of faith, whereby the believer relies upon God’s promises, is conveyed in both the Synopsis and the Catechism by fiducia and acquiesco. Also the content of God’s 9 The Catechism’s definition is quoted later by Antonius Walaeus in his Opera Omnia where he cites it explicitly in his definition of saving faith: “Fidei salvivicae natura explicatur optime definitione ea, quae in Catechesi continetur; quod non sit tantum notitia eorum omnium, quae Deus in verbo suo patefecit, sed etiam fiducia, qua confidimus peccata nostra per Christum nobis esse remissa” (1642, fol. 22). Unlike his colleague Rivetus in the Synopsis, Walaeus does not adopt the element of the role of the Spirit, treating it as an effect of faith (fol. 23).

88

Riemer A. Faber

promise, that is, the remission of sins, righteousness and life eternal, is stated in nearly identical language: compare remissionem peccatorum aeternamque justitiam et ex ea vitam in the Synopsis with remissionem peccatorum, aeternam justitiam et vitam in the Catechism. And—most importantly for the theme of this volume of papers—the operation of the Holy Spirit in the human heart is yet another feature which the Synopsis adopts from the Catechism: compare firmus a Spiritu Sancto per verbum Evangelii animis nostris ingeneratus assensus with fiducia a Spiritu Sancto per Evangelium in corde meo accensa. The comparison of these two key texts reveals that Rivetus borrows very closely from Question and Answer 21.10 He does, however, make an important alteration, namely to the order in which the Persons of the Trinity appear. Whereas the Catechism mentions first the revealed Word of God, the Synopsis gives priority to the Holy Spirit as the author of faith, for it is He who works effectively in the human heart.11 Simply stated, faith “is a firm assent which the Holy Spirit has implanted in our hearts through the Word of the Gospel” (31.6). The reason for this prominence of the Holy Spirit may be found by looking at the theological context in which this disputation was composed. It responds especially to three theological opponents: Socinians, Franciscus Gomarus, and Thomas Aquinas. The Socinians were the followers of the antitrinitarian Laelius and Faustus Socinus, who taught that the human being is the efficient cause (causa efficiens) of justifying faith.12 Rivetus explains why the element of the Spirit’s effective operation is critical to the definition of faith: Haec operandi ratio eorum arguit ingratam impietatem, qui cum Socino sentiunt, causam fidei justificantis efficientem esse hominem ipsum, qui virtute sua naturali et libero arbitrio, verbum Dei ipsi propositum, vel acceptat, vel respuit… This account of the working [of faith] exposes the ingratitude and godlessness of those who share the opinion of Socinus, namely, that the efficient cause of justifying 10 Disputation 31 reveals influences also from Ursinus’ commentary, the Catecheticae explicationes. For example, the four types of faith discussed by Ursinus (historical, temporal, miraculous, and justifying) occur also in Disputation 31.6. And his treatment of faith in combination with the perseverance of the saints recurs in Disputation 31.30 – 42. By contrast, the holy Spirit is not included in the definition of faith in Calvin’s Geneva Catechism (1542), although it does appear—in language different than that of the Synopsis—in the 1559 edition of the Institutes: “divinae erga nos benevolentiae firmam certamque cognitionem, quae gratuitae in Christo promissionis veritate fundata per Spiritum Sanctum et revelatur mentibus nostris et cordibus obsignatur” (3.2.7). On Calvin’s definition of faith see further Vial: 2002, 34 f). 11 The prominence of the holy Spirit in this disputation is noted by Van Itterzon: 1931, 82 and Graafland: 1961, 98 – 102. On the illumination of the Spirit as the internal and formal principle of faith in reformed orthodox teaching see Muller : 1987, 1:240 f. 12 For Socinianism see Hart/Bauckham: 2000, 522ff and Muller : 1987, 4:78 f, 91 – 94. On other teachings rejected in this disputation see Tukker : 1975, 46 f.

Function of the Catechism’s Spirituality in the Synopsis of Purer Theology 89 faith is man himself, man who of his own natural power and free choice either accepts or rejects the Word of God that is declared to him. (Disputation 31.10)

Over against this claim attributed to the Socinians, Rivetus emphasizes the Holy Spirit’s authorship of faith: “it is for a particular reason that faith is called a gift of God; and its author, the Holy Spirit, is called the Spirit of faith” (31.9).13 To reinforce the pneumatological aspect in faith with support from the Scriptures, Rivetus immediately lists six proof texts: 1 Corinthians 12:9, 2 Corinthians 4:13, Acts 16:14, Philippians 1:29, Colossians 2:12, and Hebrews 12:2. This emphasis on the role of the Spirit functions also in rejecting the teachings of Franciscus Gomarus and Thomas Aquinas, of whom the former emphasized the intellect as the sole seat of faith (Graafland: 1961, 98), the latter knowledge and will as the location for the human disposition to faith. As a correction of these views, Rivetus replaces the two components of faith in the Catechism, knowledge (notitia) and confidence (fiducia), with acknowledgement (assensus). Moreover, in order to reduce the causal role of the human intellect and will further, Rivetus stresses that it is “the Holy Spirit who illumines the mind and moves and bends the will that is otherwise opposed to God” (31.9).14 This comparison of the definition of faith in the Catechism and the Synopsis reveals a purposeful adaptation in order to maximize the efficacious operation of the Holy Spirit. Implicitly employing the Catechism as an authoritative confession on which to build the doctrine of true faith, the Synopsis expands upon the role of the Holy Spirit in the Catechism, corroborates it with references to Bible texts, and applies this spiritualitas to the theological controversies of early Reformed orthodoxy. The second instance in which the spirituality of the Catechism is adapted to the theological context of the early seventeenth century occurs in the lengthy Disputation 21, on the Sabbath. At that time there was a debate over the doctrine of the Lord’s Day as replacement of the Old Testament Sabbath, and it involved not only the Reformed churches but also the faculty of theology in Leiden. Antonius Thysius, the presider over this disputation, adapts the Catechism’s explanation of the fourth commandment and stresses the spiritualitas of the Sunday in order to moderate the controversy.15 He bases his pneumatological reading in part upon the authority of the Catechism, which states that one requirement of the fourth commandment is:

13 “(…) peculiari ratione fides dicitur donum Dei, et eius auctor Spiritus, Spiritus fidei (…)” (31.9). 14 “(…) per Spiritum Sanctum qui mentem illuminat, et voluntatem, alioquin a Deo aversam, movet et flectit” (31.9). 15 Apart from presiding over this disputation, Thysius did not involve himself in the debate directly, unlike Walaeus and Rivetus; see Van Veen: 1889, 117 f.

90

Riemer A. Faber

… ut in omni vita a pravis actionibus vacem, Domino concedens, ut per Spiritum Sanctum in me suum opus faciat, atque ita sempiternum illud Sabbathum in hac vita exordiar. … that throughout all my life I rest from my evil works, let the Lord work in me through his Holy Spirit, and so begin in this life that eternal Sabbath. (HC 103)

This sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in the context of the fourth commandment is relatively unique to the Catechism. It does not appear, for example, in John Calvin’s Geneva catechism, which tends to focus on the Sabbath as prefiguring eternal rest.16 Yet it is the Catechism that the Synopsis follows, and moreover it draws out the spiritualitas of the Catechism to articulate a higher, spiritual goal: Alter finis sublimior, spiritualis scilicet, aeternam hominis salutem spectans …. Adeoque Christum ejusque beneficia designat, ita ut perpetuum et spiritualem Sabbathismum, et coelestem consequentem perfectumque figuret, quod fideles a propriis malisque operibus feriantes, Deum hic in se operari sinant, cujus consummatio in altera vita futura est (Es 66:23; Heb 4:3,9). The second specific goal is a more lofty one, namely a spiritual one that looks to the eternal well-being of man…. The Sabbath is even a symbol of Christ and his benefits, in such a way that it points to the eternal and spiritual Sabbath-day and the heavenly perfection that is to come, because the believers rest from their own evil works, allow God on this earth to perform his work in them—work that will be accomplished fully in the next life (Isa 66:23; Heb 4:3,9) (21.20).

The Synopsis adopts several key elements from the Catechism: the perpetual Sabbath (compare perpetuum… Sabbathismum with sempiternum illud Sabbathum); resting from our own evil works (a propriis malisque operibus feriantes in the Synopsis recalls a pravis actionibus vacem in the Catechism); the sanctifying operation of the Spirit (compare Deum hic in se operari sinant with per Spiritum Sanctum in me suum opus faciat); and the eternal Sabbath that commences already in this age (sempiternum illud Sabbathum in hac vita exordiar echoes consummatio in altera vita futura est). Whereas the allusions to the Catechism are less explicit on the verbal level, the extent of similarities on the thematic level makes direct borrowing clear. More importantly, what distinguishes the goal of Sabbath-keeping in the Synopsis is the recurring element of sanctification by the Holy Spirit. For Thysius, the loftier goal of Sunday observance is spiritual (finis spiritualis), as it anticipates the eternal salvation of man. The Sunday points to the spiritual Sabbath (spiritualem 16 Calvin focuses on the ceremonial aspects of Sabbath-keeping, on the abrogation of it in Christ, and on its eschatalogical symbolism (Bauckham: 1982, 315ff; Kaiser: 1996, 172). In his Geneva catechism Calvin puts it thus: “cur tamen septimus potius dies praescribitur, quam alius quilibet? (…) Simul indicat, spiritualem hanc quietem inchoari duntaxat in hac vita, nec ante perfectam fore, donec e mundo migremus.”

Function of the Catechism’s Spirituality in the Synopsis of Purer Theology 91

Sabbathismum), and believers rest from their own evil works and allow God to work that eternal rest in them already here on earth. The reason for this stress upon the spirituality of the Sunday becomes manifest when the disputation is considered in its immediate church-political context.17 As noted above, the Synopsis was published in the midst of a long and drawn-out controversy over the doctrine of the fourth commandment.The main question was whether Sunday observance is ceremonial (and consequently obsolete in the second dispensation) or moral (and so perpetually effective). The immediate relevance of this question is illustrated by the record of the 148th session of the Synod of Dort (1619), when the English divines (who inclined to Sabbatarian interpretation) complained about the manner in which the Sunday was spent in Dort, especially in the opening of stores and the selling of goods.18 The matter of profaning the Sabbath-day was raised again in the 162nd session; at that time the Leiden professors of theology—the authors of the Synopsis—were requested to hold a conciliatory discourse with representatives of the provincial synod of Zeeland, who had queried the need for the state to intervene in Sunday observance (Van Veen: 1889, 24 f; Visser : 1939, 50 – 60). And, in the decade following the publication of the Synopsis, Andreas Rivetus carried out a lengthy exchange with Franciscus Gomarus, who argued that the Sabbath as a recurring, weekly day of rest was not instituted in Paradise but during Israel’s sojourn in the desert.19 In this disputation Thysius is careful not to enter the debate. When treating the institution of the Sabbath, for example, Thysius obviates a question central to the controversy by stating that “… it is not entirely clear when that day was established, or to whom it was commanded; that is, whether it was presented to mankind as a whole already from the very beginning, even before the fall into sin (i. e., when the world was created), or whether in fact it was ordained later for the Jewish people, at the time when the Law was given through Moses 17 After treating the etymology of ‘Sabbath’ (theses 1 – 7), and following the definition of it (theses 8 – 9), Antonius Thysius deals with the original institution of the Sabbath (theses 8 – 16). Then he treats the universal, civic, and special goals of the sabbath (theses 17 – 21). An extensive explanation of the fourth commandment follows (22 – 40), as well as the duration of observing it (theses 41 – 49), and the continuity and discontinuity with the institution of the Sunday in the New Testament era (theses 50 – 58). Finally, several forms of Sabbatarianism and its counterparts are rejected (theses 59 – 60). 18 For a description of the complaint and its context see Van Veen: 1889, 21 – 28 and Visser : 1939, 50 – 67. For an historical overview of diverse Reformed interpretations of the fourth commandment, see also Bauckham: 1982. 19 In 1628 Franciscus Gomarus published Investigatio sententiae et originis Sabbati (in Opera Omnia 2:256 – 276) and, in 1632, Defensio investigationis originis Sabbati (Opera Omnia, 2:299 – 312). Andreas Rivetus treats the origins of the Sabbath in Praelectiones in cap. xx. Exodi (1637, 107 – 123), and in 1633 issued an Appendix ad disquisitionem de origine primae observationis Sabbathi (in Praelectiones, 123 – 158). See further Van Itterzon: 1929, 301 – 309. For the continued debate involving Gisbertus Voetius and the followers of Johannes Cocceius later in the century see Steenblok: 1941 and Van Asselt: 2001, 29 ff.

92

Riemer A. Faber

(21.13).”20 Instead, by means of allusions to the Heidelberg Catechism, Thysius underscores the spiritual goal (finis spiritualis) of the fourth commandment. And this spirituality of the Sunday is worked out in theses 17 – 21, when he points to the sanctification of man in the observance of Sunday rest: “… humanity ceases from its own works so that it may be free so much the better for divine works (21.18).”21 In short, “… the Sabbath-day held out and conveyed to believers the additional promise and effect of sanctification (21.21).”22 And towards the end of the disputation, Thysius again underscores the spirituality of the fourth commandment, reinforcing it with a climactic quotation from Scripture: [Duratio est] … usque ad tempus a Deo designatum, Messiae videlicet, accipiendum est, quo tempore promittitur, Neomenia ex Neomenia, et Sabbathum ex Sabbatho, Es. 66., id est, Sabbathismus spiritualis et perpetuus, qui reliquus est populo Dei, ad Heb. 3 et 4. cap. [the duration] of the observance is … until the time fixed by God—that is, the time of the Messiah—when, it is promised, there will be ‘New Moon following upon New Moon, and Sabbath following upon Sabbath’ (Isa 66[:23])—which means the spiritual and everlasting Sabbath-keeping, that remains for the people of God (according to Hebrews chapters 3 and 4) (21.44).

What these passages reveal is that Thysius appropriates the spiritual aspect in the earthly commencement of the eternal Sabbath in the Heidelberg Catechism (especially ut per Spiritum Sanctum in me suum opus faciat, atque ita sempiternum illud Sabbathum in hac vita exordiar) so that the teleological perspective of the Sunday might serve to lift discussion of this doctrine above immediate practicalities. Though unsuccessful in its attempt to still the debate, this approach of a spiritualized reading of the fourth commandment serves to illustrate how the irenic aims of the Synopsis were supported by the spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism. Seen as the outward operation of the Holy Spirit and the consequent sanctification in the lives of believers, the spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism was identified as a distinguishing characteristic of the confession and purposefully employed in the Synopsis of Purer Theology. For two fundamental and contentious doctrines—true faith and the fourth commandment—the authors of the Synopsis deliberately exploited the Catechism’s spirituality in order to address theological issues of their own time. As we have 20 “Is autem quando sit institutus, quibusque imperatus nempe, an iam inde ab initio, etiam ante lapsum, ab orbe scilicet condito, universim tum hominibus sit praestitutus, ut creationi coaevus, an vero post, Legis latae per Mosen tempore, Judaeis institutus, non perinde certum” (21.13). 21 “(…) cessatur a propriis operibus, ut divinis tanto melius vacare liceat” (21.30). 22 “Ex horum autem finium consideratione constat … [ut] promissionem et effectum sanctificationis fidelibus adjunctum habuit et attulit” (21.21).

Function of the Catechism’s Spirituality in the Synopsis of Purer Theology 93

seen, Disputation 21 reflects a keen awareness of the role of the Holy Spirit in the Catechism’s teaching of the doctrine of faith, and reinforces this spiritual element in the appropriation of faith in the human heart and mind. In Disputation 31, the increased role of the Holy Spirit in the sanctifying effects of the Lord’s day attests to a promotion of human spirituality intended to deepen the use of the commandment. In sum, the adoption of the Catechism’s spirituality in the Synopsis illustrates how Christian spirituality was preserved and increased in the transition from the confessional era to the period of early Reformed orthodoxy.

Bibliography Asselt, Willem J. van (2001), The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603 – 1669), Leiden: Brill. Bastingius, Jeremias (1588), In Catechesin religionis Christianae, quae in Ecclesiis et scholis, tum Belgii tum Palatinatus traditur, exegemata, sive commentarii, Dordrecht: Canin. Bauckham, Richard J. (1982), Sabbath and Sunday in the Protestant Tradition, in: D.A. Carson (ed.), From Sabbath to Lord’s Day : A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 311 – 341. Bavinck, H. (1881), Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, Leiden: Donner. Borsius, Jacobus (1848), Antonius Walaeus. In Leven en Zijnen Verdiensten Geschetst, Nederlands Archief, Deel viii. Eekhof, Albert (1921), De Theologische Faculteit te Leiden in de 17e Eeuw, Utrecht: Ruys. Faber, Riemer A. (2012), Scholastic Continuities in the Reproduction of Classical Sources in the Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, in: Church History and Religious Culture 92.4, 561 – 579. Gomarus, F. (1664), Opera Omnia, Amsterdam: Jansonius. Graafland, C. (1961), De Zekerheid van het Geloof, Wageningen: Veenman. Hart, Trevor A./Bauckham, Richard (ed.) (2000), The Dictionary of Historical Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Heijting, Willem (1989), De Catechismi en Confessies in de Nederlandse Reformatie tot 1585, vol. 1, Nieuwkoop: de Graaf. Itterzon, G.P. van (1929), Franciscus Gomarus, ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, – (1931), Het Gereformeerd Leerboek der 17de Eeuw “Synopsis Purioris Theologiae”, ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Kaiser, Jürger (1996), Ruhe der Seele und Siegel der Hoffnung. Die Deutungen des Sabbats in der Reformation, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kuyper, Abraham (1879), De Leidse professoren en de executeurs der Dordtsche Nalatenschap, Amsterdam: Kruyt. Muller, Richard A. (1987 – 2003), Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 1 – 4, Grand Rapids: Baker.

94

Riemer A. Faber

———, (2008), ‘Arminius and the Reformed Tradition,’ Westminster Theological Journal 70, 19 – 48. Niermeyer, J.F./Kieft, C. van de (2002), Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus. Revised J.W.J. Burgers, Leiden: Brill. Platt, John (1982), Reformed Thought and Scholasticism, Leiden: Brill. Pol, Frank van der (2013), De receptie van de Heidelbergse Catechismus in de Noordelijke Nederlanden, in: A. Huijgen e.a. (ed.), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Kampen: Kok, 123 – 133. Rivetus, Andreas (1637), Praelectiones in cap. xx. Exodi. Second edition, Leiden: Heger. Schirat, Michael/ Mayer, Joannes (1563), Catechesis religionis Christianae, quae traditur in Ecclessiis et Scholis Palatinatus, Heidelberg. Sheldrake, Philip (1995), Spirituality and Theology, in: Peter Byrne/L. Houlden (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of Theology, London: Routledge, 514 – 520. Sinnema, Donald/Belt, Henk van den (2012), The Synopsis Purioris Theologiae (1625) as a Disputation Cycle, in: Church History and Religious Culture 92.4, 539 – 537. Steenblok, C. (1941) Voetius en de Sabbat, Hoorn: Edecea. Souter, Alexander (1949), A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 AD, Oxford: Clarendon Tukker, C. (1974), Vier Leidse hoogleraren in de Gouden Eeuw: de Synopsis Purioris Theologiae als theologisch document (I), in: Theologia Reformata 17, 236 – 250. – (1975), Theologie en Scholastiek: de Synopsis Purioris Theologiae als theologisch document (II), in: Theologia Reformata 18, 34 – 49. Veen, S.D. van (1889), Zondagsrust en Zondagsheiliging in de zeventiende eeuw, Nijkerk: Callenbach. Verboom, W. (1996), De Theologie van de Heidelbergse Catechismus, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Vial, Marc (ed.) (2002), Ioannis Calvini Scripta Ecclesiastica. Vol. II, Geneva: Droz. Visser, Hans B. (1939), De Geschiedenis van de Sabbatsstrijd onder de Gereformeerden in de Zeventiende Eeuw, Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon. Walaeus, Antonius (1642), Opera Omnia, Tomus 1, Enchiridion Religionis Reformatae, Leiden: Fr. Hackius. Wildt, Kees de (2013), Commentaren op de Heidelbergse Catechismus, 1567 – 1620, in: A. Huijgen e.a. (ed.), Handboek Heidelberse Catechismus, Kampen: Kok, 85 – 95. Wisse, Maarten/Meijer, Hugo (2013) Pneumatology : Tradition and Renewal, in: Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, Leiden: Brill, 465 – 518.

Christian Link

Glaube als lebensbestimmende Erkenntnis

Einladend und werbend wie kaum ein zweites Dokument der Reformationszeit kommt der Heidelberger Katechismus seinen Leserinnen und Hörern entgegen—schon dadurch, dass er alles, was hier zu sagen, zu lehren und zu bedenken ist, in seiner ersten Frage unter das Zeichen des Trostes stellt und gerade in dieser Konzentration auf bestimmte Lebenssituationen den Ertrag der Reformation zusammenfasst. Denn angesichts der konfessionellen Zerrissenheit jener Jahre, auch der theologischen Kontroversen in den eigenen Reihen und vollends der beginnenden Gegenreformation mit allen Ängsten, Leiden und unabgegoltenen Sehnsüchten, die sie mit ich brachte, ist das wichtigste Motiv dieses Trostes die Gewissheit, trotz allem nun doch auf festem biblischem Boden zu stehen. Man gewinnt den Eindruck, als hätte die Reformation ungeachtet ihrer gar nicht zu übersehenden Negativposten nun endlich den Weg zur Lebenswirklichkeit der Menschen, ihrem „Herzen“, gefunden. Das gilt insbesondere auch vom Glauben, dem Gravitationszentrum der evangelischen Bewegung. Er durchzieht den Katechismus wie ein roter Faden. Wenigstens 17 Stellen lassen sich namhaft machen, an dem dieses Schlüsselwort explizit begegnet. Denn Glaube ist die menschliche Antwort darauf, dass Gottes Handeln im Tod Jesu Christ und in seiner Auferstehung „für mich“ und deshalb auch für alle anderen zu seinem Ziel gekommen ist und es jetzt nur darum gehen kann, diese Tat konkurrenzlos als für mich gültig anzuerkennen und in der eigenen Lebenswirklichkeit zum Zuge zu bringen. Das dadurch begründete Verhältnis, in dem Gott als der Gebende dem Menschen als dem Empfangenden gegenübersteht, beschreibt das Wort Glaube. Hier besteht zwischen dem reformierten und dem lutherischen Flügel nicht die leiseste Differenz. Und doch gibt es einen schon formal bedeutsamen Unterschied. Die polemische Schärfe des sola fide ist dem Heidelberger fremd. Der Glaube gewinnt sein Profil nicht aus den dogmatischen Prämissen und Konsequenzen der Rechtfertigungslehre. Undenkbar, dass der Katechismus sich Luthers steilen Satz aus der Disputation “Ob die Werke zur Gnade beitragen“ (1521) hätte zu eigen machen können: „Wenn der Glaube nicht ohne irgendwelche, ja selbst geringfügigste Werke einhergeht, rechtfertigt er nicht und ist [folglich überhaupt] kein Glaube.“1 Der Katechismus hat den Artikel von der Recht1 M. Luther, WA 7:231, 7.

96

Christian Link

fertigung bewusster maßen nicht zum Zentrum christlicher Unterweisung, zum „articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae“ erklärt und dementsprechend auch den Glauben nicht als jene Mitte begriffen, von der her sich alle biblischen Aussagen gewissermaßen als Entfaltungen eines einzigen theologischen Grundmotivs darstellen ließen. Als „Glaubenslehre“ im Sinne Schleiermachers (oder im 20. Jahrhundert Gerhard Ebelings2) könnte man ihn nur missverstehen. Formal wiederum lässt sich die Differenz so ausdrücken: Der Heidelberger hat—vollends gemessen an der in jenen Jahren sich formierenden altprotestantischen Orthodoxie—ein offeneres, gewissermaßen entspannteres Verhältnis zur traditionellen Dogmatik und ihrem Zwang zu äußerster begrifflicher Präzision, ohne dabei etwas an Klarheit zu verlieren oder gar inhaltliche Abschwächungen zuzulassen. Denn Dogmen sind—mit einer glücklichen Formulierung Dietrich Ritschls gesprochen—„nicht das, woran wir glauben“, sondern das, „womit wir glauben.“ Sie sind „Hilfe für das Verstehen und für die Artikulation des Glaubens. Sie [stehen] auf der Seite des Gläubigen, nicht ihm gegenüber“ (Ritschl: 1984, 111). Der Katechismus will—so verstanden— den Glauben ins Leben ziehen, ihm Richtung geben, Gewichtungen markieren, Klärungen herbeiführen und Einladungen plausibel machen. Er sucht nach Anschlussstellen theologischer Aussagen in der Lebenswirklichkeit seiner Adressaten. Sofern wir diese Ausweitung und Umbildung traditioneller Lehre und Frömmigkeitsstile in lebensweltliche Erfahrungen und Haltungen bis hin zur Öffnung neuer Räume für Handlungs- und Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten des eigenen Lebens Spiritualität nennen—die Dekalogauslegung des III. Teiles liefert reiches Anschauungsmaterial—, liegt hier das spirituelle Element des Heidelbergers. Was wir glauben sollen, wird hier in einem Netz elementarer Fragen aufgeschlüsselt, die die Menschen seinerzeit bewegt haben, die ihrem (und unserem) Zweifel (Fr. 64), gelegentlich auch ihrem Einspruch (Fr. 48) entgegenkommen und unserem Unverständnis (Fr. 46) aufhelfen sollen. Die prägnanten Antworten sind so formuliert, dass jede und jeder sie auf Anhieb versteht. Mag die oft wiederholte Frage nach dem Nutzen—des Todes Christi am Kreuz (43), seiner Auferstehung (45) und Himmelfahrt (49)—uns befremdlich, vielleicht gar banausenhaft, erscheinen: sie hat gerade heute ihr gut begründetes Recht, da immer weniger Menschen zu sagen wissen, was das alles mit ihnen zu tun haben sollte, geschweige denn, was sie damit anfangen könnten. So entsteht ein dialogisches Kompendium, das die Sprachfähigkeit des Glaubens neu unter Beweis stellt und uns anleiten könnte, auszudrücken,

2 Ebeling: 1959, 100f: Was das Wort Gott meint, könne zunächst überhaupt nur aufgewiesen werden als Hinweis auf die „jeden Menschen als Menschen angehende radikale Fraglichkeit.“ Er spricht von den existentiellen Vollzügen des Von-Gott-in-Frage-gestellt, von ihm her Gefordert-, Gerufen- oder Angegangen-Seins.

Glaube als lebensbestimmende Erkenntnis

97

was unsere eigenen Zeitgenossen heute am Glauben interessiert oder irritiert, ob etwa die großen gesellschaftlichen Fragen der Gegenwart darin Raum finden könnten. Denn die sprachliche Form des Katechismus entspricht nicht ohne weiteres mehr unserer Sprache. Dennoch ist sie, wie Fulbert Steffenski (1984, zit. nach Noltensmeier : 2012, 27) zu Frage 1 schrieb, schon deshalb so wertvoll, „weil in ihrer Gestalt so viele Menschen vor mir ihre Ängste gebannt, ihre Leiden formuliert und ihre Sehnsucht geäußert haben.“ Im Wortsinne spirituell wird man die Auslegung des Heidelbergers schon deshalb nennen dürfen, weil der Glauben hier explizit als eine Gabe, das heißt als eine Folge der Wirksamkeit des heiligen Geistes vorgestellt wird (Fr. 21). Dieser Geist hat ja als Fundament nicht nur des christlichen, sondern auch des kosmischen und gesellschaftlich-politischen Lebens bei Calvin und in der reformierten Tradition ein ganz anderes Gewicht und einen ungleich größeren Wirkungskreis, als man das von anderen Konzeptionen wird sagen können. Eberhard Jüngel (1974, 118) hat den entscheidenden Punkt getroffen, wenn er in einer Pfingstpredigt erklärt: Gottes Geist stellt sich der Wirklichkeit unserer Probleme. [Er] flieht nicht … Seine Parole heißt: hiergeblieben! … Er nimmt es mit den Gegensätzen in dieser Welt und mit den Gegensätzen in einem jeden von uns auf. … [Er] hält Himmel und Erde zusammen, indem er für uns und unsere friedlose Welt bei Gott eintritt.

Seine orientierende Kraft reicht über die innere Sphäre des Geistlich-Religiösen weit hinaus.

1. „Wahrer Glaube“ (Frage 21) Wahrer Glaube ist in jedem Fall ein persönlich angeeigneter, wahr gemachter Glaube, ein Glaube, der gegen alles bloße Herkommen, gegen alle Verführungen des Zeitgeistes und des allgegenwärtigen Zweifels den eigenen Weg zu finden und dann auch zu gehen weiß, ein Glaube also, der so durch die eigene Mitte des Menschen geht und sie zugleich bestimmt, wie kein bloßer Sachverhalt das vermag. Mit dem bloßen Fürwahrhalten, ob es sich nun um Sätze kirchlicher oder säkularer Herkunft handelt, hat er nichts zu tun. Auch die Kenntnisnahme der „Historien“ des Alten und Neuen Testaments—alle Reformatoren haben das betont—führt noch niemanden zum Glauben. Seine besondere Prägung erhält der Glaubensbegriff des Heidelbergers vielmehr dadurch, dass er ein Element betont, das gemeinhin nicht im Vordergrund zu stehen pflegt, das Erkennen. Nach Frage 6 ist der Mensch in erster Linie dazu erschaffen, „dass er Gott, seinen Schöpfer, recht erkenne“, und Heiligung seines Namens heißt „erstlich, dass wir dich recht erkennen“ (Fr. 122). Calvin, auf den diese Formulierungen zurückgehen, konnte kategorisch erklären:

98

Christian Link

„Nicht auf Unwissenheit, sondern auf Erkenntnis beruht der Glaube.“3 Erkenntnis aber ist kein allgemeines, geschweige denn ein blindes Sichverlassen auf die Stimme fremder Autoritäten. „Denn wir erlangen das Heil nicht dadurch“—das ist die Front, an der Calvin streitet—„dass wir bereit sind, alles, was die Kirche uns vorschreibt, als wahr anzunehmen.“ Gegenüber der römischen Lehre der fides implicita wird der Zirkel des um sich selbst kreisenden Menschen nicht durch ein kirchliches Lehramt aufgebrochen, sondern dadurch, dass man sich gegen alle überlieferten Lehrmeinungen dem aussetzt, „was uns Gott in seinem Wort geoffenbart hat“ (Fr. 21). Erkennen, wovon die Bibel wirklich redet, herauszufinden, welche Schätze für Weltorientierung und Lebensführung hier zu heben sind, darauf kommt es an. Nicht weniger wichtig, aber mit Bedacht erst an zweiter Stelle genannt, ist das „herzliche Vertrauen“, also die Bereitschaft, in eine persönliche Beziehung, in ein inneres Verhältnis zur Sache selbst einzutreten, die uns hier als evangelisches Angebot begegnet, das „nicht allein anderen, sondern auch mir“ gelten, das heißt, das mir nicht als eine neutrale, quasi objektive Vorgabe gegenüberstehen soll. Hier wird ein charakteristischer, methodisch, wie ich meine, höchst bedeutsamer Zug des Katechismus sichtbar. Denn dass Erkenntnis und Vertrauen, wie man mit Recht betont hat, so eng, ja untrennbar zusammengehören, heißt doch, dass von einer modernen Subjekt-Objekt-Trennung hier gar nicht die Rede sein kann. Wer auf die 129 Fragen so antworten kann, wie der Heidelberger es tut, wird als beteiligtes Subjekt von vornherein in Pflicht genommen. Er steht, ob glaubend oder zweifelnd, nicht einem Kanon dogmatisch korrekter Auskünfte gegenüber, sondern wird mit dem ersten Satz selber ins Thema hineingenommen und mit seinen eigenen Fragen, seiner Bedürftigkeit, Not und Hoffnung, in die theologischen Koordinaten einbezogen, von ihnen sozusagen umschlossen. Er gehört dazu, ist dabei, und erst dieses Dabeisein erschließt ihm den sachlich gemeinten Inhalt. Denn statt ein distanziertes Gegenüber zu bleiben, hat der Aussageinhalt nun gewissermaßen selber ein neues Subjekt bekommen, mich, den hier Fragenden und Antwortenden, an dem sich erkennen lässt, was das Kreuz Jesu, was Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt für menschliche Fassungskraft bedeuten müssten. Erkennen heißt hier, sich selber ins Spiel zu bringen, vielleicht sogar sich selbst aufs Spiel zu setzen. Dass nur ein so erkennender, in Anspruch genommener Glaube aufs Ganze gehen kann, war die Erfahrung des Zeitalters der Gegenreformation, die Erfahrung einer verfolgten Kirche. Man kann diesen auffallenden Zug am besten an der Frage erläutern, die Karl Barth (1948, 61) „eine der interessantesten des ganzen Katechismus“ genannt hat: „Warum wirst aber du ein Christ genannt?“ (Fr. 32) Denn gerade hier ist mit Händen zu greifen, wie durch die Erkenntnis des zuvor entfalteten dreifachen Amtes Christi das Leben des so Fragenden und Antwortenden mit Beschlag belegt und neu ausgerichtet wird. Von einer Erkenntnis der drei 3 Calvin, Inst. 3.2.2: „Non in ignoratione sed in cognitione sita est fides.“

Glaube als lebensbestimmende Erkenntnis

99

Ämter, die diesen Namen verdient, kann offenbar nur die Rede sein, wenn ich mich selbst „durch den Glauben“ als „ein Glied Christi“ verstehe, das heißt, wenn ich mich nicht nur seiner ,Amtsgewalt’ unterordne, sondern mich ihr als ein dazu berufenes Glied seines Leibes auch zur Verfügung stelle („an seiner [dreifachen] Salbung Anteil habe“) und sie nun nach dem Maß meiner Kräfte—in Entsprechung zu seiner Ausübung—stellvertretend wahrnehme. In seinem Anspruch und seiner Bedeutung erkannt also wird dies dreifache Amt, wenn es mich zum Bekenntnis Christi als der Quelle des göttlichen Willens führt [Prophet], wenn es mich dazu ermächtigt, mit meiner Person und meiner Fürbitte als ein „lebendiges Dankopfer“ für andere einzutreten [Priester], und wenn ich „mit freiem Gewissen“ ohne Rücksicht auf gesellschaftliche Konventionen oder etablierte Autoritäten Sünde und Unrecht beim Namen nenne und auf diese Weise seiner Königsherrschaft im Streit gegen allbekannte oder auch herrenlose dunkle Gewalten („Sünde und Teufel“) den Weg bereite. Historisch bleibt anzumerken, dass trotz der unbestreitbaren Nähe des Katechismus zu Melanchthon ein spürbarer Gegensatz nicht übersehen werden darf. Auf Melanchthon geht das „Fürwahrhalten“ (assensus) und die Betonung des „Vertrauens“ (fiducia) zurück. Beides hat sich jedoch gegenüber den materialen Inhalten des Evangeliums, auf die hier doch das Augenmerk gerichtet werden sollte, eigentümlich verselbständigt. So konnte es zu dem problematischen Missverständnis kommen, als sei der Glaube der vom Menschen geforderte psychologische Akt der Einstimmung (fides, qua creditur), der nun die Nachfolge des einstmals „guten Werkes“ anzutreten hätte. Auf dieser Linie hat man später im Gefälle der existentialen Interpretation alles Gewicht auf den subjektiven Vollzug des im Glauben sich „verstehenden“ Menschen gelegt.

2. Argumentierender Glaube Was den Heidelberger Katechismus auszeichnet, freilich nicht erst ihn, ist die Fähigkeit, präzise Fragen zu stellen, Fragen, die Bibelleser und Predighörerinnen tatsächlich haben, Konfirmandenfragen eben. Er konfrontiert sie nicht mit theologischen Thesen, sondern er argumentiert, führt sie auf einem Denkweg Schritt für Schritt zu nachvollziehbaren Einsichten. Denn den Glauben, von dem er redet, kann man nicht fordern, man muss ihn ermöglichen. „Nachvollziehbar“ heißt hier : Wir bewegen uns hier nicht in einem „oberen Stockwerk“ (etwa im Innenraum der Trinität), vielmehr versucht der Katechismus, metaphorische Aussagen der Bibel—Erhöhung, Auferstehung, Himmelfahrt—in einen Kontext zu übersetzen, in dem wir uns auskennen, und so den Glauben zu erden. Er soll uns in unseren irdischen Realitäten Orientierung geben. An drei Themenkreisen lässt sich das exemplarisch vorführen.

100

Christian Link

(1) Das Apostolicum nennt als letzte Station des Passionsweges Jesu den Abstieg „in das Reich des Todes“ („abgestiegen zu der Hölle“, Fr. 44). Schon Calvin hat in einem ausführlichen Exkurs der Institutio überlegt, was das mythologische Bild der „Unterwelt“ bedeuten könnte (Inst. 2.16.8 – 12). Ohne die traditionelle Vorstellung ganz abzuweisen, „dass Christus den Entschlafenen in der Kraft seines Geistes leuchtend erschienen“ und die „Kraft“ seines Todes „bis zu den Verstorbenen hindurchgedrungen sei“, entscheidet er sich—man darf hier wohl von einer Entmythologisierung sprechen—für eine „zuverlässigere Erklärung“, die der Heidelberger voraussetzt: Christus hat nicht nur den leiblichen Tod erlitten, sondern musste an unserer Stelle auch den „Kampf mit den Schrecken des ewigen Todes gleichsam Mann gegen Mann“ bestehen. Es gibt aber „keinen entsetzlicheren Abgrund der Not, als wenn man sich von Gott verlassen, von ihm entfremdet wissen muss“ (Inst. 2.16.11). Diese stellvertretend für uns durchlittene Erfahrung nimmt der Katechismus zum Schlüssel seiner Interpretation: Die Gottverlassenheit—das ist die Hölle, und damit wendet sich der Blick auf unsere Situation, auf die „schwersten Anfechtungen“, in die ein Mensch geraten kann. Was also ist hier zu verstehen? Antwort: Die Zusage, dass ich dessen „gewiss sein darf“, dass Christus auch hier im Dunkel der „höllischen Angst“ bei uns und mit uns ist. Das ist die tröstliche Erkenntnis, an die sich der Glaube im Zeichen jenes Bekenntnissatzes halten darf. Er versteht, weil er auf seine eigene Gefährdung, nicht auf ein fremdes Geschick angesprochen wird. (2) Vor ein noch größeres Problem werden die Glaubenden durch die „Himmelfahrt“ Christi gestellt (Fr. 46 – 50). Denn es ist die Abwesenheit ihres kommenden Herrn, mit der sie von jetzt an fertig werden müssen. Christus ist uns in der Zeit zwischen Himmelfahrt und Parusie entzogen. Er hat die Welt und ihre Existenzbedingungen verlassen und begibt sich nicht mehr unter sie. In einer Welt, die sehen, tasten, anfassen will, müssen sie müssen sie mit seiner Abwesenheit leben und gerade so ihm die Treue halten. Das ist die Situation, auf die der Heidelberger, auch hier Calvin folgend, seine Antwort gibt. Er muss begründen, mit welchem Recht wir davon ausgehen dürfen, dass Christus nach seiner Verheißung dennoch „bei uns“ bleiben werde „bis ans Ende der Welt“ (Fr. 47). Man könnte die nun folgende Erklärung ein Meisterstück theologischer Argumentation nennen, wenn sie nicht mit dem uns längst unverständlich gewordenen Instrument der Zwei-Naturen-Lehre arbeitete und sich in deren Schwierigkeiten verfinge: „Nach seiner menschlichen Natur“, so heißt es in Fr. 47, ist Christus „jetzt nicht mehr auf der Erde“, aber „nach seiner Gottheit, Majestät, Gnade und Geist weicht er niemals von uns.“ Diese Aussage, so tröstlich sie sein mag, ist jedoch ein offenkundiger Verstoß gegen die zentrale These jenes alten Dogmas, das an der Einheit von Gott und Mensch unbedingt festhält, an welcher der Glaube ein unaufgebbares Interesse hat. Denn kann es eine Gegenwart Christi geben, in der nicht auch seine Menschheit, die Bürgschaft für den geschichtlichen Weg Gottes mit seiner Welt, gegenwärtig ist?

Glaube als lebensbestimmende Erkenntnis

101

Karl Barth hat daher mit einer singulären Schärfe von einem „theologischen Betriebsunfall“ gesprochen (1948, 70 f). Im Rahmen der Zwei-Naturen-Lehre wird man in der Tat so urteilen müssen. Doch hat der Katechismus wirklich eine solche (nestorianische) Trennung lehren wollen? Verbal folgt die Korrektur dieses Missverständnisses denn auch auf dem Fuß (und zwar auf der Linie des von der lutherischen Polemik sogenannten Extracalvinisticums; vgl. Link: 2009, 150ff): Die Gottheit bleibt „persönlich“ mit der „angenommenen menschlichen Natur … vereinigt“ (Fr. 48). Das aber schließt nicht aus, dass sie im weiten Raum der Schöpfung auch außerhalb (extra) derselben präsent und am Werk ist. Was der Heidelberger tatsächlich sagen will, bringt er unmissverständlich mit dem sprechenden Bild eines wechselseitig niedergelegten Pfandes zum Ausdruck, das einen Rechtsanspruch bestätigt und gültig macht. Hier ist seine Argumentation von einer schwer zu bestreitenden Stringenz: Der aufgefahrene Christus vertritt unsere Menschheit im Himmel (als „Pfand“ unserer künftigen leiblichen Auferstehung) und sendet uns „seinen Geist als Gegenpfand herab“ (Fr. 49). Dieser Geist—das ist gemeint—tritt für das ein, was uns jetzt zu fehlen scheint. Denn wenn Christus nicht in unserer Welt ist und auch nicht mehr in sie herabsteigt, dann muss seine Gegenwart—das werden wir heute hinzufügen müssen—erst neu geschaffen werden, und eben das geschieht durch die Tat des heiligen Geistes: Durch seinen Geist schafft sich Christus als Haupt seiner Kirche einen neuen irdisch-geschichtlichen Existenzraum: Die Gegenwart seiner „Gottheit und Majestät“ stellt sich leibhaft in der Existenz der Gemeinde dar. Die Gemeinde ist sein Leib, sie „ist“ zwischen Himmelfahrt und Parusie „seine Gestalt, und zwar die einzige“ (so D. Bonhoeffer : 1933, 193). Himmelfahrt, das will der Katechismus sicherstellen, vergewissert den Glauben der „jetzt“ uneingeschränkten Gegenwart Jesu Christi und lässt sie allen Anfechtungen zum Trotz zuversichtlich auf seine Wiederkunft warten. Auch hier also wird der Glaube nicht an einen fernen Himmel gewiesen, sondern in die Mitte der Gemeinde, dorthin, wo er sich zu bewähren hat. (3) Bis zu diesem äußersten Rand, den uns das Bekenntnis sehen lässt, die Wiederkunft Christi zum Gericht, tastet sich der Heidelberger vor (Fr. 52). Er unterlässt es jedoch—ein bemerkenswert neuer Ton—, dabei in die Sequenz der lateinischen Totenliturgie einzustimmen: „Dies irae, dies illa“, und das Jüngste Gericht als einen Tag blanker Angst und Trübsal auszumalen. Er verzichtet auf die unendlich oft unternommenen Versuche, das Weltgericht, ein in jeder Hinsicht noch ausstehendes, unserer Phantasie entzogenes Ereignis, als Abrechnung mit ungesühntem Unrecht und Gewalt der Erde in Szene zu setzen. Stattdessen hält er sich nüchtern an das, was wir tatsächlich wissen könnten und wissen müssten, und eröffnet uns so eine ungewohnt neue Perspektive: das Gericht als tröstlicher Abschluss unserer irdischen Geschichte, als ein den Menschen würdigendes Ereignis. Denn das entscheidende Argument, das man auch in der reformierten Tradition vor ihm (etwa

102

Christian Link

bei Calvin) so nicht findet, ist der Hinweis darauf, dass die Auseinandersetzung Gottes mit dem Bösen (Inbegriff aller unser „Elend“ verursachender Antriebe und Kräfte) am Kreuz Jesu definitiv zum Abschluss gebracht worden ist. Das uns treffende Urteil ist in Christus bereits vollstreckt, der sich „zuvor dem Gericht Gottes für mich gestellt hat“ (Fr. 52) und der—auch dies ein neuer Akzent—in eigener Person unser Richter sein wird. An ihm vorbei wird niemand von uns gemessen und beurteilt werden. Gewiss, es wird ein schmerzhafter Prozess sein, wenn die Gleichgültigkeit, mit der wir den Appell fremder Not überhört haben, der Ehrgeiz, mit dem wir anderen im Weg gestanden sind,—wenn all das aufgedeckt und beim Namen genannt wird. Doch ist dies Offenbarwerden der Negativposten unseres Lebens zugleich ein heilsamer Prozess, ein „therapeutisches Ereignis“ (Jüngel). Mag noch soviel Untaugliches—Hochmut, Trägheit und Lüge—in meiner Lebensbilanz zu Tage treten: diese Last wird von mir genommen, so dass ich tatsächlich „mit erhobenem Haupt“ dem letzten jüngsten Tag entgegen gehen kann. Unser Leben wird im Wortsinne wieder aufgerichtet, groß gemacht und von dem Zwang befreit, sich selbst rechtfertigen oder—schlimmer noch—sich selbst verurteilen zu müssen. Nur ein letzter Schatten fällt auf dies tröstliche Bild: Dass Christus für alle Menschen gestorben ist, und dass wir diese uns entlastende Erkenntnis nun auch für „seine und meine Feinde“ glauben dürfen (ohne dass der Ernst der Verdammnis damit abgeschwächt würde): diese Konsequenz hat der Heidelberger noch nicht gezogen. Er stand im Schatten der calvinischen Lehre von der doppelten Prädestination, die er—man darf ihm dafür dankbar sein—in dieser Form eben nicht unter die Glaubensartikel aufgenommen hat.

3. Rechtfertigender Glaube Am Gegensatz zum „Werk“ und der aus ihm resultierenden „eigenen Gerechtigkeit“ hat sich der evangelische Glaubensbegriff geschärft und ist zum lebendigen Zentrum von Theologie und Frömmigkeit geworden. Auch der Heidelberger macht davon keine Ausnahme. Auf die Frage: „Wie bist du gerecht vor Gott?“ antwortet er mit Luther : „Allein durch wahren Glauben an Jesus Christus“ (Fr. 60) und fügt hinzu: „Ich gefalle Gott nicht deswegen, weil mein Glaube ein verdienstvolles Werk wäre“ (Fr. 61). Und doch kommt er in der Einschätzung solcher „guten Werke“ zu einem anderen Resultat. Hier wird in einer veränderten Situation gefragt: Die Erfahrung nachlassender Sittenstrenge (der Consensus Bremensis [1595] spricht von „Laxation“, Erschlaffung) ist ebenso präsent, wie der katholische Vorwurf, ob die Rechtfertigungslehre nicht „sorglose und verruchte Leute“ mache (Fr. 64). Dementsprechend sind die Gewichte anders verteilt, was man rein äußerlich daran erkennt, dass zwischen Rechtfertigung (Fr. 59 – 64) und Heiligung

Glaube als lebensbestimmende Erkenntnis

103

(Fr. 86 – 91) eine deutliche Zäsur liegt. Der Katechismus setzt ein zweites Mal neu an, wenn er auf das Problem der „guten Werke“ zu sprechen kommt. Was bei Luther ein einziger Vorgang ist—„Ein guter Baum trägt gute Früchte“— zerlegt sich hier gleichsam in zwei Schritte. Das Begründungsgefälle hat sich unter dem Einfluss Calvins unmerklich verschoben. Natürlich heißt Rechtfertigung weiterhin, einen anderen, nämlich Christus, für mich eintreten und mir seine „fremde Gerechtigkeit“—„und Heiligkeit“, fügt der Heidelberger hinzu (Fr. 61)—übereignen zu lassen. Auch die Ausrichtung des Glaubens auf Christus, Luthers fides apprehensiva Christi, wird nicht angetastet, sondern präzisiert. Glaube, schreibt Calvin, ist „die feste und gewisse Erkenntnis des göttlichen Wohlwollens gegen uns, die sich auf die Wahrheit der in Christus uns dargebotenen Gnadenverheißung stützt und durch den Heiligen Geist unserem Verstand geoffenbart und in unsern Herzen versiegelt wird“ (Calvin, Inst. 3.2.7). Inwiefern aber— das ist die jetzt neu gestellte Frage—soll ich „allein durch den Glauben gerecht“ sein? Was heißt denn: ein neuer Mensch werden? Die formale Auskunft, mit der sich das Augsburger Bekenntnis begnügt: das geschehe „um Christi willen durch den Glauben“ (CA IV), hilft hier offenbar nicht weiter. Soll es tatsächlich zu jener Erkenntnis kommen, die mich von einer „Wohltat“, einem „Trost im Leben und im Sterben“ sprechen lässt, dann muss sie in einem inneren Verhältnis zur Sache begründet sein. Dann muss dem objektiven Rechtsakt, dem berühmten „extra nos“, eine personale Beziehung entsprechen, die allererst jenes „herzliche Vertrauen“ schafft. Das, sagt der Katechismus, ist ein Werk, „welches [erst] der Heilige Geist durchs Evangelium in mir wirkt“ (Fr. 21). Deshalb hat Calvin in der Mitte seines Rechtfertigungstraktats beschrieben, was jenseits eines bloßen Fürwahrhaltens den erkennenden Glauben ausmacht: „Wir schauen ihn [Christus] nicht außer uns, von ferne an [wie in der alten Satisfaktionslehre], damit uns seine Gerechtigkeit zugerechnet werde. Nein, weil wir ihn angezogen haben und in seinen Leib eingefügt sind, kurz, weil er sich herabgelassen hat, uns mit sich eins zu machen, darum rühmen wir uns, dass wir Gemeinschaft der Gerechtigkeit (societas iustitiae) mit ihm haben (Inst. 3.11.10). Durch „wahren Glauben“, paraphrasiert der Heidelberger, werden wir Christus „eingeleibt“ (Fr. 20), das heißt, seinem Leib als Glieder eingefügt. Rechtfertigung—erst mit dieser Zuspitzung erreicht der Argumentationsgang sein Ziel—ist vor allem anderen Einheit mit Christus. Calvin kann geradezu von einer unio mystica sprechen. Das aber bedeutet, und hier betritt der Katechismus Neuland, dass diese Gemeinschaft nicht nur eine passive, sondern auch die aktive Teilhabe an der Gerechtigkeit Christi umschließt, dass sie uns nun auch zu eigenverantwortlichem gerechtem Handeln befähigt, zum „Tun des Gerechten“, wie Bonhoeffer formulieren konnte. „Willst du also in Christus Gerechtigkeit erlangen“, so noch einmal Calvin, „dann musst du zuvor Christus besitzen. Du kannst ihn aber gar nicht besitzen, ohne zugleich auch an seiner Heiligkeit

104

Christian Link

Anteil zu haben.“ Und nun folgt der Satz, der die Gemeinden der zweiten Generation mit Paulus und mit Matthäus an die Konsequenz ihres Glaubens erinnert: „Daraus geht deutlich hervor, dass wir nicht ohne die Werke, aber wiederum auch nicht durch die Werke gerechtfertigt werden“ (Inst. 3.16.1). Der Katechismus präzisiert: „Wir sollen gute Werke tun, weil Christus, nachdem er uns mit seinem Blut erkauft hat, uns auch durch seinen heiligen Geist erneuert zu seinem Ebenbild, damit wir mit unserem ganzen Leben uns dankbar gegen Gott für seine Wohltaten erweisen“ (Fr. 86). Das Geheimnis der Rechtfertigung ist die Eingliederung in den „Leib“ Christi, die Aufnahme in seinen „Herrschaftsbereich“ (Käsemann). Erst muss die Trennung zwischen Gott und Mensch aufgehoben werden, soll der objektive Grund unserer Gerechtigkeit, Christus, zum Leuchten kommen. Und erst wenn wir seiner Gaben teilhaftig und gewiss geworden sind, kann der subjektive Grund, unsere eigene Spontaneität und Freiheit, in Erscheinung treten, und das heißt eben: der neue, nun in Gottes Nähe leben dürfende, zu einer neuen Existenz berufene und darum dankbare Mensch. Deshalb redet der Heidelberger von den guten Werken unter der Überschrift „Von der Dankbarkeit.“ Dankbarkeit aber ist ein Akt der Freiheit. Was aus Dankbarkeit geschieht, ist nicht, wie es in CA XX heißt, notwendig, sondern mehr als notwendig: Gott wird „für seine Wohltaten … durch uns gepriesen“ (Fr. 86). Deshalb und nur deshalb gibt es das gute Werk, das im Glauben, Gott „zur Ehre“ geschieht (Fr. 91) und darum weder auf „unserer Meinung“ noch auf „menschlicher Anordnung“ beruht. Dieser sogenannte „dritte Gebrauch des Gesetzes“, der usus in renatis, ist nach reformiertem Verständnis daher mit Recht der vorzüglichste (praecipuus), weil aus Freiheit entspringende Gebrauch, und so kann denn hier auch der Rückschluss gewagt werden: „Auch soll ein jeder seines Glaubens aus seinen Früchten gewiss werden“ (syllogismus practicus)—was auf der Basis einer Forderung (des „necesse est“ von CA XX) der Rechtfertigung geradewegs widersprechen müsste. Hier aber geht es um ein zentrales Interesse des Glaubens: Wir sollen „mit einem Leben, das Gott gefällt, unsern Nächsten für Christus gewinnen“ (Fr. 86). Der Indikativ des Glaubens verwandelt sich unter der Wirkung des Geistes in den Imperativ der Tat. Das gute Werk ist das dem Glauben entsprechende Werk; es ratifiziert ihn auf dem Boden unseres eigenen Lebens, es macht ihn wahr.

4. Bewährter Glaube An keiner zweiten Stelle wird das spirituelle Element des Katechismus, die Ausstrahlung des Glaubens in den lebensweltlichen Alltag, so sichtbar wie in den Fragen und Antworten zum Thema: Schöpfung und Vorsehung. Hier geht es um das Bewährungsfeld des Glaubens: Wagen wir es überhaupt noch, mit einer „allmächtigen und gegenwärtigen Kraft Gottes“ (Fr. 27) zu rechnen, und

Glaube als lebensbestimmende Erkenntnis

105

was können wir von ihr erwarten? Pointierter, zugespitzter kann man von der Vorsehung gar nicht reden, als es schon die erste Frage tut: Christus wird mich so bewahren, „dass ohne den Willen meines Vaters im Himmel kein Haar von meinem Haupt kann fallen.“ Man hat von „einer der größten Merkwürdigkeiten des Katechismus“ gesprochen, die in den Zusammenhang der Erlösung von allen Sünden und „aus der Gewalt des Teufels“ (Fr. 1) denkbar schlecht passen will (Crüsemann: 2012, 430). Denn diese Zusage gilt, wie der Hinweis auf Mt 10,29 – 31 erklärt, ohne Abstriche ausdrücklich auch für jeden Spatzen—„nicht einer von ihnen wird ohne Zutun eures Vaters zur Erde fallen“ (V.29)—und das heißt: für jeden Menschen überhaupt, nicht nur für die Glaubenden. Wird hier also nicht nur eine unfehlbare, ja deterministisch wirkende Providenz behauptet? Würde aber daraufhin einer für sich die Folgerung ziehen: „Auf ihn [Gott] vertraue ich und zweifle nicht, dass er mich mit allem versorgt, was ich für Leib und Seele nötig habe“? (Fr. 26) Das ist schwer vorstellbar. Das Bild ändert sich jedoch, wenn man auf den unmittelbaren Kontext der „Aussendungsrede“ Jesu achtet: „Fürchtet sie [die Menschen] also nicht!“ (V.31) Das wird seinen Nachfolgerinnen und Jüngern offenbar nicht schon durch eine neutrale Schöpfungs- oder Erhaltungsordnung geboten, sondern dadurch, dass sie in einem besonderen Verhältnis, einer besonderen Zuordnung zu ihrem himmlischen Vater leben—und deshalb weit mehr geachtet als alle Sperlinge! Sie sind es, die sich zu Jesus bekannt haben, und so wird auch er sich zu ihnen bekennen (V.32). Vorsehung wird hier verstanden als das Bekenntnis Gottes zu dem besonderen Weg eines Menschen in seiner Welt. Doch mindert das die Beweiskraft der göttlichen Fürsorge auch für die Spatzen? Wenn der Katechismus so betont davon spricht, dass alle Geschöpfe wie „Laub und Gras“ in Gottes Hand sind (Fr.27), dass sie sich „ohne seinen Willen weder regen noch bewegen können (Fr.28), dann greift er noch über diese Bekenntnisaussage hinaus. Er verbindet sie mit einem „Wissen um etwas, das grundsätzlich gilt“ und „manche theologische Engführung korrigieren“ müsste (Crüsemann: 2012, 430). Er redet von der Macht Gottes, die uns, schon weil es seine Schöpfung ist, auf deren Boden wir uns bewegen, dazu anleiten müsste, „in aller Widerwärtigkeit geduldig, in Glückseligkeit dankbar und auf die Zukunft hin voller Vertrauen“ zu sein (Fr. 28). Und ist nicht auch hier der Glaube gefordert, der Glaube, dass ich immer schon der beachtete, um seiner selbst willen für Gott interessante und darum der von ihm bewahrte Mensch bin? Selbstverständlich ist das nicht. Hier wird ein Grundzug biblischer Vorsehung sichtbar, den man leicht übersieht. Sie schließt nicht wie der aus der Antike stammende Providenzbegriff von der Welterfahrung auf Gott. Sie ist kein Fazit aus der Betrachtung des Weltlaufs, erklärbar bei Leuten, die noch keine schlimmeren Tage gesehen haben und von Treibhaus-Effekten, verstrahlter Atmosphäre und Tsunamis noch nichts wussten. Der Glaube an die Vorsehung Gottes lässt sich empirisch nicht zur Evidenz bringen. Er nimmt

106

Christian Link

gerade umgekehrt das Bekenntnis zu Gott als Schlüssel für die Interpretation der Welt in Anspruch. Hier redet kein neutraler Zuschauer von einem distanzierten, fernen Gott, sondern einer, der weiß, dass das Wirken dieses Gottes perspektivisch auf ihn, auf „mich“ zentriert ist, dass zwischen ihm und „mir“ etwas geschieht, das meine Einstellung zum Leben verändert. Ein bewegendes Echo dieser Gewissheit hören wir in den Providenzliedern des 17. Jahrhunderts, gedichtet in einer der dunkelsten Epochen der europäischen Geschichte, der Zeit des dreißigjährigen Krieges: „Es kann mir nichts geschehen, als was Gott hat ersehen und was mir selig ist.“4 „Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, es bleibt gerecht sein Wille.“5 Das sind Bekenntnisse, hineingesprochen in das Grauen einer Welt, das kaum einem Zeitgenossen ein Lob der Güte Gottes auf die Lippen gelegt hätte. Nur kontrafaktisch, nur gegen den Augenschein kann eine solche Sprache gewagt werden. Verstehen wird man diesen Glauben daher erst dann, wenn man sich von der Vogelperspektive, dem Blick neutraler Zuschauer trennt. Der Glaube, der sich auf Gottes Handeln richtet, begründet eine andere Perspektive auf die Welt. Er verortet sich in einem anderen Wirklichkeitszusammenhang, als ein Agnostiker es könnte. Die Welt wird ihm als Raum der Gegenwart Gottes transparent, in den sich der Glaubende nun selbst eingeordnet weiß. Er steht im Innenraum der Weltpräsenz Gottes und rechnet mit noch anderen Koeffizienten der Geschichte als der Historiker, der nur die Sprache der „Tatsachen“ gelten lässt. Wenn Paulus in seinem großen Traktat über die Hoffnung erklärt, dass „denen, die Gott lieben, alle Dinge zum Guten mitwirken“ (Röm 8,28), dann stellt er das „Eintreffen“ und „Zum-Ziel-Kommen“ der Vorsehung, also ihren verbindlichen Sinn, unter das Vorzeichen, man darf fast sagen, unter die Bedingung einer zuvor schon bestehenden Beziehung. Er setzt als Subjekt seiner Gewissheit Menschen voraus, die Gott lieben, die sich wie in einem vom Geist erzeugten „Kraftfeld“ bewegen und daraufhin ihre Aufgaben und Pläne immer neu ordnen. Hier liegt der Schlüssel zum Verständnis der biblischen Vorsehungslehre. Nicht als ob sich damit alle Rätsel unseres Lebens auflösen ließen. Warum Gott nicht in den Weltlauf eingreift, wenn wir es für angebracht oder notwendig halten, warum Menschen sterben müssen, wenn Gott sie liebt, erfahren wir nicht. Es muss uns genügen zu wissen, dass Gott für unsere Welt einstehen will auch da, wo sie selber nicht für sich einstehen, ja nicht einmal zu sich selbst stehen kann. Das ist der „Nutzen“, den wir nach Frage 28 aus der Gewissheit der Vorsehung gewinnen, und das gilt auch von dem Glauben, der sie trägt. Denn nur wenn wir wissen, dass auch unsere Gebete nicht in den Wind gesprochen sind, können wir auch im Blick auf die „Zukunft hin voller Vertrauen zu unserm treuen Gott und Vater“ sein. Dann brauchen wir als

4 Paul Fleming, In allen meinen Taten …, EG 368.3. 5 Samuel Rodigast, Was Gott tut …, EG 372. 1–6.

Glaube als lebensbestimmende Erkenntnis

107

Christen nicht an den Klagemauern der Gegenwart stehen, sondern treten auf die Zinnen, von denen aus Zukunft sichtbar wird.

Literatur Barth, Karl (1948), Die christliche Lehre nach dem Heidelberger Katechismus, Zollikon–Zürich. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich (1960), Christologie Vorlesung (1933), in: Gesammelte Schriften (ed. E. Bethge), München. Cr]semann, F. (2012), Theologische Engführung und biblische Weite, in: EvTh 72, 419–431. Ebeling, Gerhard (1959), Das Wesen des christlichen Glaubens, Tübingen. J]ngel, Eberhard (1974), Geistesgegenwart. Predigten, München. Link, Chr. (2009), Das sogenannte Extra-Calvinisticum, in: Chr. Link, Prädestination und Erwählung. Calvin-Studien, Neukirchen, 145–170. Noltensmeier, Gerrit (2012), Zugänge zum Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen. Ritschl, Dietrich (1984), Zur Logik der Theologie, München. Steffenski, Fulbert (1984), Feier des Lebens. Spiritualität im Alltag, Stuttgart.

Wim Verboom

Regeneration According to the Heidelberg Catechism

Introduction In this article I treat the question how the Heidelberg Catechism deals with the matter of regeneration. What we can notice immediately is that the expression ‘regeneration’ is used sparsely ; actually only three times. First in HC 8, where the verb ‘being born again’ (regeneremur) and in HC 71 and 73, where the noun ‘rebirth’ (regeneratio), is linked to baptism (baptism as ‘the water of rebirth’ and ‘the washing away of sins’). In the following, I will use the term regeneration in reference to what is commonly called rebirth (in Dutch wedergeboorte). What we also notice immediately is that the concept of regeneration is not given particular explanation. That could be a reason for the fact that in various Dutch commentaries on the HC, the concept of ‘regeneration’ is not clarified. Even in theological manuals of the HC the topic in HC 8 is not explained (e. g. H.A. Ro€l, 1728). Yet, at the same time, we see that in many treatments of this catechism various connotations are given to the notion of regeneration. This prompts the question whether these various connotations comply at all with the meaning of regeneration in the HC itself. This article will be a listening exercise regarding the following topics: regeneration as treated in HC 8 of the HC, rebirth (regeneratio) and conversion (conversio), regeneration by faith in Christ, some observations, shifts, regeneration in commentaries, consequences for experience of faith, conclusion.

1. Regeneration in HC 8 The expression ‘being born again’ or ‘regeneration’ as found in HC 8 is treated as part of the first segment of the HC regarding the knowledge of our misery. Lord’s Day 2 designates the epistemological source of misery to be the Law of God. Our misery constitutes not being perfectly able to keep the Law of God and having a tendency to hate God and one’s neighbor. In Lord’s Day 3, the source of this misery is pinpointed. Not coming from God, for He has created man good and in his own image. The perversity of man came through the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise. This fall has

Regeneration According to the Heidelberg Catechism

109

so poisoned our nature that we are all conceived and born in a sinful condition. In that framework HC 8 is given concerning regeneration. The question is formulated thusly : “But are we so corrupt that we are totally unable to do any good and inclined toward all evil?” The answer is: “Yes, unless we are born again by the Spirit of God.” This answer tells us in what way we can become able to do something good and no longer are prone to do evil. That way is by regeneration as the spiritual renewal of man by the Holy Spirit, so that a restoration in the image of God takes place,1 even though this transpires in this earthly realm with all its impermanence. In the dictia probantia found in HC 8, we find in particular John 3, verses 3 and 5. In this passage Jesus speaks to Nicodemus about a birth from above (anothhn) by the Spirit of God. The connection with baptism, which we find in HC 71 and 73, is also found in John 3, where Jesus links regeneration with water and Spirit (John 3:5). The expression “washing of rebirth” we find in Titus 3:5. We do well to note here that the depravity of fallen man is a matter of man’s nature, which is of his inner being. At the same time, the depravity treated in HC 8 has an ethical point to it. Being able and inclined or not to do good or evil is a matter that figures strongly in conversion.

2. Rebirth (Regeneratio) and Conversion (Conversio) My thesis is that regeneration as treated in the HC in the Third Lord’s Day (regeneratio) is substantially equivalent with conversion (conversio) as found in Lord’s Day 33. The expression of ‘being born again’ emphasizes that the renewal of man is the work of the Holy Spirit whereby man as subject is passive. The expression of ‘conversion’ emphasizes what the Holy Spirit brings about in the heart of man, whereby man not only is a passive subject, but also is being made active by the Holy Spirit as this appears in his daily life. In the latter aspect we recognize the ethical focus of the Third Lord’s Day. We see how HC 8 serves as an advance on the treatment of conversion in Lord’s Day 33. Lord’s Day 33 takes the theme ‘regeneration’ as found in Lord’s Day 3 and expands on that. As I already mentioned, we best express conversion in Lord’s Day 3 as spiritual renewal of man, with the aim of renewal towards the image of God. This is in line with what Calvin held who claims in his Institutes 3.3.9. that conversion renews the image of God that has been darkened and soiled in man through the disobedience by Adam. In HC 86, we read how the HC deals with conversion as the renewal by the Holy Spirit that is restoring us into his image. 1 Cf. HC 6: “Did God create people so wicked and perverse? No. God created them good and in his own image, that is, in true righteousness and holiness, so that they might truly know God their creator, love him with all their heart, and live with God in eternal happiness, to praise and glorify him.”

110

Wim Verboom

Another term used for the same matter is sanctification (sanctificatio) (HC 24). So we can conclude that regeneration, conversion and sanctification are somewhat interchangeable entities in the HC. The sanctification of man can be characterized as the process of renewal of man according to a new goal in his life. Namely, to praise and glorify God as God meant that to be when He created man (HC 6). A fourth complimentary expression for the same matter is gratitude (gratitudo), which is used in the HC specifically for the third aspect of Christian faith (guilt, grace, gratitude).2 Each expression, whether regeneration, conversion, sanctification and gratitude has its own flavor and demonstrates in that way its own focus on the renewal of man by the Holy Spirit. When we can accept that regeneration and conversion in the HC are identical, then it is not hard to understand why the concept of regeneration is not expanded on in Lord’s Day 3. It receives elaborate treatment in Lord’s Day 33. It concerns the mortification of the old man and the rising up or making alive of the new man, the mortificatio and the vivificatio. The mortification of man concerns a heartfelt sorrow that we have made God terribly angry with our sin and that we desire to hate and flee from these. A rising up of the new man is a heartfelt joy in God through Christ and an earnest and loving longing of wanting to do all good works according to the will of God. Where the third Lord’s Day asks whether we are so corrupt that we are totally unable to do any good and inclined toward all evil; yet in Lord’s Day 33 it is held that through conversion we delight to live according to the will of God by doing every kind of good work. We see in Lord’s Day 33 clearly again the ethical focus that arises from the innerness, the heart. We could say : that forms the external side of the internal side of regeneration or conversion. The same link between innerness and the ethical focus we find in the first Lord’s Day : Christ makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready (inside) from now on to live for Him (ethical focus). In Lord’s Days 34 – 44 the ethical focus is treated quite explicitly as the theme of gratitude for a life of service according to the will of God. This excursion culminates in the call in HC 115 to pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, to be renewed more and more after God’s image. The last part of the gratitude is that of the Lord’s Prayer as covered in Lord’s Days 45 – 52. This brings us closer to the inside of regeneration. Prayer figures as the most prominent element of gratitude. This is exquisitely stated in HC 116 as that God gives his grace and Holy Spirit only to those who pray continually and groan inwardly, asking God for these gifts and thanking God for them. So we see a continual dialectic between the inner renewal of the heart through the Holy Spirit and the ethical focus recurring in the concepts of regeneration, conversion, sanctification or gratitude in the HC.

2 Cf. HC 86: “Because Christ, having redeemed us by his blood, is also restoring us by his Spirit into his image, so that with our whole lives we may show that we are thankful to God for his benefits.”

Regeneration According to the Heidelberg Catechism

111

3. Conversion by Faith in Christ An important point is the question how regeneration or conversion comes about in our lives. The place of regeneration in HC, particularly in the third Lord’s Day, preceding Lord’s Day 7 about true faith, could prompt the idea that regeneration takes place prior to faith in Christ. Yet, we could be in error in assuming that. The role of conversion in HC in Lord’s Day 33 as the function of regeneration in the third Lord’s Day demonstrates that the renewal of our life by the Holy Spirit results from our being incorporated in Christ. Lord’s Day 24 relates a person being grafted into Christ through true faith, which is equivalent in nature with a person being grafted in Christ as treated in Lord’s Day (HC 20). HC 64 of the 24th Lord’s Day holds it impossible for those grafted into Christ through true faith not to produce fruits of gratitude. The continual theme in the HC is that regeneration comes about through faith in Christ. Hence, it is not regeneration before faith, but regeneration by faith. Regeneration becomes reality through the unio mystica cum Christo (Van Vlastuin: 2011, 48 f).This corresponds with the parable of the vine and its branches in John 15. Believers receive as branches their spiritual life from abiding in the vine Christ and so bring forth fruits. Without the connection with Christ that would be impossible. Also John 3 expresses this thought. When Jesus teaches Nicodemus the necessity of a new birth, he directs his attention to Himself. Through faith in Him, one receives eternal life (verses 14 – 18). Several statements in the HC express this thesis in related words. In HC 18 we read that Jesus Christ was given to us to sanctification, a different word for regeneration. HC 43 teaches us that our old selves are crucified, put to death, and buried with Christ, so that we may offer ourselves as a sacrifice of gratitude to him. In HC 45 concerning the resurrection of Jesus we read: “By his power we too are already raised to a new life.” HC 53 speaks of the benefits of Christ, in which the Holy Spirit through true faith in Christ makes us partake of. Finally, HC 86 tells us that after Christ having redeemed us by his blood, also restores us by his Spirit into his image. HC 73 says that baptism teaches and assures us, by this divine pledge and sign, that we are by the blood and the Spirit of Jesus Christ as truly washed of our sins spiritually as our bodies are washed with water physically, hence set free, sanctified, regenerated. This may be called a Christocentric regeneration. The order of faith in Christ and regeneration in the HC is also found in two previous catechisms by Zacharias Ursinus in 1562. In his Larger Catechism we read, for instance, that the Holy Spirit is sent into the hearts of believers so that they become sanctified in Christ (HC 45). Also: the Son of God brings to life the elect and sanctifies them by the Holy Spirit (HC 63). In the Smaller Catechism we read that God’s Son by His Spirit brings about new life in me (HC 10). Calvin also adhered to this order. Compare the title of Institutes 3.3 (1559):

112

Wim Verboom

“Regeneration by Faith. Or Repentance.” In III.4 Calvin explains that true repentance entails the mortification of the flesh and the quickening of the Spirit. Lord’s Day 33 of the HC is congruent with this. Melanchthon also writes in his Examen Ordinandorum (1553, 199) that conversion (poenitentia) is the fruit of faith. And Luther holds in his Kurze Form (1520, 20) that the Holy Spirit makes us living, holy and spiritual in Christ. Beza writes in his Confessio (1559, 164): “If Christ lives in us in a spiritual way, then his power creates powers and makes these visible. In Scripture these matters are called being born anew and sanctification, because they recreate us into anew having new characteristics.” Like in the Lord’s Day 33 of the HC, Beza affirms that this renewal is the mortification of the old self and the resurrection of the new self. Also well known is that the Confessio Belgica (1561) in article 24 treats regeneration as fruit of faith. In its 14th article, we read that only Christ conforms our mind and will to the mind and will of God. In my opinion the HC—regarding the order of faith and regeneration— harbors the express duty to reject the sufficiency of good works by placing the ‘solo Christo’ and ‘sola gratia’ over and against that. Additionally, that was done to rebut the accusation that faith in Christ would lack renewal of one’s life. This explains the statement in Answer 86 that after having redeemed us by his blood, Christ is also restoring us by his Spirit into his image. In this way we are born again through faith.

4. Some Observations 1. The sporadic use of the term regeneration in the HC may possibly give rise to the thought of a rather fickle scattering in the text. However, we have seen that because of the close link between regeneration in Lord’s Day 3 and conversion in Lord’s Day 33, this is a wrong impression. Regeneration is certainly an integral part of the faith content of the HC. 2. Regeneration in the HC has a Christocentric character. 3. The idea that regeneration serves as an identifiable beginning of new spiritual live prior to faith in Christ is not found in the HC (Van der Kooi: 2012, 241 f). 4. We do not find in the HC an explicit order of salvation, as the way along which the Holy Spirit brings man to partake of salvation from beginning to the end.3 That is not to say that the HC lacks any reference to the ‘applicatio salutis’. In this respect think of HC 65 in Lord’s Day 25 where we read that the Holy Spirit produces faith in our hearts. Called by the Word, we are incorporated in Christ, so that regeneration gains its development as fruit of faith. 3 Cf. Van den Brink/Van der Kooi: 2012, 581 f about the so-called ‘golden chain’ (Rom 8:29 – 30).

Regeneration According to the Heidelberg Catechism

113

5. Regeneration in the HC has an ethical and an eschatological focus. The spiritual renewal of the sinner takes place partially in this life only (HC 114). HC 115 says that the renewal according to God’s image takes place not until after this life we reach our goal: perfection.

5. Shifts The HC treats, as we have seen, regeneration or conversion especially in the framework of the objection that the doctrine of sola gratia would lead to indifference and wickedness. The HC rebuts this objection, because it is impossible for those grafted into Christ through true faith not to produce fruits of gratitude. Faith leads to regeneration. At the same time, throughout the entire Protestant tradition, a related matter manifested itself, namely the state of depravity of man through the Fall in Adam. Already from the start Luther battled with Erasmus concerning the issue of free will.4 Also Ursinus held lectures on this topic; his perspective can be found in the well-known Schatboek (Ursinus: 1954),first published under the name Compendium in Geneva and Leiden in 1584, later by David Pareus, the famous pupil of Ursinus who expanded the Compendium and republished in 1591 (VoorwindenHofman: 2012). Ursinus emphasizes that not man, but the Holy Spirit commences with the renewal of man (Van der Haar: 1977, 1:85). In this framework continuing interest took place for the birth of faith and the experience of spiritual renewal of man. This development we find reflected in the Canones of Dordt (1619). Against the background of the conflict with the Remonstrants (Arminians), the Canones in Canon III/IV place all emphasis on the transformative work of the Holy Spirit, yet without taking recourse to the natural abilities of man. The order of faith and regeneration in the Canones is therefore unclear. In various articles in Canon III/IV we may surmise with a little good will that regeneration follows faith, but the reverse proposition that faith is brought about by regeneration is held as well (cf. III/IV, 12). In III/IV, 14 we read that faith is conferred, breathed, and infused into man. This formulation is congruent with what theologians have regarded as regeneration in restricted sense, as opposed to regeneration in a broad or wide sense.5 Quite often they use for regeneration the metaphor of birth. Just like a natural birth happens at a certain moment, similarly that happens with regeneration (rebirth).6 Such a notion is an interpretation of the HC; it is not the original 4 Cf. Erasmus: 1524, De Libero arbitrio and Luther : 1525, De servo arbitrio. 5 For this opinion, one refers sometimes to Calvin’s explanation John 1:12 f, where he calls the order regeneration-belief. 6 In my opinion, in this way one overrate the metaphor. The rebirth in John 3:3 is a birth from “above” (anoth{n), not a re-birth at a specific moment.

114

Wim Verboom

meaning. The Westminster Confession (1647) had a strong influence on this point. In Chapter XIII this confession differentiates regeneration (by calling) from sanctification. I quote: “They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his Word en Spirit dwelling in them” (Schaff: 1977, 3:629).

6. Regeneration in Commentaries It is interesting to read what later commentaries on the HC write about regeneration. Do they continue to adhere to the perspective on it in the HC or do they formulate their own interpretation of it? The shifts I treated in the above paragraph do make us curious. The first commentary I consult is of H. Jeremias Bastingius, minister at Antwerp and Dordrecht. In 1588 he published his commentary (Bastingius: 1588) and in 1591 a translation was made by H. van den Corput, entitled Verclaringe op den Catechisme der Christelicker Religie. In the treatment of HC 8, Bastingius provides us with a short description of what transpires when man is born again. The faculties of the soul, mind and will are changed, renewed and restored. God Himself, and no other, causes us to be regenerated and transforms us through the Holy Spirit into the image, according to which He had created us in the beginning (Bastingius: 1591, 32). He says: this renewal or better said vivification is only possible by faith in Christ, in whose death and resurrection one is grafted and so partakes of. The mortification of the old self concerns the sorrow of sins, by which one comes to long for Christ. The resurrection of the new self brings about joyfulness regarding salvation in Christ in which one shares faith (Bastingius: 1591, 463 f; 468 – 478). On the basis of these findings, we can conclude that Bastingius treads in the path of the HC when he positions regeneration as treated in Lord’s Day 3 in line with conversion as treated in Lord’s Day 33 as being the fruit of faith in Christ. The second commentary on the HC we can look at is written by Cornelis Poudroyen (1662).7 This commentary was based on his notes jotted down during catechism lessons provided by his professor in Utrecht, Gisbertus Voetius. We find in this expansive commentary of the HC the deposit of the theological musings of Voetius. Poudroyen spends a great deal of attention on regeneration, which he treats within the framework of the order of salvation. The first work of the Holy Spirit in man is the internal or effectual calling (Poudroyen: 1662, 556ff). This calling is immediately associated with regeneration because he holds that we can consider regeneration in two 7 The first edition in 1640 contained only questions without answers. The edition of 1662 is republished by A. Kuyper in 1891.

Regeneration According to the Heidelberg Catechism

115

ways. First as the principle of spiritual renewal of man and secondly as the continuing work of sanctification. The predominant idea here is that regeneration is to be regarded as the start of the work of the Holy Spirit in man. He describes regeneration in terms of a resurrection out of sin into the life of grace by way of a special work of the Holy Spirit (Poudroyen: 1662, 173). The sanctification flows forth out of the regeneration. Poudroyen even raises the question when dealing with Lord’s Day 33, what transpires first: conversion/regeneration or faith (Poudroyen: 1662, 736). His answer is clear : conversion/regeneration. The conclusion cannot be avoided that Poudroyen reverses the order of salvation found in the HC concerning faith in Christ and regeneration. Hence it should not come as a surprise that many of the followers of Voetius, such as C. Tuinman (1659 – 1728), J. van der Kemp (1664 – 1718), B. Smytegelt (1665 – 1739), J. Vermeer (1696 – 1745), J. Beukelman (1704 – 1757) and others, stuck to the same order of salvation. Also the so called “Ernstige” (serious) Coccejan D’ Outrein (1662 – 1722) follows this order and he also identifies the conversion as treated in Lord’s Day 33 as regeneration as an immediate result of an effectual calling (D’Outrein: 1770, 331). Yet, there are commentaries on the HC, that follow in the track of the HC, as for instance J.J. van Oosterzee (1817 – 1882). In his De Heidelbergsche Catechismus in Twee en vijftig leerredenen (1869 f), he writes: “We need a new life through regeneration by the Second Adam (…) Where the sinner commits himself by faith to Christ, an inner unity with Christ comes about and Christ then shares with us His Spirit, like the vine nourishes the branches” (Van Oosterzee: 1870, 2:744).

7. Consequences for the Experience of Faith In the Reformed tradition, in particular in English Puritanism, the doctrine of regeneration with its focus on the vivification of the mortified sinner brought about a theology harboring the notion of regeneration as its central focus. Being born again is experienced as a special and deeply influential happening.8 The so-called ‘regeneration-theology’ influenced faith behavior in various ways in the course of recent history. In the Netherlands we have the twentieth century examples of Abraham Kuyper (1837 – 1920) and Gerrit Hendrik Kersten (1882 – 1948). Kuyper writes in his commentary E Voto Dordraceno a comprehensive treatment in relation to infant baptism (Kuyper : 1892, 3:1 – 67). The once-and-only happening of regeneration takes place according to Kuyper in the elect children before or 8 For example in the theology of John Wesley (1703 – 1791); cf. Van den Brink/Van der Kooi: 2012, 612.

116

Wim Verboom

right after their birth. Using a metaphor from nature he compares regeneration with what happens to a grain of wheat. Just like a plant germinates from a grain of wheat, so at the moment of regeneration the kernel of faith is placed in the heart of man, where later faith will shoot forth as deeds. Calling upon Reformed theologians from the 16th until the 18th century, Kuyper distinguishes between the habitus fidei and the actus fidei (Kuyper : 1892, 3:57ff). Baptism serves as a symbol and seal of the rebirth of the child, understood as the beginning of the habitus fidei. Kuyper adheres to the doctrine of presupposed or presumptive regeneration of the children of the congregation, whom he also considered to be elect. If later it appears that the baptized person shows no indication of a germination of faith, then one would unfortunately have to hold that there had been no kernel of faith to start with. The opponent of Kuyper in respect to the regeneration theology was Kersten. He also believed in regeneration as a once-only happening. Yet he opposed Kuyper’s doctrine of regeneration in the form of an unconscious event, which one could presume to take place in the small children of the congregation. Even though he also uses Alexander Comrie (1706 – 1774) as support in making a distinction between habitus and actus fidei, he still held that when a person is regenerated, such must be experienced as a supernatural intervention by God in one’s life. Regeneration is being raised from spiritual death to spiritual life. The renewed life begins with experiencing the depth of one’s sins and wretchedness in Adam, whereby an eager yearning comes about to know Jesus Christ. Kersten opposed the idea that the baptism of a small child would presume it’s being born again. Consequently, he even warned the youth of his congregation against adopting the deceptive belief of considering oneself reborn. Instead, we all are called upon to examine ourselves on having the characteristics of a true regeneration (Kersten:1948, 55 – 58; 1949, 5 – 22).

8. Conclusions The expression of regeneration is used in the HC thrice, in HC 8, 71, and 73. It can be characterized as the spiritual renewal of a person by the Holy Spirit with the aim of restoration of the image of God. 1. Regeneration is a matter of the innerness of the person, but at the same time knows of an ethical focus. 2. Regeneration matches conversion as treated in Lord’s Day 33. 3. Regeneration, sanctification, conversion and gratitude are closely related. Each presents a certain aspect of renewal of man by the Holy Spirit. 4. Man becomes regenerated by being grafted into Christ (unio mystica cum Christo). Hence, no regeneration prior to faith, but by faith. 5. The sequence in the order of faith and regeneration is crucial in terms of the

Regeneration According to the Heidelberg Catechism

6.

7.

8.

9.

117

objection that the doctrine of sola gratia would lead to indifference and wickedness. Regeneration in the HC is characterized by : being Christocentric, relational, not having an identifiable beginning, not being subject to an elaborate ordo salutis, and having an eschatological focus of being only partially attainable here and now. In later theological and ecclesiastical developments regeneration of man is seen in contrast to the concept of the free will of man. Only a radical, sovereign and one-sided initiative of the Holy Spirit leads to spiritual renewal of a person. We find this belief in the Canones of Dordt (1619) and in the Westminster Confession (1647). Commentaries on the HC such as of Bastingius follow the perspective on regeneration taught by the HC. Later commentaries, such as of Poudroyen and other Voetians, and also of the ‘Ernstige’ Coccejan D’Outrein, reverse the salvation order of the HC. They differentiate regeneration into a narrow and a broader sense, adopting regeneration in a narrow sense as determinative. Others, such as Van Oosterzee, did adhere to the order of the HC. The shift of regeneration by faith to regeneration prior to faith has led to an independency of the ‘theology of regeneration’. The variations of this theology by Kuyper, and Kersten have had a strong impact on the church and on faith.

Bibliography Bastingius, H. (1588), Catechesin religionis christianae, quae in ecclesiis et scholis, tum Belgii, tum Palatinatus traditur, exegemata, sive commentarii, Dordrecht: Caninius. – (1591), Verclaringe op den Catechisme der Christelicker Religie, ed.1893, Amsterdam: J.A. Wormser. Bierma, Lyle D. (2013), The Theology of the Heidelberg Catechism. A Reformation Synthesis, Louisville-Kentucky : Westminster John Knox Press. Brink, G. van den/Kooi, C. van der (2012), Christelijke dogmatiek. Een Inleiding, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Graafland, C. (1987), Van Calvijn tot Barth: oorsprong en ontwikkeling van de leer der verkiezing in het gereformeerd protestantisme, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Hollweg, Walter (1961), Neue Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Lehre des Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Kemp, J. van der (1726), De Christen geheel en al het eigendom van Christus, 5th ed., Rotterdam: Reinier van Doesburg. Kersten, G.H. (1948 – 1949), De Heidelbergsche Catechismus in 52 predikaties, Utrecht: De Banier.

118

Wim Verboom

Kooi, Cornelis van der (2013), De Heilige Geest volgens de Heidelbergse Catechismus, in: Arnold Huijgen e.a. (ed.), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok, 239 – 248. Kuyper, A. (1892), E voto Dordraceno, Kampen: Kok. Luther, M. (1520), Eine kurze Form des Glaubensbekenntnis, ed. Luther Deutsch VI (1966), Stuttgart: Ehrenfried Klitz Verlag. Melanchthon, Ph. (1553), Examen Ordinandorum, ed. Robert Stupperich (1955), VI, Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann Verlag. Oosterzee, J.J. (1870), De Heidelbergsche Catechismus in twee en vijftig leerredenen, Amsterdam: De Hoogh & Co. Outrein, J. D’ (1770), Het gouden kleinoot van de Leere der Waarheid, 9th ed., Amsterdam: Nicolaas Byl. Poudroyen, C. (1662), Catechisatie. Dat is een grondige ende eenvoudigen onderwijzinge over de Leere des Christelicken Catechismi, Bestaende in Vragen en Antwoorden, ed. 1891, Rotterdam: Gebroeders Huge. Schaff, Philip (1977), The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Sibersma, H. (1727), Fontein des Heils, 6th ed., Amsterdam: Antoni Schoonenburg. Velde, M. te (2009), Confessies. Gereformeerde geloofsverantwoording in zestiendeeeuws Europa, Heerenveen: Groen. Ursinus, Zacharias (1954), The commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism. Translated by G.W. Williard, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans. – (1977), Het Schatboek, ed. J. van der Haar, Dordrecht: J.P. van den Tol. Vlastuin, W. van (2012), Wordt vernieuwd. Een theologie van persoonlijke vernieuwing, Kampen: Kok. Voorwinden-Hofman, T., Wortels en ontwikkeling van het christendom, (masterpaper), Utrecht: R.U. – (2013), De complexe ontstaansgeschiedenis van het Schatboek van Zacharias Ursinus (1534 – 1583), in: Theologia Reformata, 56, 136 – 153. Wassinkmaat, G. (2012), Orde op zaken stellen. Een bijbelse doordenking van de heilsorde, 3rd ed., Heerenveen: Groen

Dolf te Velde

The Heidelberg Catechism on the Doctrine of the Trinity

As a practical book of religious instruction, the Heidelberg Catechism mostly limits itself to basic statements of the points of Christian doctrine, without the detailed questions and concepts of professional, scholarly theology. At the same time, its (co-)author Zacharias Ursinus was thoroughly trained in the scholastic philosophy and theology of his days (Visser : 1983). During the composition of the Catechism, Ursinus served as a professor of loci communes (systematic theology) at the University of Heidelberg.

1. Basic Statement One aspect of the “non-scholastic” character of the Catechism is the omission of a separate treatment of the doctrine of God. It does contain, however, a concise statement of the doctrine of the Trinity in Lord’s Day 8. The statement itself is quite brief, and is occasioned by the structure of the Apostle’s Creed, which was introduced as the summary of all a Christian has to believe. Q. 24: How are these articles divided? A. Into three parts: the first is about God the Father and our creation; the second about God the Son and our redemption; the third about God the Holy Spirit and our sanctification.

The next question asks for the legitimacy of the Trinitarian faith. Q. 25: Since there is only one God, why do you speak of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? A. Because God has so revealed himself in his Word, that these three distinct persons are the one, true, eternal God.

At the time of the Catechism, this was not a theoretical question, but a live issue. The Protestant Reformation adhered to the classical dogmas of the Early Church on Trinity and Christology. At the same time, fierce debates were held on these issues, since radical thinkers like Michael Servet, and Fausto and Lellio Sozzini rejected the orthodox Trinitarian dogma and defended a unitarian view of God. Prominent Reformers like John Calvin and Jerome

120

Dolf te Velde

Zanchi were heavily involved in these discussions, and spent much energy in clarifying and defending the orthodox doctrine (Cf. Muller : 2003b, esp. 59 – 99, and Baars: 2005, esp. 146 – 269). While the Catechism does not enter into these debates, we should realize that an existential and spiritual struggle lies behind the brief statement of Answer 25.

2. Further Explanation The purpose of this paper is to understand the concise statements on Trinity with help of the broader explanation given by Ursinus in his Explicationes Catecheticae, which were also published in Dutch as the Schatboeck der Verklaringen over de Heidelbergse Catechismus. Starting immediately after the death of Ursinus in 1583, this work has gained frequent use and great authority as a first-hand commentary to the Catechism.1 Leaving aside the historical and literary complexities, this paper makes use of two important editions of Ursinus’ commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism: first, the Doctrinae Christianae Compendium of 1584, published simultaneously at Geneva and Leiden;2 second, the Explicationes Catecheticae in the edition of 1621 by David Pareus.3 A plausible explanation for the different shapes of the Compendium and the Explicationes lies in the flexible and creative character of the catechetical lectures of Ursinus. Despite the variations between both editions, the basic model of discussion remains the same. The digression on the doctrine of the Trinity is structured in eight questions that are, in slightly different wording, listed in both the Compendium and the Explicationes. I quote the series of eight leading questions in full:4 1 Recent research by Tera Voorwinden-Hofman and Henk van den Belt has revealed considerable complexities and variations throughout the subsequent editions of the Compendium/Explicationes and the Schatboeck. In fact, we cannot speak of one authoritative commentary by Ursinus himself, but instead have to reckon with different reports from the academic lectures held by Ursinus, and also with additions, interpretations, and tacit corrections by the editor of the Explicationes, David Pareus. See Voorwinden-Hofman/Van den Belt: 2013a; 2013b. 2 Ursinus, 1584. The Compendium was compiled by a French student, Simon Goulart, and was based on the notes taken by a couple of students during the final years of teaching of Ursinus. 3 Ursinus: 1621. While the Explicationes went through some fifteen editions between 1591 and 1651, the 1621 edition reflects a fairly mature stage of the presentation Pareus wanted to give of the thought of his predecessor Ursinus. 4 In Latin, the questions run as follows: “I. An sit Deus. II. Quid sit, seu qualis sit Deus, quem colimus, et quid differat ab Idolis. III. Unde constet unum esse Deum. IIII. Quid differat Essentia a Persona. V. An haec omnia sint in Ecclesia usurpanda, et an habeantur in Scriptura. VI. Quot sint personae Divinitatis. VII. Quomodo hae inter se differant. VIII. Quare haec doctrina sit in Ecclesia retinenda.” Ursinus: 1584, 174 f.

The Heidelberg Catechism on the Doctrine of the Trinity

121

1. Whether God exists. 2. What or How the God is whom we worship, and in what sense He differs from the idols. 3. On what grounds it is evident that there is only one God. 4. What is the difference between “essence” and “person.” 5. Whether all these points should be used in the Church, and whether they are found in Scripture. 6. How many persons of the Deity there are. 7. In what way these persons differ from each other. 8. Why this doctrine should be kept in the Church. We could be tempted to divide these questions into two separate doctrines: one, the doctrine of God, the other, the doctrine of the Trinity. It is often suggested that scholastic questions like “Whether God exists” and “Of what sort God is” merely lead to an abstract, philosophical and unbiblical conception of God, to which the later discussion of the Trinitarian doctrine is attached in a merely external way.5 The definitions and arguments provided by Ursinus prove the opposite. He explicitly addresses the question of the relation between a ‘philosophical’ and a ‘theological’ description of Who God is. A philosophical ‘definition’ of ‘God’ is quite brief: “God is an eternal mind, self-sufficient as to his own happiness, most good, and the cause of good in nature.”6 The description of God received in the Church on the basis of Scripture is both more complete and much more useful: it moves people not only to the true knowledge of God, but also to piety. The larger, theological definition of God consists of four distinct components, each with its further elaboration: a. The initial statement identifies God as the “spiritual essence,” endowed with a series of attributes including his eternity, infinity, his being different from all creatures, incomprehensible, perfect in himself, and so on.7 This is what we can call the traditional doctrine of God, developed by Church Fathers and medieval doctors, and transmitted to the theology of the Reformation as a non-controversial part of teaching. b. Immediately following, Ursinus describes God in Trinitarian terms: the Father who, from eternity, begets the Son as his own image; the Son who is

5 For the suggestion that the articles De deo uno and De deo trino are divided, see, e. g., Rohls: 1987, 57. An extensive discussion is provided by Muller : 2003a, 156 – 159. 6 Ursinus: 1584, 178: “Philosophice, Deus est mens aeterna, sibi ad felicitatem sufficiens, optima, et causa boni in natura.” 7 Ursinus: 1584, 177: “Sic igitur Deus describitur Theologice. Deus est essentia Spiritualis, intelligens, aeterna, infinita, alia a creaturis omnibus, incomprehensibilis, in seipsa perfectissima, immutabilis, immensa potentiae, sapientiae, bonitatis, verax, iusta, casta, misericors, benefica, liberrima, irascens peccatis.”

122

Dolf te Velde

the image of the Father, co-eternal with him; and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son.8 c. Next, Ursinus points to the divine self-revelation in the words of the prophets, of Christ, and of the apostles.9 d. Finally, the Triune God is sketched as being present to his creation and as gathering his church out of the whole human race because of the Son, in order to be acknowledged and worshiped in this life and in the future life, and as the Judge of righteous and unrighteous.10 In explaining this theological definition, Ursinus in fact gives an abridged account of the doctrine of the divine attributes. The presentation in the Compendium seems to reflect the practice of academic lecturing, in which objections against the initial statement are answered, often by pointing to logical errors in the opponents’ reasoning. The responses to the objections are extremely brief; in fact, they presuppose a more detailed argument that clearly was in the mind of Ursinus, and hopefully also in the minds of his students.11 By means of example, I quote the discussion on the statement that God’s essence is “most free” (liberrima). First objection: If there is something without which the necessarily operating causes cannot work, then that thing itself acts necessarily. The secondary causes, which work necessarily, cannot act without the first cause. Therefore also the first cause, God, acts necessarily.

Ursinus responds: “The major premise is true for causes that act from an absolute necessity ; but the secondary causes act from a hypothetical necessity.”12 Second objection: God is good in an immutable sense; therefore He is not so freely.

8 Ursinus: 1584, 177: “Quae [essentia] est Pater aeternus, qui Filium imaginem suam ab aeterno genuit, et Filius, qui est imago Patris coaeterna, et Spiritus Sanctus procedens a Patre et Filio.” 9 Ursinus: 1584, 177 f: “sicut patefacta est divinitus certo verbo tradito per Prophetas, Christum, et Apostolos, ac divinis testimoniis.” 10 Ursinus: 1584, 178: “quod Pater aeternus cum Filio et Spiritu Sancto coelum et terram et omnes creaturas creaverit, et adsit omnibus, ut eas regat et conservet sua providentia, et bona omnia in nobis operetur ; et quod in genere humano sibi collegerit et colligat Ecclesiam, per et propter Filium ut agnoscatur, celebretur et colatur ad haec una in hac et futura vita; et sit iudex iustorum et iniustorum.” 11 Compared to the Compendium, the later edition of the Explicationes by Pareus gives a fuller positive explanation before dealing with the objections. 12 Ursinus: 1584, 181: “Obiect. 1. Sine quo non possunt agere causae necessario agentes, illud etiam agit necessario. Causae secundae, quae agunt necessario, non sine prima agere possunt. Ergo et prima causa, nempe Deus, agit necessario. Resp. Maior vera est de agentibus ex necessitate absoluta: at causae secundae agunt ex necessitate rpoh]seyr.”

The Heidelberg Catechism on the Doctrine of the Trinity

123

Ursinus responds: “What contradicts freedom is coaction, not immutability of nature.”13 Both arguments cannot be understood without the thorough logical training available to Ursinus and his students. In the first objection, the assumption is that necessity excludes freedom. Moreover, if God is the first cause, the secondary causes cannot work without Him. But the necessity by which the secondary causes operate, can only come from God as the first cause, and thus the objector concludes that God is also a necessarily operating cause. And if God works necessarily, he is not free, because he cannot but do what He does. Ursinus rejects this conclusion by appealing to an important distinction developed in medieval scholastic thought (starting with Anselm of Canterbury): the distinction between absolute an hypothetical necessity. An example of a cause that works necessarily is fire: a fire cannot but produce heat. But there are other causes—or personal agents, as we could say—who operate not necessarily, but in a free and contingent way. Human beings and all choices they make are the most important category of freely operating secondary causes. Still, the acts of the secondary causes are necessary in view of their dependence on God as the primary cause. Here it is no absolute necessity, but merely a hypothetical or implicative necessity : given the fact that creatures act so-and-so, it is necessary that God wills and decrees these acts. Or stated reversely : given the divine will and decree, it is necessary that creatures act soand-so. But the hypothetical necessity regards the connection between God as the first cause and the creatures as secondary causes, not the nature of created agents and their acts themselves.14 A similar reasoning is behind Ursinus’ answer to the second objection. It is suggested that if God is immutably good, He is not free; namely, not free to be good or not good. In response, Ursinus points out that the essential goodness of God consists of the immutability of his nature. God is necessarily good, because this is essential to his being God. But this inherent necessity or immutability of goodness is no constraint or limitation to God’s freedom.

3. One and Three As we can see in these examples, even the very brief exposition by Ursinus of the attributes of God contains important insights. In the context of this paper, however, we look mainly for the connections between the doctrine of God and the doctrine of the Trinity. One such connection lies at the heart of the identity 13 Ursinus: 1584, 181: “Obiect. 2. Deus est bonus immutabiliter: Ergo non libere. Resp. Coactio pugnat cum libertate, non naturae immutabilitas.” 14 For a more detailed explanation of the distinction between absolute and hypothetical necessity, see Asselt: 2010, 30 – 38.

124

Dolf te Velde

of God over against the false gods of other religions. Ursinus states that the difference between the true God and the false gods consists in three points: 1. In the attributes: Outside the Church, there is no full and proper understanding of the divine properties such as justice, truth, goodness, mercy and love. These attributes of God can only be known from their manifestation in God’s sending his Son for our salvation.15 2. In the Persons: The Gentiles only know of one divine essence consisting of one person; only the Church believes in God who is one essence in three Persons.16 3. In the works: The great works of creation, redemption, and sanctification are unique to the Triune God revealed in Scripture. Nowhere else a ‘god’ is found who performs these works. In his works, God reveals his nature.17 The divine attributes, often understood as elements of an abstract, nonbiblical conception, are put forward here as the vital properties that distinguish the true God from all false concepts of ‘god.’ Moreover, these attributes are intrinsically connected to the Trinitarian self-manifestation of God in his works of creation and redemption. A further question in this connection is the relation between the internal relations of the Trinity and the external operations in which the Triune God is manifested. Ursinus (1584, 169) sticks to the Augustinian rule that the outward works of the Trinity are undivided. But he adds some important qualifications, to the result that the immanent order of origin between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is maintained and expressed in the external works.18 The Father 15 Ursinus: 1584, 181 f: “In attributis Deus differt a fictitiis diis, quia extra Ecclesiam nullum attributum Dei recte et perfecte intelligitur ; sed in sola Ecclesia doctrina de attributis Dei traditur integre. In Ecclesia nempe plena tribuitur Deo iustitia, veritas, bonitas, misericordia, vikamhqyp_a. Haec attributa Dei aut corrumpunt aliae sectae, aur prorsus ignorant. Nullae enim sciunt tantam esse iram Dei adversus peccatum, ut propterea Deus debuerit mittere Filium suum unigenitum ad nos redimendos. Sic neque veritatem Dei perfecte norunt, quia non agnoscunt promissiones. Neque sapientiam Dei, quae est verbo Ecclesiae tradito patefacta, quod nimirum Deus potuit invenire modum liberandi homines a morte sine violatione iustitiae et veritatis divinae.” 16 Ursinus: 1584, 182: “Personis manifeste differt Deus a fictitiis diis. Ethnici enim, et complures aliae sectae, non agnoscunt tres personas, sed unam essentiam divinam et unam personam constituunt. In Ecclesia creditur quidem una essentia Dei; sed etiam docetur huius unius essentiae divinae tres esse personas.” 17 Ursinus: 1584, 182 f: “Operibus differt Dominus a fictitiis diis, quia extra Ecclesiam opera creationis ignorantur, ac multo magis opera redemptionis ac sanctificationis. Ex his operibus Dei Attributa et Personae unius essentiae divinae patefiunt. Deus enim operibus declaravit se talem esse natura, qualis attributis describitur; et simul operibus ostendit esse in una essentia tres personas: quin et secundum opera (quae sunt vel creationis, vel redemptionis, vel sanctificationis) Personae cognominantur, et varia sibi Deus attributa tribuit.” 18 Ursinus: 1584, 168 f: “Hac autem distinctione notatur discrimen et ordo agendi inter personas. Patri enim Creatio tribuitur, quia fons est et origo Deitatis, atque ita etiam operationum divinarum, et per consequens fons creationis. Creavit enim omnia per Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Filio tribuitur Redemptio, quia is est qui immediate perfecit opus Redemptionis. Nam solus

The Heidelberg Catechism on the Doctrine of the Trinity

125

is the origin, not only in creation, but also in redemption and sanctification.19 Every work of God is from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.20 In expounding the key terms of the doctrine of the ‘immanent’ Trinity, Ursinus is careful in his statements. He accepts and employs the basic expression of “one essence in three Persons.” When Ursinus initially defines the terms “essence” and “person,” these concepts seem to stand in considerable contrast. The “essence” is “a thing that exists on itself, or something that has its own being and does not have its being from something else, although it may be held in common.” A person is “a unique entity that exists individually, is living, rational, and cannot be held in common, nor be the part of another entity.” Crucial in these definitions is the opposite “communicable/incommunicable.” Applied to human beings, for example, the essence of “being human” is a common essence, shared by all individuals. In this case, the “essence” is, so to speak, supra-personal.21 It would not be correct, however, to understand the relation of essence and Persons in the Trinity in this way. As a synonym of “person,” Ursinus uses the expression “mode of existence,” and he states that the one divine essence exists in and consists of the three “modes or existence” or Persons. In this way, the common essence does not exist apart from, but only in the Persons.22 The three Persons, in turn, are related by their individual characteristics, or incommunicable properties. “Incommunicable,” to be sure, does not mean that the divine Persons have no communion; it is precisely the relations between the Persons that makes the unique Trinitarian community. But “incommunicable” means that there is a specific way of existing and a specific way in which the one

19 20

21

22

Filius est factus k}tqom, sive precium pro peccatis nostris. Ipse solus pro nobis peccatum solvit in cruce: non Pater, neque Spiritus Sanctus; et solus Filius etiam quod ad efficaciam, est noster Redemptor. Spiritui Sancto tribuitur Sanctification, quia nos ipse immediate sanctificat.” Ursinus: 1584, 169: “omnes Personae creant, sed servato ordine agendi vel operandi in singulis personis. Nam Pater et Spiritus Sanctus redimunt nos; sed mediate per Filium. Filius et Pater sanctificant nos, sed mediate per Spiritum Sanctum.” Ursinus: 1584, 170: “Opera Personarum ad extra sunt (…) eo tantum ordine Personarum servato, ut Pater sit fons operationum Filii et Spiritus Sancti, agatque omnia non ab alio, sed a seipso. Filius autem et Spiritus Sanctus non agant a se, sed per se, hoc est, Filius praeeunte voluntate Patris; Spiritus Sanctus, Patris et Filii praeeunte voluntate.” Ursinus: 1584, 186: “Essentia est res per se subsistens, aut habens proprium esse, quae non habet suum esse nec est sustentata in alio, etsi sit communicabilis. Communicabile vel communicatum est quod pluribus commune est vel communicari potest. Incommunicabile est quod nulli rei communicatur. (…) Persona est res unica, subsistens, individua, viva, intelligens, incommunicabilis, non sustentata in alio, nec pars alterius. (…) Incommunicabilis additur, ad discrimen essentiae. Nam essentia in pluribus esse potest et pluribus esse communis; persona vero non potest.” Ursinus: 1584, 187: “Personae sunt diversi modi existendi, quibus videlicet modis existit id quod existit in Deo. Unum et idem est in Deo, quod alio atque alio modo existit in ipso.” Also on page 188: “Personae non sunt aliquid separatum ab Essentia, sed singulae sunt ipsa et integra et eadem Essentia divinitatis.”

126

Dolf te Velde

person relates to the others, and this particularity is not shared with the others.23 While Ursinus confesses his ignorance as to the precise nature of the distinct of these relations between Father, Son, and Spirit, he firmly insists on the importance of describing the essence and existence of God in terms of “one essence in three Persons.”24 The lack of further explanation or analogies for God’s Triune existence is consistent with the lapidary statement of HC 25 “that these three distinct persons are the one, true, eternal God.” We can hardly say any more, but this is the least that should be said. Ursinus indicates three interests that should be preserved:25 a. We should maintain the unity of God. The biblical testimony is unambiguous and emphatic: there is only one God. Any view that understands the Persons of Father, Son, and Spirit as separate essences fails. b. We should also uphold the proper distinction of the Persons, and not give in to the unitarian tendency to blur these distinctions into one common and unspecified divine essence, or to restrict true personhood to the Father alone. c. We can and should develop a strong notion of “personhood,” instead of reducing “person” to a mere relation or appearance or task.

4. Conclusions In conclusion, we should first notice the difference in genre between the Heidelberg Catechism and the Compendium or the Explicationes of Ursinus. While both types of documents aim at instruction, the audience and its level of understanding is different, and this difference accounts for the omission of typically “scholastic” elements in the Catechism. In the context of the church, we should be thankful for that. In the context of the academy, Ursinus challenged his students to consider at a deeper and more detailed level the 23 Ursinus: 1584, 187: “Cum dicimus, hoc unum et idem esse Dei est a seipso, vel ab alio; item ab uno, vel a duobus, loquimur de modo existendi.” Also on pages 190 f: “Pater a seipso est, non ab alio. Filius a Patre genitus, hoc est, habet eandem Essentiam cum Patre; sed sibi a Patre communicatam, etsi nos modum ignoremus. Spiritus Sanctus ab aeterno procedit a Patre et Filio, id est, habet eandem essentiam, sed a Patre et Filio sibi communicatam.” 24 Ursinus: 1584, 191: “Obiect. Quod non intelligitur non discernitur. Modus generationis Filii et processionis Spiritus Sancti non intelligitur. Ergo, etc. Resp. Ad maiorem: Quae non intelliguntur, scilicet omnino. Sed haec intelliguntur aliquatenus, scilicet quod habere essentiam sit existere a Patre.” 25 Ursinus: 1584, 187: “… ne aut unitas veri Dei distrahatur, aut personarum distinctio tollatur : aut denique aliud intelligatur nomine Personae, quam verbi divini veritas ostendit. Etenim Persona hoc loco nequaquam relationem duntaxat significat, seu officium …”

The Heidelberg Catechism on the Doctrine of the Trinity

127

implications of the statements of faith, and he provided them with material for such understanding. Second, given the differences of language and degree of argumentation, the positions developed in Catechism and Compendium are substantially the same. The detailed argument of the Compendium is a clarification of the brief statements in HC 24 and 25 of the Catechism. In the explanation by Ursinus, we can detect the classical orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as one essence in three Persons, together with a specific “western” understanding of the intratrinitarian relations. Third, the surprise of the fuller statement in the Compendium of Ursinus comes at two levels. He establishes a deeper connection between the immanent and the economical Trinity, by arguing that the order of operation and the involvement of the three Persons in the works of creation, redemption and sanctification, reflect the immanent order of origin and relations between Father, Son, and Spirit. Hereby the simple triad of HC 24 receives a profound meaning. The other surprise is the way in which Ursinus includes the traditional doctrine of God in his account of the Trinity. He makes it clear the the divine properties or attributes do not belong to an abstract, philosophical and un-biblical conception of God, but that these attributes explicate the nature and character of the true, Triune God, and that in turn the attributes arise from the Trinitarian economy of salvation. At this background, it is entirely appropriate that the Heidelberg Catechism does not contain a separate doctrine of God, because it is included in and implied by the doctrine of the Trinity it teaches.

Bibliography Asselt, Willem J. van e.a (ed.) (2010), Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology, Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Baars, A. (2005), Om Gods verhevenheid en Zijn nabijheid: De Drie-eenheid bij Calvijn, Kampen: Kok. Muller, Richard A. (2003a), Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, vol. 3: The Divine Essence and Attributes, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Muller, Richard A. (2003b), Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, vol. 4: The Triunity of God, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Rohls, Jan (1987), Theologie reformierter Bekenntnisschriften: Von Zürich bis Barmen, Uni-Taschenbücher vol. 1453, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ursinus, Zacharias (1584), Doctrinae christianae compendium, seu commentarii catechetici, Geneva: Eustache Vignon.

128

Dolf te Velde

– (1621), (ed. David Pareus), Corpus Doctrinae Christianae Ecclesiarum a Papatu Reformatarum, continens Explicationes Catecheticas D. Zachariae Ursini; Post varias editiones varie depravatas, denuo et postremo a capite ad calcem ita recognitum ac restitutum, ut novum opus haberi possit, Heidelberg: Widow of Jonas Rosa. Visser, Derk (1983), Zacharius Ursinus: The Reluctant Reformer, His Life and Times, New York: United Church Press. Voorwinden-Hofman, T./Belt, H. van den (2013a), De complexe ontstaansgeschiedenis van het Schatboek van Zacharias Ursinus (1534 – 1583), Theologia Reformata 56, 136 – 153 – (2013b), De noodzaak van de ellendekennis in de verschillende edities van het Schatboek van Zacharias Ursinus (1534 – 1583), Theologia Reformata 56, 207 – 224.

Erik A. de Boer

Adoration or Idolatry? HC 80 in the Context of the Catechetical Teaching of Joannes Anastasius in the Palatinate1

What does HC 80, apart from the confrontation with the Roman Mass, add positively to the teaching on the Lord’s Supper in the preceding five questions in Lord’s Day 28 f ? The last line of the answer’s first paragraph explicates that Christ “with His true body is in heaven at the right hand of the Father, and He wants to be worshipped there” (mit seinem waren leib im himmel zur rechten des vaters ist und daselbst wil angebetet warden).2 The emphasis on Christ’s “true body” and our adoration of Him as directed towards heaven is part of the Catechism’s spirituality of the Lord’s Supper, and it contributes to the preceding Questions and Answers.

1. Spirituality and Polemics Modern readers may feel uncomfortable with the harsh closing line that the Mass is “fundamentally nothing else but a denial of Jesus Christ’s one and only sacrifice and suffering, and a damnable idolatry” (im grund nichts anderst denn ein verleugnung des einigen opfers und leidens Jesu Christi und ein vermaledeyte abgöttery). If HC 80 stresses the positive teaching of the worship of Christ and His true body in heaven, how necessary then is it to defend this doctrine by targeting Roman Catholic spirituality? The relation between spirituality and polemics in the 16th century was different from our modern perspective. A few examples may illustrate the relevance of reassessing HC 80 in its context. In 2004 the Christian Reformed Churches (CRC) added a footnote to HC 80 of the English text of the Catechism, explaining its textual history in the first three editions, and they added the following comment to the final text of HC 80: “Its strong tone reflects the setting in which the Catechism was written.” This is one of the motives for the CRC decision in 2006 to place three paragraphs on the Roman Mass between square brackets “to indicate that they do not accurately reflect the official teaching and practice of today’s Roman 1 I am grateful to dr. Theo Clemens for responding so gracefully to my lecture at the Apeldoorn conference, and for providing literature on the doctrine of the Eucharist. 2 For the German text in the various editions of 1563 see Appendix I.

130

Erik A. de Boer

Catholic Church, and are no longer confessionally binding on members of the CRC.”3 In the Netherlands a note is added to HC 80 as well, in the most recent edition of the Confessions of the Protestant Church, stating that the general opinion is that this Question and Answer, “because of their polemical character, are opposed to the further contents of this confession,” arguing also that it was not included in the first edition, but included as a reaction to Trent’s condemnation of Protestant Teaching on the Lord’s Supper in September 1562 (Zwanepol: 2009, 96). A changed attitude towards HC 80 as catechetical and confessional text in the present is thus grounded in its felt polemical and supposedly reactionary character. This invites the historian to revisit the context of the Heidelberg Catechism’s teaching regarding the Lord’s Supper and the Mass. Wim Moehn’s essay in this volume pays close attention to the contents of the Heidelberg Catechism on the Mass and today’s dialogue with Rome. The present contribution will ask first what effect the addition of HC 80 had on its basic doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Secondly, we will consider the verdict of “idolatry,” and the critique of the Roman Catholic Mass in the theological work of a minister close to Heidelberg.

2. A Local Pastor’s Teaching In the commemoration of 450 years Heidelberg Catechism, the present author’s focus is on the person and writings of a fellow-Dutchman, Joannes Anastasius, one of the pastors working in the Palatinate in the period of the adoption of the Catechism. Moreover, he was one of the superintendents (inspectors) whom Frederic III had summoned to Heidelberg in January 1563.4 In his publications from the years 1557 – 1566, Anastasius participates in the controversy over the Lord’s Supper. These writings offer a chance to investigate whether or not the positive and polemical contents of HC 80 functioned in the local and regional life of a pastor, who was also called to supervise his colleagues in a vital part of the Palatinate. Jan Gerritsz. Versteghe (John, son of Gerrit, of Steeg), born c. 1520 in the Low Countries in Stroe (Gelderland), was a chaplan-priest (vice-cureyt) in Garderen. Pressured by inquisitor Franciscus Sonnius, he renounced the reformed faith which he had preached for some six years. After years of imprisonment he was released on the promise to go and study theology at Leuven university, but instead he fled to the German lands. Out of remorse over his abjuration, Jan Gerritsz. rewrote the book Der leken wechwyser (Guide 3 See http://www2.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/2004_heidelbergandeucharist.pdf, Acts of synod 2006 (last accessed on 12 June 2013). 4 The most recent biography is by G. Morsink (1986).

Adoration or Idolatry?

131

for the Unlearned), the manuscript of which had been confiscated, and he published it in 1554 under the Latinized name Johannes Anastasius Veluanus, which he assumed as a testimony of his rebirth (Wesel: Joost Lambrecht, 1554). John Anastasius Geldrus, as he called himself from then on, went to serve the reformed cause, and travelled through the German territories (Rostock, Wesel, and Düsseldorf). Around that time he began his work as a minister in the Lower Palatinate (distinguished from the Upper Palatinate in Bavaria) in the village Steeg, close to Bacharach. While the earlier phase of his life has been well researched (see Morsink: 1986), his final fifteen years as a minister in Steeg and as superintendent of the district Bacharach-Kaub are less known, and invite further investigation. While serving in the Palatinate of Ottheinrich, Anastasius published a second book, now pseudonymously ; Vom Nachtmal Christi (first in 1558; second edition c. 1559), a polemic against Gnesio-Lutheran teachings. It is his third work, however, published in 1561 during the reign of Frederic III, which demands our attention in relation to HC 80: Bekantenisz Joannis Anastasij Von dem waren leib Christ. Dar in ein yeder einfeltiger ungelehter Christ die Päbstliche irthumb und Abgöttereien mit dem Meszbrot &c. gründtlich kann erkennen. An die gotliebende Christen, wider die Jhesuijten und andere (BRN IV: 1906, 461 – 490). Added to this work is ein Bekantenisz Philippi Melanchthonis von dem Abentmal. This appendix is a clear statement in the circumstances of the Palatinate. The elector sought the counsel of Melanchthon to end the strife between Calvinists and Gnesio-Lutherans. Anastasius added the German translation of Melanchthon’s advice to his book. However, the title itself is directed against the “popish errors and idolatries [committed] with the Mass bread,” and it is especially directed against the Jesuits. His main thesis is: the popish doctrine of the bodily presence of Christ is false. Therefore the Mass is “Christ-less” (Christlos), which causes forms of idolatry with the bread. What triggered Joannes Anastasius to write this booklet? It was the Latin critique of the Jesuits in Cologne against the catechism, written by Johannes Monheim, leader of the famous gymnasium in Düsseldorf. Monheim (1509 – 1564) was a humanist, teacher in Erasmian style, and since 1545 principal of the gymnasium instituted after the Strasbourg model by earl Wilhelm V of Kleve-Jülich-Berg. Monhemius used Erasmus’ works in his classes, and his catechism, developed on the basis of the Institutiones by Christoph Hegendorfer, was written for education in the gymnasium.5 In 1560 he wrote a new catechism in eleven dialogues, in which Luther’s Enchiridion and Calvin’s Institutio can be heard (Monheim: 1560).6 The Jesuits, active in Cologne since 1555, responded with the Censura et docta explicatio errorum catechismi Joannes Monhemii per deputatos a theologica facultate universitatis 5 See Anastasius, Von dem waren leib Christi (ed. Pijper), 463, 480. 6 Cf. J.F. Gerhard Goeters, s.v. in Deutsche Biographie. www.deutsche-biographie.de/ sfz65080.html.

132

Erik A. de Boer

Coloniensis (Coloniae: Maternus Cholinus, 1560), and it is this response that triggered Joannes Anastasius’ writing of his booklet On the True Body of Christ. Anastasius may have visited Monheim in Düsseldorf when in 1554 he travelled from northern Germany to the Palatinate. Friend or ally, seven years later the Erasmian scholar was worthy of a public defence.

3. Frederic III, Olevianus, and HC 80 Before analysing Von dem waren leib Christi we take a closer look at the complexities of the textual history of HC 80. The first edition of the Heidelberg Catechism had no numbering of Questions and Answers, nor a division into 52 Lord’s Day sections.7 These were only added in the Latin edition, and thus references to a specific part of this early edition could be difficult. The second edition was already in need of such a reference, which reads as follows: “To the Christian reader. What has been overlooked in the first printing, as especially on folio 55, has now been added by order of His Highness, the Elector. 1563.”8 Apart from textual corrections, what was so special that the following edition should be highlighted in this way? A second text provides additional information. On 3 April 1563 Caspar Olevianus wrote to John Calvin: “In the first German edition the question on the difference between the Supper and the papal Mass was left out. The Princeps, urged by me, wanted that it be added to the second German and first Latin edition.”9 So even though the express order was given by Frederic III, the idea came from Olevianus, and the text may have been written by the latter. The addition of a whole page of text is hardly explained by simple versight in the first printing. That would suggest that the committee already drafted the text in January, but that the person overseeing the printing process did not notice that a whole Question and Answer were missing. That this was not the whole truth is illustrated by the fact that the lines, added to the second German edition, were not the end of the affair, but that a further expansion of the text occurred in the third edition. Yet this time the (now reprinted) remark “An den Christlichen Leser” on the last page, suggests identity that the third edition is identical with the second edition. However, the printing of the third edition was meant to obscure the fact that further material had been added to what we 7 For the first edition see the facsimile edition by Wever van Wijnen (Franeker, 2013) and Wolters: 1864, 1 – 95. See the editions of University Library Utrecht on http://bc.library.uu.nl/nl/node/666. 8 “An den Christlichen Leser. Was im ersten truck ubersehen, als fürnemlich folio 55. Ist jetzunder aufs befelch Churfürstlicher Gnaden addiert worden. 1563” (Wolters: 1864, 110). 9 Olevianus: “Mitto ad te, carissime pater, in prima editione germanica, quam ad Scrimgerum miseramus, omissa erat quaestio de discrimine coenae et missae pontificiae. Admonitus a me Princeps voluit in secunda editione germanica et prima latina addi. Spero Germanis nostris fore utilem” (ep. 3925; CO 19:684).

Adoration or Idolatry?

133

now know as HC 80. While the second edition is type-set as a new edition, the printer tried to make the third printing look like the second (Wolters: 1864, 121 f; Gooszen: 1890, 118), and pages 1 – 48 have identical text and layout. Starting with the fourth leaf, the type-setter compressed the text of pages 49 – 56 in order to be able to add the text of page 55. From page 57 onwards the appearance and contents are identical to the second edition (apart from small, new errors). Why would it be important that the third edition would appear as just a new print, and why was the reader not alerted to the further expansion of HC 80? The answer might be the fact that the elector sent copies of the second edition to his colleagues in the principalities of the Holy Roman Empire. The quotation from Olevianus’ letter to Calvin proceeds as follows: “Our lord sent it to various heads of state. Our chancellor also reported that he recently sent the Latin version to the Queen of France.”10 This implies that not the first but the expanded edition was sent. Since Olevianus wrote his letter on the 3rd of April, it is likely that the third edition was published after this date. An all too visible (second) expansion of the text would present a bad impression to the heads of state and the general public. The question can then be asked: was the addition of the Q&A on the Mass thought through well enough? There is one other piece in the puzzle of the three 1563 editions of the HC and the addition of the Q&A on the Mass that needs to be reviewed; the copy of the first edition which Elector Frederic III sent to acting emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, King Maximilian II (1527 – 1576), who would succeed his father Ferdinand I in 1564. The Österreichische Nationalbibliothek in Vienna has a copy of the Catechismus oder Christlicher Underricht which contains a piece of parchment with the handwritten edition of the short version of HC 80 (as it would be printed in the second edition).11 This copy was presented to Maximilian at the 1563 Diet by the chairman of the Heidelberg Kirchenrat, Wenzeclaus Zuleger (a friend of Olevianus from their years as students). The emperor responded with a letter on 25 April (text in Wolters: 1864, 153ff). This copy of the Catechism must have been sent to the highest authority in the Holy Roman Empire soon after the first edition came from the press. The short form of the Q&A on the Mass, added to the second edition, must have been composed at the end of February or in the beginning of March 1563. Early April, Olevianus could send copies of the German and Latin editions, which included the short version of HC 80.12 10 Olevianus: “Princeps noster ad varios principes eum mittit. Cancellarius quoque noster retulit se ad Reginam Galliae nuper misisse latinum. Si lingua esset italica scriptus forte aliquo cum fructu eum esset lectura” (CO 19:684). 11 See http://data.onb.ac.at/rec/AC10418673 (sign. 43. K. 169). Cf. Neuser: 2009, 172. 12 When was HC 80 copied from a second edition, and the parchment added to this first edition between pages 54 and 55? In a description of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek the handwriting is attributed to Sebastian Tengnagel (1573 – 1636), librarian of the Imperial Library in Vienna from 1608 until his death (cf. above footnote 8). The addition is thus from a later date

134

Erik A. de Boer

The textual history of HC 80 can be summarized as follows. First, the draft had been finalized by the committee in January 1563, and it had been signed by the elector. Then the Catechism was printed (and sent to Maximillian II), after which Frederic III decided to add another Question and Answer. Secondly, this new edition was expanded with a Q&A on the Roman Mass, and was sent to the heads of state (March 1563). Thirdly, the definitive edition of 1563 contains an expansion of the text of this Q&A (now HC 80), and this was not stated explicitly, but rather was somewhat downplayed in the type-setting of the pages, and by simple reprint of the remark “An den Christlichen Leser.” This development begs the question: why did Frederic order the addition (and expansion) of this Question and Answer on the difference between the Lord’s Supper and the papal Mass? It has often been suggested that he did so in reaction to the anathemas of the Council of Trent in the sessions of 16 July and 17 September 1562. This supposition may be true,13 but no references to Trent are found in the documents from 1563. The most recent speeches, sermons, and decrees may have circulated in fresh pamphlets, produced by Italian printers (Jedin: 1975, 208), yet highly interested reformers like Heinrich Bullinger had to gather their information on the proceedings of Trent in morsels. The Tridentine decrees as a whole were published in 1564 (the text of the canons on the Mass in Ganzer : 2010, 92 f, 98 f). When no traces of knowledge on the Council’s decisions are found, the historian should ask how HC 80 can be understood without the assumption that it is a reaction against Trent. The present essay therefore explores another approach. Can HC 80 be understood and explained in the circumstances of the Palatinate in 1563 without the author’s knowledge of the relevant doctrina et canones of Trent? There is no reason to suppose that Joannes Anastasius, pastor in the Palatinate, was in any way involved in the drafting of the Heidelberg Catechism or in the addition of HC 80. However, he was definitively involved in the Catechism’s acceptance, teaching, and defence, including the added passages on the Mass in the years from 1563 until his death in 1570. In Anastasius’ Von dem waren leib Christi we can expect his teaching on Christology and sacramentology in the context of his polemic against Roman Catholic teaching and practice. The curious phrasing of A. 80 (“der jetzund mit seinem waren leib im himmel ist”), only found in the German text since the third edition, is identical to the title of Anastasius’ 1561 booklet. The 1563 Dutch translation of

than 1563. Why the librarian did not copy the full text of HC 80 from the third edition is unknown. This first edition and the added handwritten text on the Mass, however valuable, have no further bearing on our understanding of the textual history. 13 C. Ullmann wrote in the margin of his copy of Koecher’s Katechetischen Geschichte der Reformierten Kirche von 1756: “Kurfürst Friedrich III habe seine Gedanken über das Konzil zu Trident selbst zu Papier gebracht und die eigene, 6 Bogen starke Handschrift, in welcher der Kurfürst gewaltig über das gedachten Konzil eifere, habe sich noch im Jahr 1789 beim Kirchenrath vorgefunden” (Beyer: 1963, 17).

Adoration or Idolatry?

135

the phrase in A. 80 is “nae sijne menschelicke nature” (according to his human nature), maybe following the Latin “secundum naturam suam humanem.”14

4. Idolatry, the First and Second Commandment Anastasius’ first book, Der leken wechwyser (1554), was written in Saxon, the dialect of the Eastern parts of the Low Countries and North-West Germany, and it was reprinted time and again in Dutch in the second half of the 16th century. Anastasius had ended the chapter on the Mass in this first work as follows: “People should really learn what the Mass is and then, at the right moment, instruct their neighbour lovingly and well-informed by Scripture, and urge them to shun such idolatry.” Thus he regards the papal Mass as idolatry. Yet, Anastasius proceeds: “But to curse the Mass and papists with angry invective time and again (die mis vnde papen mit tornigen scheltwoirden op allen orten vermaledien) is offensive and not always praiseworthy.” It is often done by the less educated, “who are themselves worth little in true belief and upright living.”15 The Mass is idolatry, but “vermaledien” is not always right. What would Anastasius say some ten years later when HC 80 was added to the Heidelberg Catechism after the January synod in which the text of the first edition was read to all gathered superintendents? What is idolatry (abgöttery) in the HC? The term is defined in HC 95 in the context of the first commandment of the Decalogue. Anstatt das [des] einigen, waren Gottes, der sich in seinem wort hat offenbaret, oder neben demselbigen etwas anderst dichten oder haben, darauf der mensch sein vertrauen setzt (Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1976, 204).

This definition follows the preceding explanation of the first commandment, and introduces the exposition of the second, the commandment forbidding the creation and adoration of images of the divine. In the preceding parts of the Catechism, idolatry was not an issue yet. In the summary of the law in HC 4 (Du solt lieben Gott deinen Herren…) the first and second commandment are implied but not spelled out. In the explanation of the Creed the issue is not addressed either. The issue of idolatry is brought forward in the treatment of the sacraments, inserted in the second, and expanded in the third edition. The definition from the following explanation of the Law can thus be presupposed in HC 80. In other words, the verdict on the 14 Wolters comments that Frederic introduced a new term in the Catechism when he wrote “wahrer Leib” and that this would have been offensive to his Lutheran colleagues (Wolters: 1864, 132). This is exactly the term which Anastasius often uses. 15 Joannes Anastasius 1554, 222.

136

Erik A. de Boer

Roman Mass is of a religious-ethical nature, now applied to the added topic, the Mass. Another point regarding the character of HC 80 is whether it concerns Roman Catholic teaching or, more specifically, liturgical practice? The answer claims that “the Mass teaches…” It is the only point where a reference to a liturgical and a doctrinal source is given: a reference to the canon of the Mass and to the Decretum Gratiani, distinction De consecratione.16 The Mass is the place of worship, where teaching and liturgical practice come together. This makes it such a critical issue—both in defence and in critique. The Mass has been called “idolatry” by Protestants and in earlier confessions of the Reformation (see Moehn: 2013, 33 – 43). What language did a local pastor and, since 1561, regional superintendent like Joannes Anastasius, writing for laymen and less educated colleagues, use in his writings? In the preface of Von dem waren leib Christi he writes about “the popish Christ-less sacrifice of the Mass and the hideous popish bread-god.”17 However sharp these words may be, Anastasius points mainly to the elements of liturgical ritual which he considers to be acts of idolatry, calling them “the great idolatries with the bread which have been born from papacy” (1561, 476). Examples of this are the keeping of the bread in a monstrance (jren Sacramentzheuseren) and the solemn carrying of the bread (in den Heidnischen Processien). In a separate paragraph entitled “How the papists’ idolatries with the bread can correctly be discerned,” he added: “the Mass bread with which the papists play for the people on their altars” and “the bread which the papists give their communicants as a sacrament without sacramental wine,” which happens in churches and in the houses of the sick (Anastasius: 1561, 479). Finally he criticizes that “they call such bread (which is really nothing more than normal bread) in their sermons “God” and that they order the blind people to regard such bread as the true God and to pray to it” (Anastasius: 1561, 479). These five points he considers to be idolatrous practices (hantierungen) with the sacramental bread, and therefore “a terrible alteration and destruction of the Lord’s Supper as He ordered it.” Anastasius’ critique is basically against the doctrine of the corporeal presence of Jesus Christ in the sacramental bread. While he writes squarely against Roman Catholics, Wiedertaüfer (sometimes calling them “Wiederteuffel”), Schwenckfeldianer (followers of Caspar Schwenkfeld), and Frankisten (followers of the spiritualist Sebastian Frank), Anastasius is always reaching out to his fellow evangelical brothers and sisters. Even though 16 E.g. Corpus iuris canonici, ed. Aemilius Friedberg, vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1879 – 1881; reprint Union NY, 2000), 1333 (Distinctio II, caput 53). C. 71, however, states with a quote from Paschasius Radbertus: “Cottidianum sacrificium non reiteratione est passionis, sed conmemoratio” (1341). 17 Anastasius: 1561, 464; “Auss welcher falscher lehr die greweliche Brotdiensten unter den Pabstthumb seind geboren. In der Mess und in dem umbtragen des brots etc” (476).

Adoration or Idolatry?

137

Lutherans, Calvinists, and Zwinglians may differ on the mode of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper, they are deeply united in faith. Anastasius’ own teachings are a. that Christ is bodily in heaven since the day of His ascension,18 b. that He communicates the life-giving power of His humanity by His omnipresent divinity, and c. that this is the present (tegenwoordig) power of His body and blood which sanctifies bread and wine. Some lines in Anastasius’ Von dem waren leib Christi of 1561 resemble later lines in the Heidelberg Catechism, for example his critique against Roman Catholic teaching “that they can sacrifice Christ’s body on their altars for the sins of the living and the dead” (das sie auch auff jren altarien den Leib Christi kunnen opfferen für die Sünden der lebendigen und der todten). Anastasius also wrote that the Mass “is an embezzlement of the only salvific sacrifice of Christ on the cross” (ein vertunckelung ist des Einigen heilsamen Opffers Christi an dem Creutz). In 1561 Anastasius only once uses the adjective “verflucht.” He does so in a comparison with earlier times. “Even as there earlier was no accursed wood or stone in the world but the idolatrous images of the heathen nations, which were beseeched and adored, and even as there is also now no accursed wood or stone but the images of popery following the papal idolatries, so …” there is no worse breed than the Jesuits. Anastasius’ polemic against the Jesuits carries such invective, while his description of Roman Catholic Mass practice is less strong. How does this feature in his later work, after the publication of the HC, including HC 80? Anastasius’ language in Vom den waren leib Christi is full of reverence. He speaks of the “glorious majesty” (herlicher Maiestät) in which Christ’s body and blood is in heaven and also of the “wholesome power and vigour” (selige kraft und wirckung) of the body and blood which Christ hands to us spiritually in His Supper. Anastasius’ treatise ends with a prayer for unity among the evangelical Churches against the papal enemies. May the almighty God grant us this grace that we lead this life in a Christian way, according to the holy evangelical Word of Christ. Also that we ourselves behave as good Christians and that this may be seen by our neighbours, so that simple Papists, Anabaptists, and Franckists are brought to accept our true evangelical doctrine, and leave their erring ways. Amen. (Anastasius: 1561, 485 f).

It is characteristic for Anastasius to deplore the discontent among the reformed parties and to urge for unanimity, also in the teaching and admittance of each other to the Lord’s Supper. Instead, he observes, faithful and persecuted Christians, as well as their Lutheran brethren, fan the fire by calling them “Sacramentyrer” (sacramentalists). Both in the margins and the 18 Anastasius even writes on Jesus’ age: “Und diese seligmachende Geburt ist nu M.D. und LXI Jar geschehen. Also das seine Menschheit nu M.D. und LXI Jar alt ist, verstehet seinen Leib und seine Seel, die in Marien leib sind erschaffen und waren vorhin nichts” (Anastasius: 1561, 469).

138

Erik A. de Boer

running text he refers also to the situation in England, France, Spain, and the Netherlands (1561: 477, 482), and the Dutch pastor teaches unity in the Lord’s Supper in the German lands.

5. Roman Catholic Teaching and Practice The question whether or not the celebration of Mass is worship of created substance as divine, as according to the sense of the second commandment, was of course heavily disputed. According to F.X. Arnold, Roman Catholic theological teaching of the 15th and 16th century stressed the unique character of the sacrifice of the New Covenant and the identity of the sacrifice on the Cross and in the Mass, while popular practice and lack of catechetical teaching fostered a magical understanding and expectation of the sacramental ritual. In other words, the memoria passionis as officially taught were in local practice an appropriating depiction of the various stages of the life of Christ (Arnold: 1950; 1952, 173 – 178). From the policy of the Elector Frederick III and the writings of Joannes Anastasius it is clear that they reacted to the liturgical practice as they saw it in the churches of cities and villages. As they saw it, the people worshipped the sacramental elements as God himself, yet, they did not differentiate between theological teaching on, and the practice of the celebrated Mass. Moreover, HC 80 in the second edition referred to the older Canon of the Mass, to which a reference to the chapter De consecratione from Canon Law was added in the third edition. Roman teaching and practice were seen as one. The focus on adoratio makes this explicit, both in the HC and Anastasius’ Von dem waren leib Christi. Franz proved that in the 15th century the Mass was seen as an infallible sacred aid against every spiritual and physical need (Franz: 1902). A study of popular theological works by Roman Catholic authors from the 16th century should clarify if differentiation between official teaching, theological nuance, and liturgical practice is helpful (for France, see Elwood: 1999, 12 – 27). Roman Catholic teaching only received a clear doctrinal and didactical form in the Professio fidei Tridentinae of 1564 and the Catechismus Romanus of 1566. The first teaches in article 6: I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a change of the whole essence of the bread into the body, and of the whole essence of the wine into the blood; which change the Catholic church calls transubstantiation (Denzinger : 1991, no. 1866).

Adoration or Idolatry?

139

Even if this postdates the HC and Anastasius’ writings, it is fair to take this article as a summation of the teaching and thinking on the Mass in the preceding centuries. Also the Council of Trent’s reforming intent of popular practice is thus taken into account. Its aim was stated in the decree on the Eucharist of 11 October 1551: “to publish the true and ancient doctrine concerning faith and the sacraments, and to provide a remedy for all heresies …” (Denzinger : 1959, no. 873a). This decree of 1551 confirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation. On the one hand the presence of Christ at the right hand of the Father is believed “according to the natural mode of existing,” while on the other hand He is sacramentally believed to present Himself “in his own substance by that manner of existence which we, although we can scarcely express it by words, by our understanding illuminated by faith, conceive to be possible through God [‘s power]” (Denzinger : 1959, no. 874; Ganzer : 2010, 50). Other interpretations of the words in institution “distort the meaning into fictitious and imaginary figures of speech, by which the real nature of the flesh and blood of Christ (veritas carnis et sanguinis Christi) is denied.” So after the consecration the true body of the Lord (verum Domini nostri corpus) and His true blood together with His soul exist under the species of bread and wine” (Denzinger : 1959, no. 876 f; Ganzer : 2010, 52 f). This stress on the verum corpus incited Anastasius to give his pamphlet the title Vom waren leib Christi, stressing His bodily presence in heaven. Also HC 80 in the Heidelberg Catechism might very well have been written against the background of the decree of 1551. The same canon from the year 1551 states clearly that the faithful “offer in veneration, the worship of latria, … is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament. For it is not less to be adored, because it was instituted by Christ the Lord to be received.” The biblical katqe¸a and the Latin words veneratio and adoratio are synonymous when applied to the Eucharist (Denzinger : 1959, no. 878; Ganzer : 2010, 53). This decree was the basis for further treatment of the sacrifice of the Mass in 1562. Different from 1551, in the text of 1562 the Council fathers distinguished the teaching (doctrina) from the following canons (canones), and finally the decree (decreta) on the Mass as sacrifice. “Doctrine” is described positively as that which the Church teaches. The canons reject all opposition against the teaching of Trent and contain the anathema’s. Finally, the decree describes which practices should be followed and which ones should be avoided. The positive doctrine on the one hand underlines that the sacrament is a representation of the bloody sacrifice, that was once to be completed on the Cross, and that in this “visible sacrifice” the memory of Christ’s offering remains even to the end of the world. On the other hand it is said, in comparison to the Exodus, that Christ instituted “a new Passover, Himself to be immolated under visible signs by the Church through the priests, in memory of His own passage from this world to the Father” (Denzinger : 1959, no. 938; Ganzer : 2010, 99). The fact that Trent retained the notion of the Mass

140

Erik A. de Boer

as sacrificio and spoke of the immolatio (sacrifice, slaughtering) of Christ by the priests in the sacrament, although in unbloody manner, in conjunction with the nine canons, allowed the Reformers to attack Roman Catholic teaching and practice on this point.

6. Joannes Anastasius’ Earlier Catechism In 1566 Joannes Anastasius once more published a book, Die Alte Catholische Leyenbücher, a defence of the reformation of the Palatinate. The diet of Augsburg of April 1566 would judge whether or not Friedrich III was within the bounds of the peace of 1555. An intriguing aspect of Anastasius’ last work is its catechetical structure. In the form of a debate between the Church fathers Ambrose and Augustine, the now seasoned superintendent of Bacharach treats the ten commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, the two sacraments, and the Lord’s Prayer, as “the first four books for laymen.” Our focus is on the third book for laymen, the doctrine of the sacraments. After twelve pages (in the edition of Morsink) on the Lord’s Supper, Augustine says: “Enough has been said, Ambrosius. Let’s read a bit in the fourth book for the layman” on the Lord’s Prayer. But Ambrosius has not had enough, for he interjects: “Before you proceed I have to ask something else. What shall a pious Christian think of the papal Mass?” It is the same question as in the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 30. When the teaching on the Lord’s Supper is complete and the chapter on the sacraments about to be finished, Question 80 is interjected (as it was actually inserted in the second, and expanded in the third edition of the Catechism): “What is the difference between the Lord’s Supper and the papal Mass?” It is as if Anastasius has revised earlier material and (after 1563) added this passage: “What shall a pious Christian think of the papal Mass?” Augustine’s answer to Ambrose is: “It is a destruction of the noble Supper of the Lord, driving it out of God’s temple with fire, water, and sword, wherever she reigns.” He also states that “the Mass is a harmfully fertile mother of manifold hideous idolatries, which she commands” (ein schedlicher fruchtbare Mutter sey vieler grewlicher Abgöttereyen die sie gebietet; 1566, 212). This is a reinforced version of HC 80. When Ambrose asks meekly if the Mass can also provide a good commemoration of Christ’s death among the papist people, Augustine’s voice thunders: “No, no, brother, but she cripples a good remembrance and produces an idolatrous and blind commemoration in the people; a commemoration full of hideous idolatries.” When Ambrose demands an explanation, Augustine develops three points of critique against the Mass.

Adoration or Idolatry?

141

First of all, the people are lured away from Christ’s death to the Mass, from the complete sacrifice of Christ on the cross to the false papal sacrifice on the altar “which she has sold daily and still sells to the people for the living and the dead.” Secondly, the Mass lures people away from the truly faithful commemoration (gedechtniss) of the true body of Christ, which with hands and feet and all its limbs is in heaven, to a falsely fabricated body without hands and feet, for which the blind people look in the popish Mass bread, which they venerate, and also think to eat with their mouth. You Lutherans, beware also for this hideousness. Thirdly, the Mass lures the blind people from the true worship of the true and living God to the false, idolatrous worship of dead Mass bread or little wafers (kleinjstienbrots).

The wafers (with the image of the crucifix) are called “viel falsche erdichtete Christos”: they are worshipped with bells, and are distributed while saying “Look, here is Christ!” For such false prophecies Christ himself already warned in Matthew 24 (with full quotation of verses 23 – 27). Both Roman Catholic and Lutheran practice are warned for in this comparison. The true worship of the living God is defended in this critique. In this vein the didactical discussion goes on for another page, including the Lutheran and Brentian “harmful error of the hidden character of Christ’s body in the wafers of his Supper or in other bread that they use in his Supper” (Anastasius: 1566, 213).19 Anastasius brings the presentation of the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper in the Palatinate to an end with Ambrose saying: “Lord God almighty, if only the good man Luther had not retained the papal error in the Lord’s Supper in the hidden character of Christ’s body in the bread! Then they would have attacked and wiped out the Mass in Germany rather differently.”

7. The Impact of Von dem waren leib Christi The preface to Von dem waren leib Christi is dated “Zu˚ Steg am elfften Februarii” (Anastasius: 1661, 465). On 27 April Wilhelm Klebitz (Bockmühl: 1910, 354 f),20 the former deacon in Heidelberg, who had confronted Tilleman Heshusen and had been fired recently, wrote to Daniel van Buren, major of the city of Bremen: This year a certain book by Joannes Anastasius came out. It is on the Lord’s Supper, written for laymen. It is investigated in Cologne and written against the Jesuits. He 19 See also Anastasius 1566, 225 f. on “ein onsichtbare allenthalbenheit des Leibs Christi” and p. 230 f. on the effect of the Maulbronn disputation. 20 See his defence Victoria veritatis ac ruina papatus Saxonici. Responsio Wilhelmi Klebitii necessaria ad Argumenta Doct. Tilemanni Heshudii pro defensione ([Freiburg], 1561. Cf. Janse: 1999.

142

Erik A. de Boer

defends Johannes Monheim, principal of Düsseldorf. In this book there are some remarkable and therefore noteworthy issues, because they are edited not without the counsel of the Church leadership.

He also reveals: “I can say that the author of the book is Adamus Christianus” (the pseudonym of his earlier Vom Nachtmal Christi). Klebitz seems to be aware of an investigation against the book and therefore uses the pseudonym by which Van Buren knew the author (even though Joannes Anastasius had published under his own name). At the end of April 1561, Johannes Rhetius, monk of the Societatis Jesu, complains in his diary : These days a highly destructive book of Joannes Anastasius appeared, written against the truth of the body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharistic sacrament. The author, after having been imprisoned in Gelderland—thanks to the efforts of Dr. Sonnius— abjured his heresy, and having resigned had fled to the Palatinate county at the Rhine. Many things in this book are directed against our order, especially against the college in Cologne, as in the preface, where it is said as follows: … (the following text being a Latin translation of one and a half page of Anastasius’ (German preface; Hansen: 1896, 391 f).21

Rhetius also quoted a passage from the chapter “How the popish idolatry with the bread can be understood correctly” (Hansen: 1896, 391 f; Anastasius: 1561, 480 ll. 11 – 25). There Anastasius calls the Jesuits “new monsters,” who “like unclean birds have nested in the city of Cologne.” Finally he registered a passage in the following chapter on “simple bread,” ending as follows: “Therefore every Christian should be warned foremost against these black angels (schwartzen Engelen), especially in the cities in which they took over the teaching office in churches and schools, be it in Cologne or in other places” (Hansen: 1896, 392; Anastasius: 1561, 481 ll. 13 – 20). Another member of the Jesuit order, Heinrich Somalius, wrote in his report from January to April 1561: Recently some heretic booklet appeared, written in the German language, which is set on slandering the good name of our order and on making it suspect among the common people. While we take this case seriously, he granted us more praise and honour than we would like to deny. For he calls us and the men of Cologne a true pillar of the Roman Church and he spreads the word that we are the builders by whom the popish religion until now received unity and strength in the world (Hansen: 1896, 395, passage dated 28 May 1561).

From these sources it is clear that the Jesuits in Cologne were taking Anastasius’ writing against the Roman Mass very seriously. 21 The relevant part of the preface is in Anastasius: 1561, 464. Cf. Böckmühl: 1907, 177 f.

Adoration or Idolatry?

143

8. Gnesio-Lutheran Target Before the text of HC 80 was added to the HC, the polemic against the Lutheran notion of the ubiquity of Christ’s body was clear in especially HC 47 and 76. The addition of HC 80 aimed at the Roman Catholic Eucharist, yet at the same time undergirded the defence against Gnesio-Lutheran teaching. This concerns especially the clause on Christ “der jetzund mit seinem waren leib im himmel zur rechten des vaters ist und daselbst wil angebetet werden.” Also the clause that the Eucharist presupposes “das Christus leiblich under der gestalt brots und weins sey und derhalben darin soll angebetet werden,” can be applied to the Gnesio-Lutheran position, especially in their critique of the Palatinate way of the breaking of the bread. The expression “with His true body” in A. 80 is important. Although Anastasius’ Bekanteniss von dem waren leib Christi was written against the Jesuits’ critique of Monheim, it did not seem out of character to add to that work the translation of Philip Melanchthon’s advice on the debate on the Lord’s Supper, which he had written at the request of Frederich III in order to put an end to the clash between Reformed and Lutheran parties in the Palatinate. Written in 1559, the elector saw to its speedy publication, against the protest of the Lutheran faction at Heidelberg university.22 Anastasius included the German translation, possible made by himself, and thus strongly supported its dissemination “in den vier thelen und den Nachbawren umbher” of Bacharach and Kolb, where he was now superintendent (cf. Bockmühl: 1909, 302). To his own confession in the matter of the body of Christ he added: “auch ist hie bey ein Bekanteniss Philippi Melanchthonis von dem Abentmal,” filling eight pages at the end of his booklet. The polemic against the Jesuits and the Roman Mass had some overlap with the struggle against the emerging Gnesio-Lutheran stand on the bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament. According to Joannes Anastasius, the true adoration of the Lord was at stake.

9. Conclusion When HC 80 is read and taught today, the confrontation with Roman Catholic doctrine and practice of the Mass is less direct. When Protestant Churches want to rethink their position on the Mass, the above research underlines, 22 Melanchthon, “Iudicium de controversia de coena Domini, 1560” (1 November 1559, Melanchthon to Friedrich III; CR 9, 960 – 966). German translation: “Bekantnisz des hochgelehrten Herrn Philippi Melanthonis. Von dem Abentmal,” in: Pijper: 1906, 487 – 490. Friedrich III published the memorandum (Morsink: 1984, 131). Bockmühl possessed a copy of the German translation, sent by Anastasius from Heidelberg to “Clarrisimo viro D.D. Theodoro Gronio” (Dietrich Groen, major) in Wesel (Bockmühl: 1907, 125, 176).

144

Erik A. de Boer

regarding HC 80, that the “strong tone reflects the setting in which the Catechism was written” (as the CRC stated). It is not so easy to maintain the claim that HC 80 “because of its polemical character [is] opposed to the further contents of this confession” (as said in the edition of the confessions of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands). For the claim that HC 80 was added and expanded as a reaction to Trent, no solid evidence has been found. Whether or not to maintain the second half of the long version of Answer 80 can only be decided when Roman Catholic teaching today is evaluated. Its historical position remains upright in the face of the nine canons of Trent, promulgated before the Heidelberg Catechism was written, but only published after the third edition in 1563 gave the teaching on the adoration of Christ its final form. The thesis of the above is that HC 80 made a valuable addition to the teaching on the Lord’s Supper in the preceding material, by paying attention to the adoration of Christ during the celebration of sacrament of bread and wine.

Appendix I Text of HC 80 in Two Stages The text of HC 80 is copied here from the second edition, with the added lines from the third German edition in italics (see Beyer: 1965, 14; Doedens: 1867). German (second and third edition) Was ist für ein underscheid zwischen dem Abendmal des Herrn und der Bäpstlichen Mess? Das Abendmal bezeuget uns, dass wir volkomne vergebung aller unser sünden haben durch das einige opffer Jesu Christi, so er selbst ein mal am creutz volbracht hat. Und das wir durch den H. Geist Christo werden eingeleibt, der jetzund mit seinem waren leib im himmel zur Rechten des Vaters ist, und daselbst will angebettet werden. Mg. Hebr. 10; Joan. 19; Heb. 9; Hebr. 7, 9 & 10; Joh. 19; Matt. 26; Luc. 22; 1 Cor. 6 & 10; Hebr. 1 & 8; Joh. 4 & 20; Luc. 24; Act.2; Coloss. 3; Phil. 3; 1 Thess. 1. Die Mess aber lehret, dass die lebendigen und die todten nit durch das leiden Christi vergebung der sünden haben, es sey dan, dass Christus noch teglich für sie von den Messpriestern geopffert werde: und dass Christus leiblich unter der gestalt des brods und weins sey, und derhalben darin sol angebettet werden. Mg. Vide Canonem in Missa ; In Can. de Missa. Item. De consecr. distinct. 2. Und ist also die Mess im grund ein abgöttische verleugnung dess einigen opffers und leidens Jesu Christi, und ein vermaledeite Abgötterey. Mg. Heb. 9 – 10.

Adoration or Idolatry?

145

Latin (first and second edition) Mg. Vide Canonem in Missa. Item. De consecr : distinct: 2.

Bibliography Anastasius, Joannes (1554/1906), Kort Bericht in allen principalen punten des Christen geloves […] genant der Leken Wechwyser in: Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica. Geschriften uit den tijd der Hervorming in de Nederlanden, ed. S. Cramer/F. Pijper, deel 4, ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. – (1561), Bekantenisz Joannis Anastasij Von dem waren leib Christ. Dar in ein yeder einfeltiger ungelehter Christ die Päbstliche irthumb und Abgöttereien mit dem Meszbrot &c. gründtlich kann erkennen. An die gotliebende Christen, wider die Jhesuijten und andere, s.l. – (1566/1986), Anastasius, Die Alte Catholische Leyenbücher. Von rechtem glauben und leben der seligen Christlichen Regenten und Unterthanen. Erkleret durch ein Gesprech Ambrosij und Augustini. Mit treuwer ermanung an die Christen Oberherren und Unterthanen in dieser gefehrlichen uneinigkeit des glaubens an allen orten: z.p., in Morsink: 1986, 176 – 241. Arnold, F.X. (1950), Vorgeschichte und Einfluss des trienter Messopferdekrets auf die Behandlung des eucharistischen Geheimnisses in der Glaubensverkündiging der Neuzeit, in: F.X. Arnold/B. Fischer (ed.), Die Messe in der Glaubensverkündigung; kerygmatische Fragen, Frieburgh: Herder. – (1952), De voorgeschiedenis van het decreet van Trente over het H. Misoffer en zijn eeuwenlange invloed op de behandeling van het eucharistisch mysterie in de prediking, Ssma Eucharistica: Eucharistisch Tijdschrift voor Geestelijken 44.7/8, Nijmegen/Brussel: Associatio Sacerdotum Adoratorum Eucharisticum Sacerdotale Foedus. Bakhuizen van den Brink, J.N. (1976), De Nederlandse belijdenisgeschriften in authentieke teksten met inleiding en tekstvergelijkingen, 2nd ed., Amsterdam: Ton Bolland. Beyer, Ulrich (1963), Abendmahl und Messe. Sinn und Recht der 80. Frage des Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen: Neukirchner Verlag. Bockm]hl, P. (1907), Johannes Anastasius Veluanus I – II, in: Monatshefte für Rheinische Kirchengeschichte 1, 119 – 126; 174 – 179. – (1909), Zur Vorgeschichte des Essener Reformators Heinrich Berenbroch von Kempen, in: Monatshefte für Rheinische Kirchengeschichte 3, 302 – 307. – (1910), Eine wiedergefundene Schrift des Iohannes Anastasius Veluanus: ,Ein kurtzer Wegweiser etc.’ Vorläufige Mitteilungen, in: Nederlands Archief voor de Kerkgeschiedenis 7, 337 – 362

146

Erik A. de Boer

Denzinger, Heinrich. (1959), The Sources of Catholic Dogma. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari from the Thirtieth Edition of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, St. Louis/London: B. Herder Book. – (1991), Enchiridion symbolorum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Kompendien der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. Lateinisch-Deutsch, Peter Hünermann (ed.), Freiburg: Herder. Doedens, J.I. (1867), De Heidelbergsche Catechismus in zijne eerste levensjaren 1563 – 1567. Historische en bibliografische nalezing met zes en twintig fac-similes, Utrecht: Kemink en zoon. Elwood, Christopher (1999), The Body Broken. The Calvinist Doctrine of the Eucharist and the Symbolization of Power in Sixteenth-Century France, New York: Oxford University Press. Franz, Adolph (1902), Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Liturgie und des religiösen Volksleben, Freiburg: Herdersche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Ganzer, Klaus e.a. (ed.) (2010), Conciliorum oecumenicorum generaliumque decreta. Editio critica, vol. III: The Oecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church. From Trient to Vatican II (1545 – 1965), Turnhout: Brepols Publishers. Gooszen, M.A. (1890), De Heidelbergsche Catechismus. Textus receptus met toelichtende teksten. Bijdrage tot de kennis van zijne wordingsgeschiedenis en van het Gereformeerd protestantisme, Leiden: E.J. Brill. Hansen, J. (1896), Rheinische Akten zur Geschichte des Jesuitenordens 1542 – 1582, Bonn: Hermann Behrendt. Janse, Wim (1999), Wilhelm Klebitz (ca. 1533 – 1568) uit Namitz. Een irenische nonconformist met Nederlandse betrekkingen, in: Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis 2, 39 – 48. Jedin, Hubert (1975), Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, vol. 4: Dritte Tagungsperiode und Abschluß, 2. Halbband. Überwindung der Krise durch Morone, Schließung und Bestätigung, Frieburg : Herder. Moehn, W.H.Th. (2013), Blijvend geding om mis en avondmaal, Baarn: Willem de Zwijgerstichting. Monheim, J. (1551; 1554; 1556), Dilucida Explanatio symboli quod apostolorum dicitur … autore Erasmo Rot. in compendium redacta, Köln. – (1560), Catechismus in quo Christianae religionis elementa sincere simpliciterque explicandae, Dusseldorf: Johannes Oridryinus. – (1987), Johannes Monheim Katechismus. Faksimile-Ausgabe mit deutscher Übersetzung, Köln: Rheinland Verlag. Morsink, Gerrit (1986), Joannes Anastasius Veluanus. Jan Gerritsz. Versteghe. Levensloop en ontwikkelingsgang, Kampen: J.H. Kok. Neuser, Wilhelm H. (2009), Heidelberger Katechismus von 1563, in: Andreas Mühling/Peter Opitz (ed.), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften 2/2 (1562 – 1569), Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag.

Adoration or Idolatry?

147

Pijper, F. (ed.), (1906), Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica IV, Leerstellige en stichtelijke geschriften van Ioann. Anastasius Veluanus e.a., ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Wolters, A. (1864), Der Heidelberger Katechismus in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt herausgegeben, nebst der Geschichte seines Textes im Jahre 1563, Bonn: Adolph Marcus. Zwanepol, K./Campenhout, C.H. van (ed.), (2009), Belijdenisgeschriften van de Protestantse Kerk in Nederland, Heerenveen: Uitgeverij Protestantse Pers.

Wim H.Th. Moehn

A Lasting Controversy on Mass and Supper? Meaning and Actuality of HC 801

The Heidelberg Catechism is highly praised for its irenic and ecumenical intentions and once called “a gift of God to His church” (Exalto: 1980, 105). Nevertheless, Question and Answer 80 still serves as stumbling block.2 Nowadays, several Protestant Churches have come to doubt the actuality of HC 80 and suggested removing the condemnation of the Roman Mass or have relegated the text of HC 80 to a footnote. The aim of this article is to answer the questions why HC 80 was initially incorporated in the HC and whether the condemnation of the Mass is justly placed between brackets and provided with a footnote in several modern editions of the HC. With regard to the sources, I have mainly relied on official church documents.

1. HC 80 1.1 Consecutive editions and expansion of the text Immediately following the meeting in January of 1563 by the professors, the members of the church council and Elector Frederic regarding the text of the Heidelberg Catechism, it was brought to the printer Johannes Mayer. The first printed edition contained 128 unnumbered questions and was completed at the beginning of February of that year. In the section on the Lord’s Supper, the Mass is not even mentioned. Shortly afterward, a second edition became necessary to meet the increasing demand. Among several small changes and corrections, a newly inserted question between HC 79 and HC 80 (now HC 81) catches the eye. However, this is a shorter version of the text presently known as the textus receptus: 1 Special thanks go out to Johan Hegeman, who translated this paper. 2 Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1972; Beyer : 1965; Bierma: 2005; Denzinger/Schönmetzer: 1976 (abbreviated as DS); Christian Reformed Church in North America (ed.) (2004), Heidelberg Catechism Q. and A. 80 and the Roman Catholic Eucharist; to be consulted on the Internet: http:// www.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/2004_heidelbergandeucharist.pdf; Hofheinz: 2013, esp. 378 f; Latzel: 2004, esp. 196ff; Moehn: 2013; Neuser : 2009; Niesel: 1938.

A Lasting Controversy on Mass and Supper?

149

Q. How does the Lord’s Supper differ from the Roman Catholic Mass? A. The Lord’s Supper declares to us that all our sins are completely forgiven through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself accomplished on the cross once for all. But the Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have their sins forgiven through the suffering of Christ unless Christ is still offered for them daily by the priests. Thus the Mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ.

The last page of the second edition instructs the reader to consult page 55 containing the inserted question, and the statement “now inserted on the order of the Palatine elector.”3 About one month later, a third edition was published with the expanded text on the Mass. It is in this edition that the e offending words “und ein vermaledeite Abgotterey” appear for the first time. HC 80 now reads as follows: Q. How does the Lord’s Supper differ from the Roman Catholic Mass? A. The Lord’s Supper declares to us that all our sins are completely forgiven through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself accomplished on the cross once for all. It also declares to us that the Holy Spirit grafts us into Christ, who with his true body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father where he wants us to worship him. But the Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have their sins forgiven through the suffering of Christ unless Christ is still offered for them daily by the priests. It also teaches that Christ is bodily present under the form of bread and wine where Christ is therefore to be worshiped. Thus the Mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ and a condemnable idolatry.4

1.2 Why was a new question added? The instituting committee had approved the text of the new catechism in January 1563. From then on the content of the book would be normative for education and preaching in the Palatinate. It is surprising, therefore, that notwithstanding the previously applied personal signing by Elector Frederic, the addition of a complete new question seemed necessary. The matter treated is as such not a further elaboration of one of the existing questions, but a new theme was added. It is regretful that the minutes of the synod are lacking. Hence, we do not know whether during the meetings the members already discussed the differences between the Mass and the Lord’s Supper, or if the desirability of treating such a question was discussed informally in the lobby at all. Who could have had the hand in posing the new question? We know 3 Neuser: 2009, 212. The addition is also in the third edition; to be consulted on the Internet: http:// digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/catechismus1563. 4 The italicized text was added for the third edition.

150

Wim H.Th. Moehn

Ursinus played a very important role in the wording of the draft text of the HC. Thereafter, we expect many eyes will have inspected the formulations of the questions and answers. We can surmise that Ursinus cannot be regarded as the author of HC 80, because it is very improbable that at the eleventh hour he would have concluded that he had overlooked an essential theme in his draft version. A clue for the insertion of HC 80 could be the letter that Olevianus sent to John Calvin in Geneva on April 3 of the year 1563. This letter accompanied two copies of the Latin translation of the HC for Calvin and Beza. He explains: “The first German edition lacked the question on the difference between the Lord’s Supper and the papal Mass. Urged by me, the Elector wished the question to be added in the second and third German edition” (Olevianus to Calvin [3 April 1563], CO 19:684). Olevianus did not mention in the letter that whereas the second edition had been expanded that only the third edition had first included the condemnation of the Mass. The fact that Olevianus himself declared that he had asked for Frederick’s attention, could be a good indication that he is the author of the question inserted at later stage. This much is sure, the newly added HC 80—since then so fiercely debated—was published with the Elector’s approval.

1.3 A close reading of HC 80 HC 80 does not intend to pay attention to all aspects of the Mass—even not in a very concise form. The stipulated differences gaining the spotlight relate to Christ’s sacrifice and the manner wherein he is present in the elements of bread and wine. The doctrine of the transubstantiation is not discussed in the answer—only the result, namely the massive concept of Christ’s presence. Yet, HC 78 contains a hint regarding the stands held on the doctrine of transubstantiation: Q. Do the bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ? A. […] the holy bread of the Lord’s Supper does not become the actual body of Christ, even though it is called the body of Christ in keeping with the nature and language of sacraments.

1.3.1 Complete forgiveness for all our sins The issue of the differences between Mass and Supper does not aim to provide a theory or explanation in detail. Aside from being polemical, the question and answers also addresses the matter of the salvation of the believer: “The Lord’s Supper declares to us that all our sins are completely forgiven through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself accomplished on the cross once for all.” The first point of comparison deals with the foundation of our salvation;

A Lasting Controversy on Mass and Supper?

151

the second with the mediation of God’s blessing and the way in which we became partakers of the sacrifice of Christ. The unique as well as the once and for all character of Christ’s sacrifice are underscored. The scriptural proof is found in the letter to the Hebrews: “Who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.” (Heb 7:27; see also 10:10, 12ff). It is important for the authors of the HC that this sacrifice was brought once for all in the past. The Supper mediates this sacrifice in a special manner. Time and again it declares that we have complete forgiveness for all our sins. The declaration of forgiveness has already occurred, but the effect goes on. 1.3.2 Incorporated in Christ In the HC, Christ’s unique sacrifice in the past is highlighted. The query is put forward in what way believers are connected to their Redeemer when they are sitting at the table of the Supper. Not until the third edition of the HC had the answer to this question been added. The remedy was that the Supper of the Lord also declares that the Holy Spirit grafts us into Christ, but on this moment Christ is not on earth, but in heaven and being there he wants us to worship him. We find in the margin of the original edition a reference to 1 Corinthians 6:17: “But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.” The thought is that the mediation of the Holy Spirit guards the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice, gives certainty of our salvation and prevents the idolization of a creature. Whereas, in the Mass the place of the Spirit is occupied by a priest and his sacramental act; the communion with Christ in heaven is absent, because he is really present in the signs of the Mass only. The background to HC 80 is the fiercely discussed issue of the manner of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper. In the explanation of the Apostles’ Creed only one question is dedicated to the resurrection (HC 45), but four questions address the ascension of Christ. The HC explicitly rejects the socalled doctrine of Christ’s ubiquity : “In his human nature Christ is not now on earth; but in his divinity, majesty, grace, and Spirit he is never absent from us” (HC 47; cf. Moehn: 2013, 23ff). The HC holds that although Christ is ascended into heaven, there is nevertheless a real communion with Christ’s body and blood in the Supper. HC 76 declares: “Through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us, we are united more and more to Christ’s blessed body. And so, although he is in heaven and we are on earth, we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone.” It must be clear that the ascension marks a boundary pertaining to Christ’s presence. The corporeal presence has ended definitively with his ascension and the New Testament congregation is committed to Jesus’ words: “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” (John 4:23).

152

Wim H.Th. Moehn

1.3.3 The Mass under criticism After the explanation of the Reformed doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, the HC proceeds to criticize the Roman Mass. The first version of the HC only mentioned the daily representation of Christ’s sacrifice; whereas the final text even denounced the adoration of the host. The unique and once for all sacrifice of Christ is in the last edition placed in distinct opposition to the daily representation of the offer of the Mass. It appeals to the knowledge that the priest who celebrates the Mass, is ascribed a central role in the mediation of salvation: “the Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have their sins forgiven through the suffering of Christ unless Christ is still offered for them daily by the priests.” The HC advances the belief that salvation is closely connected to the sacramental celebration in actu—only there and then can salvation be mediated. In the light of this theology, the only conclusion can be that “the Mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ and a condemnable idolatry.” The supposition is that the death of Christ and his unique offer would in terms of the Mass not guarantee the believer’s complete redemption. The objection is that time and again there is the need of cooperation with Christ through the mediation of a priest and the Church. In HC 30 the supposed cooperation with Christ is already criticized. The query is whether those who look for their salvation in saints, in themselves, or elsewhere really do believe in the only saviour Jesus. The scope there concerns the Roman Catholic Church with her adoration of the saints and the good works: “Although they boast of being his, by their actions they deny the only saviour, Jesus.” Here the HC opposes even the possibility of cooperating with Christ. One can believe in Christ, but cooperation with Him must be called a rejection.5 Not until the final third edition do we see the matter of the adoration of the host incorporated in HC 80. The offending words “condemnable idolatry” are in line with that addition. But why would precisely these words have been chosen from such a broad arsenal of offensive words, which were available in the sixteenth century and also were used by theologians? According to the authors of the HC, Christ’s ascension marked definitively the end of his corporeal presence on earth. In his human nature Christ is now in heaven (see HC 47). This implies that de facto there could not be a corporeal presence of Christ in the elements of the Lord’s Supper. And, therefore, formulations of the Mass entail an adoration of merely bread and wine because Christ is not corporeally present. Now, the adoration of created things is to be 5 Cf. The Belgic Confession of Faith, art. 22: “Therefore, for any to assert, that Christ is not sufficient, but that something more is required besides him, would be too gross a blasphemy.”

A Lasting Controversy on Mass and Supper?

153

considered idolatry. Later in the HC when, dealing with the first commandment of the Decalogue, HC 95 gives a clear definition of idolatry : “Idolatry is having or inventing something in which one trusts in place of or alongside of the only true God, who has revealed himself in the Word.” From this understanding we come to the kernel of the rejection of adoration of the host: for the bread is then identified with Christ’s body and therefore adored. But the consequence is that one no longer can look up to the Creator and instead does so to something that is created. Succinctly stated: God is deprived of his being God. What are the sources for the polemical part of HC 80? Within the text of the HC, we read in the margin of HC 80 the unique reference to a non-Biblical source: “In Can. de Missa. Item. de consecr. distinct. 2.” Although Ursinus’s commentary has a complicated history (Voorwinden/Van den Belt: 2013), I will use his study in order to find some traces for the reference in the margin to the Canon of the Mass. This reference ties in with the warning that Ursinus gave to his students that a person could erroneously believe that his salvation is brought about by the work of the priest officiating in Mass and not by Christ’s unique and once for all sacrifice on the cross. This is apparent in the following text. The mass, on the other hand, teaches that the living and the dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests. Their Canon, which they call the less, thus teaches in reference to this subject: “Holy Father, Almighty and Eternal God, receive this immaculate host, which I, thine unworthy servant, offer unto thee, the living and true God, for my innumerable sins, offences, and neglects, and for all round about me; yea, and for all faithful Christians, living and dead, that it may result in salvation to me and them unto everlasting life.” Their greater Canon has the following: “Remember, O Lord, thy servants and handmaidens N.N., and all round about me, whose faith and acknowledged devotion are known unto thee, for whom we offer unto thee, or who present unto thee this sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all theirs […],” etc. What need was there that Christ should offer himself, if the oblation of a sacrificing priest might avail for the redemption of souls?6

This treatment of the Roman Mass must be understood against the background of a reaction to the curses that had been declared at the Council of Trent (Gooszen: 1890, 199 f; Wolters: 1864, 126 f). During the solemn 22nd session held on 17 September 1562, the decree on the sacrifice of the Mass had been promulgated in nine decreta and nine canones. In order to guarantee the unity of the sacrifice on the cross and the sacrifice in the Mass, the term repraesentatio was used. Christ has given to his Church a visible sacrifice, “whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be 6 Ursinus: 1851, 418 f.

154

Wim H.Th. Moehn

represented (repraesentaretur), and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit” (DS 1740). The oblation on the cross and in the Mass are held to be the same: He who at that time sacrificed himself on the cross, sacrifices now through the priest—only the way in which it happens, differs: then in a bloody way and now in an unbloody way. These important formulations by the Council of Trent are followed by some canons, which reject (anathema sit) the protestant doctrine regarding the Lord’s Supper (DS 1651ff). Because of the Protestant conviction that Trent had proceeded to institute a new, although false church, next to the original church that now had been purified and reformed, the Protestant response to the curses in the canones of Trent widened the gap between the two churches.

2. A Lasting Controversy?—An Evaluation 2.1 Rapprochement to Rome? Vatican II has been an event of very great importance for both Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. Fifty years ago in the Dutch Reformed Church a living desire arose to come on speaking terms with each other. Although serious concerns existed that a church could move so far away from the Bible, nevertheless there was hope that Roman Catholics and Protestants would be able to meet each other as Christian churches.7 For the present analysis, it is impossible to analyse all pertaining documents and replicate the discussions. Instead, I will try to answer the limited question whether in the official documents appearing after Vatican II evidence can be found of a real transformation regarding the doctrine of the Mass. Let us, therefore, listen to the Code of Canon Law (CCL) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). In the CCL the vision of Vatican II is translated into legal language. Canon 897 and canon 899-§ 1 make clear that the concepts of sacrifice and transubstantiation were maintained: “The most August sacrament is the Most Holy Eucharist in which Christ the Lord himself is contained, offered, and received and by which the Church continually lives and grows,” and: “The Eucharistic celebration is the action of Christ himself and the Church. In it, Christ the Lord, through the ministry of the priest, offers himself, substantially present under the species of bread and wine, to God the Father and gives himself as spiritual food to the faithful united with his offering.” 7 NHK: 1962, 33: “Christelijke kerken mogen tot geen enkele prijs langs elkander heengaan, integendeel, zij moeten op elkander ingaan. ” See also NHK: 1950; NHK: 1969; NHK: 1982.

A Lasting Controversy on Mass and Supper?

155

The same can be said for the CCC: “The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, ‘sacrifice of praise,’ spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant” (§ 1330). The meaning of the Eucharist is concisely summarized. The Trinitarian character catches the eye: “thanksgiving and praise to the Father;—the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body ;—the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his Spirit” (§ 1358). The sequel makes clear that there is an and–and situation: a new interpretation of the Eucharist, as well as an unambiguous maintaining of the decrees of Trent on transubstantiation.8 What consequences does this have for the actuality of HC, in particular HC 80?

2.2 HC 80—A suitable confession? Nowadays, it is possible to question the legitimacy of HC 80 in several ways: First, by declaring that this answer is no longer relevant for the churches. The sharp critiques in the Schmalcaldic Articles,9 the HC and the anathema’s of Trent do no longer pertain to the actual partners of the dialogue. Second, by declaring that the rejection of the Mass as historically explainable, but not suitable for today. The criticism of the Reformers was especially directed against the abuses of the church in the late Middle Ages, and not against the official Roman Catholic doctrine of that time. Third, by trying to keep the confession in correspondence with the present and suggesting the text of HC 80 belongs to a footnote or a complete revision or even a deletion of the text from the HC. In these ways the condemnation can be curtailed on the basis of the premise that the text of HC 80 is unsuitable for the actual situation of the Protestant churches. In 1977 the Moderamen (Board) of the “Reformierter Bund” in Germany decided to add a footnote to the text of HC 80. There was and is a doctrinal difference between the Roman Catholic concept of the Eucharist as a sacrifice and the Protestant opinion that the Lord’s Supper is a meal, “doch sollte sich dieser Unterschied nicht kirchentrennend auswirken” (ERK: 1997). The synod of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, after 8 Cf. the conclusion in Commissie maaltijd des Heren: 1989, 50: “[…]de vernieuwing van de offerande in de RKK (is toch) niet zo rigoreus geweest dat alle sacrifici€le termen werden uitgebannen.” 9 Luther: 1537, 416: “Daß die Messe im Papsttum der größte und schrecklichste Greuel sein muß.” Close to the language of HC 80 is also Luther : 1522, 490 f: “Ach, wyr armen, elenden und letzten menschen, leben wyr doch noch ßo sicher, das wyr mit vermaledeyter abgötterey und lügen und eußerlichem scheyn wollen gott versünen unnd andern mit uns den hymel verdienen.” For other examples of condemnation and critics of the Mass in the sixteenth century see Moehn: 2013, 33 – 43.

156

Wim H.Th. Moehn

consulting the Conference of Catholic Bishops in Canada and the United States, has decided to place the explanation and condemnation of the Mass between square brackets, because “they do not accurately reflect the official teaching and practice of today’s Roman Catholic Church and are no longer confessionally binding on members of the CRC.”10 The official edition of the confessions of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands contains a footnote as well: “There is agreement that there is a bad connection between HC 80 in the HC and the whole content of this confession. Therefore they are not found in the first German edition. Later HC 80 was inserted as a reaction on the condemnation of the Protestant interpretation of the Lord’s Supper in Trent” (Zwanepol/Van Campenhout: 2009, 97, n. 5; emphasis WM). In my opinion the reasoning conjunction “therefore” is problematic, because I have demonstrated that HC 80—although it is a later interpolation—is in good correspondence with the theological lines of the whole catechism. Given this property, a footnote on HC 80 must meet certain demands, as I will now point out.

3. Handle for the Dialogue and Conclusion The HC is the most ecumenical Protestant catechism. The textbook is praised for its irenic tone, but this does not mean that it is a vague text. There are debates with the Roman Catholics, the Gnesio-Lutherans and the Baptists. Among the polemical parts of the confession, HC 80 is indeed by far the most polemical text. Although added later, we cannot conclude that hence it is a socalled Fremdkörper, meaning that HC 80 does not fit in the whole of the textbook of the HC. As I pointed out, HC 80 is in harmony with the Christology and soteriology of this catechism. After 450 years, reading a footnote certainly could be helpful for modern readers, but some requirements regarding the content need to be stipulated. A footnote about HC 80 not only should give an explanation of the historical context 450 years existing ago, but should also lay the finger at the unchanged official Roman Catholic theology as expressed in the CCL and the CCC, which once formed the original grounds for rejection in the HC. Therefore, a footnote should also refer to HC 30 and HC 95, where cooperation with Christ is rejected as idolatry. The reference to these answers will make clear why such abrasive words were chosen in the final edition of HC 80 for expressing the 10 See CRC: 2004, 33 f. For the final version of the footnote see http://www.crcna.org/pages/heidelberg_main.cfm. It is remarkable that the Reformed Church in America has a different position and retains the original full text, choosing to recognize that the catechism was written within a historical context which may not accurately describe the Roman Catholic Church’s current stance (see HC 80 on http://www.crcna.org).

A Lasting Controversy on Mass and Supper?

157

condemnation. With regard to HC 80, Karl Barth (1948, 104 f) has said in 1947 in his lectures on the Christian doctrine according to the HC: “[…] daß neben dem eigentlichen Zentrum ein Nebenzentrum aufgerichtet wird… Es gilt hier zu wählen zwischen «Christus allein» und «Christus und …».” His commentary is significant: “[…] aber man darf sich nicht darüber täuschen, daß das katholische Denken die ihm eigene Struktur niemals preisgeben wird.” Does this imply that a basis for dialogue is lacking? No. A fine example is the dialogue between Peter Dettwiler and Eva-Maria Faber (2008), because there is the willingness to listen to each other. Nevertheless, the decrees of Trent will not be revoked; it is only possible to give a more nuanced explanation.11 But the dialogue on the Lord’s Supper does not exclusively deal with the past, but also with the future. During the last four centuries there was evidence of great differences and fierce discussions, but Christ will overcome our controversies. “Now when ‘He has put all things under His feet’, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:27 – 28). In the CCC we can notice a fine impulse for looking towards the future as Protestants and Catholics together : There is no surer pledge or dearer sign of this great hope in the new heavens and new earth “in which righteousness dwells,” than the Eucharist. Every time this mystery is celebrated, “the work of our redemption is carried on” and we “break the one bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ” (§ 1405).

Bibliography Bakhuizen van den Brink, J.N. (ed.) (1972), De Nederlandse belijdenisgeschriften in authentieke teksten met inleiding en tekstvergelijkingen, 2nd ed., Amsterdam: Ton Bolland. Barth, K. (1948), Die christliche Lehre nach dem Heidelberger Katechismus. Vorlesung gehalten an der Universität Bonn im Sommersemester 1947, Zollikon–Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag A.G. Beyer, Ulrich (1965), Abendmahl und Messe. Sinn und Recht der 80. Frage des Heidelberger Katechismus (Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche 19), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Bierma, Lyle D. (ed.) (2005), An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism. Sources, History, and Theology (Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought), Grand Rapids (MI): Baker. 11 Antoine Bodar, quoted in Van der Graaf: 2010, 94, 116.

158

Wim H.Th. Moehn

Commissie maaltijd des Heren en kerkelijk ambt (ed.) (1989), Eindrapport. Analyse van de liturgische teksten aangaande maaltijd en ambt, een studie, in: Kerkelijke documentatie 17. Christian Reformed Church in North America (ed.) (2004), Heidelberg Catechism Q. and A. 80 and the Roman Catholic Eucharist; to be consulted on the Internet: http://www.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/2004_heidelbergandeucharist.pdf. Denzinger, Heinrich/Schçnmetzer, Adolf (ed.) (1976), Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, editio XXXVI emendata, Barcelona, Freiburg, Rome: Herder (abbreviated as DS). Dettwiler, Peter/Faber, Eva-Maria (2008), Eucharistie und Abendmahl. Ökumenische Perspektiven, Frankfurt am Main, Paderborn: Verlag Otto Lembeck. ERK (1997) Katechismus. Revidierte Ausgabe 1997, herausgegeben von der Evangelisch-reformierten Kirche (Synode ev.-ref. Kirchen in Bayern und Nordwestdeutschland), von der Lippischen Landeskirche und vom Reformierten Bund, available on the Internet: http://www.ekd.de/download/heidelberger_katechismus.pdf. Exalto, K. (1980), De enige troost. Inleiding tot de Heidelbergse Catechismus. Reformatie Reeks 1, Kampen: J.H. Kok. Gooszen, M.A. (1890), De Heidelbergsche Catechismus. Textus receptus met toelichtende teksten. Bijdrage tot de kennis van zijne wordingsgeschiedenis en van het gereformeerd protestantisme, Leiden: E.J. Brill. Graaf, J. van der (2010), Rome omsloten door de Traditie. Van Augustinus tot Benedictus XVI (Artios-reeks), Heerenveen: Groen. Hofheinz, Marco (2013), De oecumenische betekenis van de Heidelbergse Catechismus, in: Arnold Huijgen e.a. (ed.), Handboek Heidelberse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok, 371 – 382. Latzel, Thorsten (2004), Theologische Grundzüge des Heidelberger Katechismus. Eine fundamentaltheologische Untersuchung seines Ansatzes zur Glaubenskommunikation (Marburger Theologische Studien 83), Marburg: N.G. Elwert Verlag. Luther, Martin (1537 – 1986), Die Schmalkaldischen Artikel, in: Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, 10th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. – (1522), Vom Mißbrauch der Messe, WA 8. Neuser, Wilhelm H. (ed.) (2009), Heidelberger Katechismus von 1563, in: A. Mühling/P. Opitz (ed.), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften 2/2 1562 – 1569, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 167 – 212. Niesel, Wilhelm (1938), Bekenntnisschriften und Kirchenordnungen der nach Gottes Wort reformierten Kirche. Im Auftrag des Reformierten Bundes und des Reformierten Konventes der Bekenntnissynode der Deutschen Evangelischen Kirche, München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag. Moehn, W.H.Th. (2013), Blijvend geding om mis en avondmaal? Betekenis en actualiteit van Heidelbergse Catechismus, vraag en antwoord 80, Reformatorische Stemmen 2013/1, Baarn: Willem de Zwijgerstichting.

A Lasting Controversy on Mass and Supper?

159

NHK (1950) Herderlijk schrijven van de Generale Synode der Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk betreffende de Rooms-Katholieke Kerk, ‘s-Gravenhage – (1962) De reformatorische houding jegens de Rooms-Katholieke Kerk en haar leden. Richtlijnen aanvaard door de Generale Synode der Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk in haar vergadering van 30 oktober 1961, ‘s-Gravenhage – (1969) Onze verhouding tot de Rooms-Katholieke Kerk. Herori€ntering en App{l. Aanvaard door de Generale Synode der Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk in haar vergadering van 17 juni 1969, ‘s-Gravenhage – (1982) Onze gezamenlijke opdracht in de jaren ‘80. Handreiking met het oog op het gesprek en de samenwerking met (leden van) de Rooms-Katholieke Kerk (Handreiking ten dienste van de samenwerking van Hervormde gemeenten en Gereformeerde kerken 6), ‘s-Gravenhage Ursinus, Zacharias (1851), The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus, on the Heidelberg Catechism. Third American Edition, Cincinnati: T.P. Bucher.. Voorwinden, T./Belt, H. van den (2013), De complexe ontstaansgeschiedenis van het Schatboek van Zacharias Ursinus (1534 – 1583), in: Theologia Reformata 56, 136 – 153. Wolters, A. (1864), Der Heidelberger Katechismus in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt, herausgegeben nebst der Geschichte seines Textes im Jahre 1563, Bonn: A. Marcus. Zwanepol, K./Campenhout, C.H. van (ed.) (2009), Belijdenisgeschriften van de Protestantse Kerk in Nederland, Heerenveen: Uitgeverij Protestantse Pers. After the completion of this article Johan Frederik Kelber Mulder sent me a copy of his study ’N vervloekte afgodery? Vraag 80 van die Heidelbergse Kategismus. ’N dogma-historiese studie voorgelÞ om te voldoen aan die vereistes vir die kwalifikasie Magister Theologiae in die Fakulteit Teologie, Departement Ekklesiologie aan die Universiteit van die Vrystaat, oktober 2010 and a copy of Cornelis P. Venema, ‘The Lord’s Supper and the “Popish Mass”: An Historical and Theological Analysis of Question and Answer 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism’, in: Mid-America Journal of Theology 24 (2013), 31–72.

Frank Ewerszumrode

Holy Celebrations in the Power of the Holy Spirit A Roman Catholic Rereading of the Doctrine of the Sacraments in the Heidelberg Catechism

The Heidelberg Catechism is among the most widely spread Reformed confessional writings. Originally designed as a textbook for religious education in the territory of the Electoral Palatinate, it exerted a great influence in many Reformed churches all over the world. In this way, it has become an ecumenical statement of Christian faith. But there also is an ecumenical need to talk, ecumenical in the sense of a dialogue between different Christian churches and denominations. The Heidelberg Catechism takes a strong stance against Roman Catholic teaching on the Sacraments which becomes quite obvious in question 80 and its answer, dealing with the difference between the Lord’s Supper and the Mass. The Reformed tradition of sacramental teaching highlights God’s sole activity in the use of the sacraments (Consensus Tigurinus XIII) while Roman Catholic teaching speaks about creatures, i. e. water, bread and wine, as efficacious signs which convey the grace they signify (DH 1606). The Second Vatican Council permitted a reform in the area of the sacraments and liturgy. This requires a rereading of the general teaching of the sacraments in the Heidelberg Catechism. Many positions held by the Reformers can now be understood and interpreted in a different way. Two points concerning the doctrine of the Sacraments in the Heidelberg Catechism are especially important: the pneumatological context of the sacraments and the importance of their use. But before dealing with these two topics, it is important to clarify how questions 65 – 68 can be interpreted.

1. How to Interpret Questions HC 65 – 68 The doctrine of the sacraments has always been a field of discussion within the Reformed church. Brian A. Gerrish points out three different types of sacramental theology which can be linked to the names of Zwingli, Bullinger and Calvin. The point of discussion consists in the relationship between the sacramental sign (signum) and the signified thing (res) (Gerrish: 1982). These differences stand in the background of the sacramental doctrine in the Heidelberg Catechism.

Holy Celebrations in the Power of the Holy Spirit

161

This catechism is a document of agreement between Calvinists, Zwinglians, and Philippists. All these groups were present in Heidelberg when the Catechism was revised. In the area of sacraments, it only presents what was commonly taught in Protestantism (Strohm: 2012). This is not surprising, because the Emperor of the Electoral Palatinate, Frederick III, who gave the order to write this catechism, wanted it to be of irenic character in order to avoid further conflicts with Lutheran territories (Mühling: 2009). Because of this it is pointless to ask if the sacramental doctrine of the Heidelberg Catechism is more Zwinglian, Calvinist or Melanchthonian. Lyle Bierma showed in his analysis that every feature which seems typical of one tradition can also be found in another one. But this willed ambiguity made it possible for any part to interpret questions 65 – 68 according to its own understanding of the sacraments (Bierma: 1999, 1 – 14, 36). The same is true of John Calvin in relation to the Heidelberg Catechism. He dedicates his lectures on Jeremiah to Frederic where he explicitly writes: “As you did not doubt to assert, freely and with prudence within your sovereignty, the sound and orthodox doctrine of Christ’s holy supper which you reverently cherished”1. The “sound and orthodox doctrine” for Calvin consists in believing that the substance of Christ’s body and blood is the spiritual food for the souls and that these substances are communicated under the symbols of bread and wine.2 This “symbolical instrumentalism” (Gerrish: 1982, 128) is compatible with today’s Roman Catholic teaching on the sacraments. In light of this agreement, the interpretation of questions 65 – 68 in this paper follows Calvin’s understanding. An understanding according to Zwingli or Bullinger would not be very helpful ecumenically because of the absence in their teachings of instrumentalism that, in Calvin as in Roman Catholic doctrine, can be understood as a form of somatic real presence (Ewerszumrode: 2012). This term signifies that Christ’s body and blood are given substantially with and under the sacramental symbols. From a Roman-Catholic point of view, a local or materialistic understanding of this real presence must be avoided because Christ’s body does not become present in its natural or physical way, but “only” substantially. This understanding of substance excludes any materialistic and carnal connotation (Betz: 1973, 299). Such exclusion is important for Catholic and Reformed Eucharistic theology (Hunsinger : 2008, 52).

1 CO 20:72: “Nam quia sanam et orthodoxam de sacra Christi coena doctrinam, quam reverenter amplexus eras, in tua ditione libere et cordate asserere non dubitasti.” 2 CO 20:73: “Si quaeritur explicatio magis dilucida, carnis et sanguinis Christi substantia spiritualis nobis vita est, eaque sub panis et vini symbolis nobis communicantur.”

162

Frank Ewerszumrode

2. The Pneumatological Context of the Sacraments The Heidelberg Catechism locates the doctrine on the sacraments at the end of its second part which deals with salvation. In order to participate in salvation, one must have faith. Faith is necessary because only by faith are humans justified before God (HC 60). For this reason, the section on the sacraments begins as follows: “we are made partakers of Christ and all His benefits by faith only” (HC 65). This statement expresses clearly the Reformation sola gratia and excludes any human work in order to be justified. HC 65 continues by asking where this faith comes from. The answer is: “The Holy Spirit works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the Holy Gospel, and confirms it by the use of the holy sacraments.” Faith is a gift given and produced by the work of the Holy Spirit. In the Heidelberg Catechism it is the Spirit who “makes me a partaker of Christ and all His benefits” (HC 53). God’s grace can only be given by God’s own self. But the Spirit uses the Word to work faith and the celebration of the sacraments to confirm this faith. Sacraments cannot produce salvific faith, but only strengthen it. They are incapable of producing faith because the Holy Spirit works it in a person. Sacraments are thus placed in a pneumatological and soteriological context. They serve salvation by confirming it for the person receiving a sacrament. This often forgotten pneumatological context of faith has been highlighted by the Second Vatican Council. The council teaches in its dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum: To make this act of faith, the grace of God and the interior help of the Holy Spirit must precede and assist, moving the heart and turning it to God […].To bring about an ever deeper understanding of revelation the same Holy Spirit constantly brings faith to completion by His gifts. (DV 5)

Joseph Ratzinger in his commentary on Dei Verbum points out that the one producing faith is the Holy Spirit (Ratzinger : 2012, 748). No one can believe in God without the work of the Holy Spirit. He is the “internal principle of communion and communication between God and his people”3. God’s revelation in which he reveals himself “in His goodness and Wisdom” (DV 2) is what is faith all about and is at the same time the measure of faith. For this reason, faith is the right and appropriate realization of the relationship God offers to human beings (Böttigheimer : 2012, 26). This is the background for talking about God’s self-communication in the preaching of the Gospel and the celebration of the sacraments in Roman Catholic teaching. Both communicate God’s love to the world. Catholics still 3 Böttigheimer : 2012, 159: “[D]as innere Prinzip der Kommunikationsgemeinschaft zwischen Gott und seinem Volk.”

Holy Celebrations in the Power of the Holy Spirit

163

have to learn that the word of God is also a means of God’s presence in the world. But both, “word and sacrament are only means of grace and not salvation itself. Right from the beginning they must not lose their connection to the one and only mediator between God and human beings.”4 Without the work of the triune God, they do not have any spiritual effect. Even from a Roman Catholic point of view word and sacraments only have a servant role in regard to God’s self-revelation. Every time, God communicates his love and grace in the preaching of the Word and the celebrations of the sacraments because God is faithful, or as Calvin puts it: “If God cannot neither betray nor lie, it follows that God fulfills everything God signifies” (OS I 509) in the sacraments. But likewise Peter Lombard (Sent. IV d. I c. 5.5) and Thomas Aquinas (S. th. III q. 64 a. 7), following him, pointed out that God did not tie grace to the sacraments in such a way that God is not capable of giving grace without these means. It is important to underscore that salvation consists in God’s love (Pröpper : 1991, 59; 61 f) who wants to save human beings from sin and death by means of the relationship between him and human beings (Lehmann: 1979, 199). This loving communion must be revealed, offered and communicated by Godself. From this point of view, sacraments are “only” an aid—an important aid as they reach human senses in a holistic way—to live and remain in this saving communion. It is the Holy Spirit’s work to realize, in the Here and Now, this friendship and love “which is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption” (Eph 1:14). According to Hans Urs von Balthasar faith, which follows the inner light of faith, is already quaedam inchoatio visionis (Balthasar : 1961, 157). As long as sacraments are understood in Calvin’s instrumental way as signs exhibiting what they signify the pneumatological context of the sacraments in the Heidelberg Catechism is no problem for Roman Catholic theology. The rediscovery of some forgotten traditions in Vatican II opens ways of dialogue with the Reformed churches.

3. The Use/Celebration of the Sacraments According to HC 66 God “seal[s] to us the promise of Gospel: namely, that of free grace, He grants grants us the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross.” God wants to assure that the outer reception of the sacraments and the reception of salvation really correspond (Saxer : 1977, 428). Believers, therefore, receive divine 4 Kasper : 1970, 285: “Wort und Sakrament sind nur Mittel des Heils, nicht das Heil selbst. Man darf sie deshalb gleich im ersten Ansatz nicht loslösen von dem einen und einzigen Mittler zwischen Gott und den Menschen.”

164

Frank Ewerszumrode

comfort by their reception of the sacraments. They seal God’s grace to individual persons participating in baptism or the Lord’s Supper. All this happens not just by pure teaching, but by the use of the sacraments—or as Roman Catholics are accustomed to say : by their celebration. The sacraments visualize the invisible work of the Holy Spirit by their use—and not just by the elements (Busch: 1998, 204) separated from their liturgical context. Thus, sacraments are one form of God’s accommodation (Huijgen: 2011). They are a divine help to understand better God’s grace because human beings cannot have direct and immediate contact with God. This thought is very important in John Calvin’s sacramental theology : Calvin’s basic assumption is that humanity can have no direct communication with God. This assumption is based on both divine and human attributes. […] [T]here can be no hope of direct human knowledge of or contact with God; there can only be a mediated knowledge and a mediated presence. God accommodates knowledge of himself and his presence through the use of earthly signs. (Davis: 1995, 181)

This is the reason why the outer symbol given by God must correspond the grace sealed by the sacraments. In baptism, water visualizes the inner washing from sin with Christ’s blood (HC 69). In the Lord’s Supper the broken bread and the cup given to the people visibly represent Christ’s suffering for sinners (HC 75). The Heidelberg Catechism, thus, underlines the personal dimension of the sacraments. Sacraments do not confer a thingish or materialistic grace, but are means of communication which God uses in the power of the Holy Spirit. As communication needs signs, the liturgical celebration with all its rites and words fulfills the function of a sign by which God speaks. In Roman Catholic teaching and practice at times risks an exaggerated ex opere operato-theology which does without participatio actuosa and understanding. But such an understanding is close to magic (Bausenhart: 2011, 56), and falls behind Vatican II because the council paid much attention to an understandable celebration (SC 11; 59). A valid celebration is not always a fruitful celebration for those who partake. A badly celebrated sacrament still remains valid, but it is more difficult to recognize and experience the offered grace when signs and rites are not well observed. That is why the liturgical symbols and rites have to be observed and clearly administered. In this way, the message becomes clear what the rites and the words used in liturgy want to express and transfer (Bausenhart: 2011, 60). Liturgical symbols and gestures must not be reduced to their minimum which is required for validity. As both, the rites and the words are the sign by which God’s grace is expressed and given, sacraments have to be celebrated that their message and grace can easily be understood. When after the Eucharistic prayer, e. g., the host is just broken into two big parts so that the priest can consume it more easily, many aspects—e. g. the sharing of the one bread and the representation and participation in Christ’s suffering—get lost. Signs have

Holy Celebrations in the Power of the Holy Spirit

165

to be meaningful (Höhn: 2011, 66). By celebrating the sacraments with sensitivity for symbols and gestures, the celebration can turn into an esthetic event because more than just what is seen can be perceived (Höhn: 2011, 74 f). Here, it is good to listen to the Heidelberg Catechism pointing out the symbolical level in the sacraments which in the Roman Catholic liturgy of the 16th century was difficult to grasp and which still needs to be fostered. When symbols are duly respected, people are encouraged to follow Jesus Christ who uses the sacraments to encounter his disciples (Höhn: 2011, 66). Or to couch it in the terminology of the Heidelberg Catechism: they begin living according to God’s commandments as a way of showing gratitude towards their Savior. The section on gratitude, the third part of the Heidelberg Catechism, follows directly the doctrine of the sacraments. The celebration of the sacraments does not only help to understand God’s grace better and in a holistic way and to grow in faith, but also to live a life according to God’s good will.

4. Further Reflection Rereading the texts of the Reformation era is a profitable exercise. Even a text like the Heidelberg Catechism, which adopts a strong stance against Roman Catholic teaching, can be understood and interpreted in a new way. This is possible because of the renewed theology after the Second Vatican Council. New insights in exegesis and history open new possibilities for further reflection and for a fruitful dialogue between Reformed and Roman Catholic theology. Besides ecumenical insights, the Heidelberg Catechism—and with it the whole tradition of Reformed theology—point to an important systematical issue: the role and importance of the Holy Spirit. Pneumatology “was generally on the margins of earlier twentieth–century systematic theology” (Welker : 2009, 236). Western theology was often accused by Eastern theologians to tend to a Christomonism and thus forget the Holy Spirit (Freitag: 1995, 33). Roman Catholic theology focused merely on its gifts and charisms (Moda: 2012, 11). The Heidelberg Catechism instead ascribed to the Spirit the task of distributing Christ’s grace to believers. In this way, the Holy Spirit is the presence of God’s grace and salvation in this world and assumes soteriological importance. But this issue still has to be developed in Roman Catholic theology.

166

Frank Ewerszumrode

Bibliography Balthasar, Hans Urs von (1961), Herrlichkeit. Eine theologische Ästhetik, vol. 1, Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag. Bausenhart, Guido (2011), „Handlungen, in denen Gott dem Menschen begegnet“: Eine nur scheinbar unscheinbare Formel, in: ThGl 101, 45 – 61. Betz, Johannes (1973), Eucharistie als zentrales Mysterium, in: MySal 4.2, 185 – 311. Bierma, Lyle D. (1999), The Doctrine of the Sacraments in the Heidelberg Catechism: Melanchthonian, Calvinist, or Zwinglian?, Studies in Reformed Theology and History N.S. 4, Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary. Bçttigheimer, Christoph (2012), Glauben verstehen: Eine Theologie des Glaubensaktes, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Busch, Eberhard (1998), Der Freiheit zugetan: Christlicher Glaube heute—im Gespräch mit dem Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Davis, Thomas J. (1995), The clearest promises of God. The Development of Calvin’s Eucharistic Teaching, New York: AMS Press. Ewerszumrode, Frank (2012), Mysterium Christi Spiritualis Praesentiae: Die Abendmahlslehre des Genfer Reformators Johannes Calvin aus römisch-katholischer Perspektive, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Freitag, Josef (1995), Geist-Vergessen—Geist-Erinnern: Vladimir Losskys Pneumatologie als Herausforderung westlicher Theologie, Würzburg: Echter. Gerrish, Brian A. (1982), Sign and Reality : The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Confessions, in: Brian A. Gerrish (ed.), The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage, Chicago: University of Chicago, 118 – 130. Hçhn, Hans-Joachim (2011), Bei Sinnen sein: Thesen zum sensual turn der Theologie, in: ThGl 101, 62 – 75. Huijgen, Arnold (2011), Divine Accomodation in John Calvin’s Theology : Analysis and Assessment, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hunsinger, George (2008), The Eucharist and Ecumenism: Let Us Keep The Feast, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kasper, Walter (1970), Wort und Sakrament, in: Walter Kasper.: Glaube und Geschichte, Mainz: Grünewald, 285 – 310. Lehmann, Karl (1979): Heiliger Geist, Befreiung zum Menschsein—Teilhabe am göttlichen Leben: Tendenzen gegenwärtiger Gnadenlehre, in: Kasper, Walter (ed.): Gegenwart des Geistes, QD 85, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 181 – 204. Moda, Aldo (2012), Lo Spirito Santo: Alcune piste di riflessione nella teologia sistematica cattolica a partire dal Vaticano II, Torino: Claudiana. M]hling, Andreas (2009), Der Heidelberger Katechismus im 16. Jahrhundert. Entstehung, Zielsetzung, Rezeption, MEKGR 58, 1 – 11. Prçpper, Thomas (1991), Erlösungsglaube und Freiheitsgeschichte: Eine Skizze zur Soteriologie, 3rd ed., München: Kösel.

Holy Celebrations in the Power of the Holy Spirit

167

Ratzinger, Joseph (2012): Einleitung und Kommentar zum Prooemium, zu Kapitel I, II und IV der Offenbarungskonstitution „Dei Verbum“, in: Gerhard Ludwig Müller (ed.): Joseph Ratzinger Gesammelte Werke 7, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 715 – 791. Saxer, Ernst (1977), „Siegel“ und „Versiegeln“ in der calvinisch-reformierten Sakramententheologie des 16. Jahrhunderts, Zwingliana 14, 397 – 430. Strohm, Christoph (2012), Entstehung des Heidelberger Katechismus, theologisches Profil und Forschungsgeschichte, EvTh 72, 406 – 419. Welker, Michael (2009), The Holy Spirit, in: John Webster/Kathryn Tanner/Iain Torrance, The Oxford Handbook of Systematic theology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 236 – 248.

Willem van Vlastuin

The Promise of Unio Mystica An Inquiry into the Functioning of a Spiritual-Theological Concept in the Heidelberg Catechism

1. Introduction It is no exaggeration to describe the rise of interest in the spiritual-theological concept of unio mystica cum Christo (spiritual union with Christ) as a revival. Recent research was prompted by the discovery of this concept in Calvin.1 But this research of the concept in Calvin was not an isolated development in academic research, but cohered with many other developments taking place at the same time. First, in the study of the New Testament (cf. Wright: 2009, Westerholm: 2004), the traditional doctrine of the imputed righteousness was criticized. Next, in systematic theology (cf. Fesko: 2012, 53 – 75), the concept of ordo salutis (order of salvation) and especially the causal relations in that order were criticized, because of the eschatological character of the New Testament. These broader developments in theology sharpened the study of the spiritual union with Christ in Calvin and the reformed tradition. For some researchers (Carpenter : 2002, 381), the spiritual union appeared to be the controlling principle of the Reformer’s doctrine of applied soteriology rather than the generally accepted doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ. The priority of the union with Christ in relation to the doctrine of imputed righteousness prompted researchers to distinguish Calvin from the reformed tradition, in particular on the point of the ordo salutis. This point of difference concerned the order of justification and the union with Christ, on the one hand, and the order of justification and sanctification on the other. This interpretation of Calvin aroused opposition and brought other researchers (cf. Wenger : 2007) to a relativization of the central place of the unio in Calvin. These researchers (Fesko: 2012, 382) also underlined the irreversible sequence of justification and sanctification, in which the former benefit had priority above the latter, because it was the legal ground for the mystical union with Christ.2 These academic researchers and discussions 1 For a contemporary revival of the interest in the mystical union in Calvin, compare Canlis: 2010; Horton: 2007; Tamburello: 1994; Klaassen: 2013; Billings: 2005; 2008; 2011. A current concept for thinking about the spiritual union with Christ is proposed by Burger: 2008. 2 Horton: 2007, 143 states: “Forensic justification through faith alone is the fountain of union with Christ in all of its renewing aspects.”

The Promise of Unio Mystica

169

demonstrate how relevant this concept and its theological meaning are for applied soteriology. This study can be seen in this context. In this essay the functioning of the unio mystica is studied in the Heidelberg Catechism. However, although the mystical union does not belong to the visible structure of the Heidelberg Catechism, it is nevertheless present in the vital and invisible skeleton of this catechism. The presence of this skeleton is particularly apparent in the functioning of the mystical union.3 Several researchers (Latzel: 2004, 52; Van ’t Spijker : 2005, 128 f) stress the importance of the concept of unio mystica in this catechism4, however, this issue has not really been thematized in this research5, a concern that this article redresses. The research question of this essay is as follows: In what way can the functioning of the unio mystica cum Christo in the Heidelberg Catechism contribute to a contemporary understanding of the unio mystica? This research question is to be understood in the framework of constructive systematic theology in which historical insights are revitalized for application in contemporary reformed theology. To answer the research question, I first make an inventory of the use of the spiritual union in this catechism and list these uses in a purpose made table of references to the functioning of the unio mystica.6 The references will be more or less clear, the decisions can be discussed, but on the whole it must be possible to accomplish a trustworthy rendering. These references are then categorized according to the functioning of this concept in the Heidelberg Catechism. The descriptions of each category are analytical so that a deeper understanding of the theological concept in this catechism can be gained. After this analysis of the use of this spiritual-theological concept in the catechism of Heidelberg, the research question is answered in the conclusions of this essay.

2. Table of References to Unio Mystica HC Relevant passages in the Heidelberg Catechism 1. belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ. 3 Burger: 2008 distinguishes between ‘union’ and ‘participation’ to clarify the distinction between the spiritual position and the functioning of this spiritual position. 4 Latzel also refers to Klooster, Niesel and Bruggink, underlining the point that ‘einleiben’ and ‘einpflanzen’ may have only been used four times, but that these were always at important keyplaces. 5 This assertion is based upon the consultation of Hollweg: 1961; Coenen: 1963; Exalto; Verboom: 1996; Busch: 1998; Latzel: 2004; Bierma: 2005; Walker: 2010; Heimbucher: 2012; Theißen: 2012 and Huijgen: 2013. 6 See for the references: http://www.reformed.org/documents (last visited: March 14, 2013)

170 20.

Willem van Vlastuin

only those who are ingrafted into him, and, receive all his benefits, by a true faith. 32. Because I am a member of Christ by faith, and thus am partaker of his anointing; 43. That by virtue thereof, our old man is crucified, dead and buried with him; that so the corrupt inclinations of the flesh may no more reign in us; but that we may offer ourselves unto him a sacrifice of thanksgiving. 45. secondly, we are also by his power raised up to a new life; 49. secondly, that we have our flesh in heaven as a sure pledge that he, as the head, will also take up to himself, us, his members; thirdly, that he sends us his Spirit as an earnest, by whose power we ”seek the things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God, and not things on earth.” 51. that by his Holy Spirit he pours out heavenly graces upon us his members; 53. that he is also given me, to make me by a true faith, partaker of Christ and all his benefits, that he may comfort me and abide with me for ever. 55. that all and every one, who believes, being members of Christ, are in common, partakers of him, and of all his riches and gifts; 57. that this my body, being raised by the power of Christ, shall be reunited with my soul, and made like unto the glorious body of Christ. 64. for it is impossible that those, who are implanted into Christ by a true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness. 65. Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, whence does this faith proceed? 70. and sanctified to be members of Christ, that so we may more and more die unto sin, and lead holy and unblamable lives. 75. that he feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, with his crucified body and shed blood. 76. What is it then to eat the crucified body, and drink the shed blood of Christ? (…) to become more and more united to his sacred body, by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in us; so that we, though Christ is in heaven and we on earth, are notwithstanding ”flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone” and that we live, and are governed forever by one spirit, as members of the same body are by one soul. 77. Where has Christ promised that he will as certainly feed and nourish believers with his body and bleed? 79. by these visible signs and pledges to assure us, that we are as really partakers of his true body and blood by the operation of the Holy Ghost as we receive by the mouths of our bodies these holy signs in remembrance of him; 80. that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ. 88. of the mortification of the old, and the quickening of the new man. 103. that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to

The Promise of Unio Mystica

171

the Lord, to work by his Holy Spirit in me: and thus begin in this life the eternal Sabbath. 109. Since both our body and soul are temples of the holy Ghost. 116. God will give his grace and Holy Spirit. The investigation of this table leads to the following characteristics of the mystical union in this reformed catechism.

2.1 The personal character of the unio mystica 1. 20.

belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ. only those who are ingrafted into him, and, receive all his benefits, by a true faith. 53. that he is also given me, to make me by a true faith, partaker of Christ and all his benefits, that he may comfort me and abide with me for ever. 55. that all and every one, who believes, being members of Christ, are in common, partakers of him, and of all his riches and gifts; 65. Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, whence does this faith proceed? 79. by these visible signs and pledges to assure us, that we are as really partakers of his true body and blood by the operation of the Holy Ghost as we receive by the mouths of our bodies these holy signs in remembrance of him; 80. that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ 103. that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by his Holy Spirit in me: and thus begin in this life the eternal Sabbath. 109. Since both our body and soul are temples of the holy Ghost. 116. God will give his grace and Holy Spirit. Before the Heidelberg Catechism was published, Zacharias Ursinus (1612, 1:10 – 33) wrote a larger catechism Catechesis, summa theologiae per quaestiones et responsiones exposita: sive, capita religiones christianae continens7, called Catechesis maior or Larger Catechism. This catechism was used for his students. Ursinus (1670) also finished Catechesis Religionis Christianae. In Ecclesiis & Scholis plerisque Reformatis usitata8, the so-called Catechesis minor or Smaller Catechism. Both versions start with the question of comfort. The Smaller Catechism begins: 7 In this essay I use the English translation by Bierma: 2005; ibid. 75 refers to this catechism as a source for the Heidelberg Catechism. 8 To consult by www.prdl.org. For the English translation I use Bierma: 2005, 141 – 162.

172

Willem van Vlastuin

Q 1: What is the comfort by which your heart is sustained in death as well as in life? A. That God has truly pardoned all my sins because of Christ and has given me eternal life, in which I may glorify him forever.

The Larger Catechism expresses the same comfort in the following way : Q 1: What firm comfort do you have in life and in death? A. That I was created by God in his image for eternal life; and after I willfully lost this in Adam, God, out of infinite and gracious mercy, God received me into his covenant of grace, so that because of the obedience and death of his Son sent in the flesh, he might give me as a believer righteousness and eternal life. It is also that he sealed his covenant, in my heart by his Spirit, who renews me in the image of God and cries out in me, “Abba, Father,” by his Word and by the visible signs of this covenant.

The most important difference between Ursinus’ Larger Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism is the fact that the concept of the covenant was changed into the belonging to Christ. First, this indicates historically that, by the early 1560s, theological reflection on the covenant had become a distinguishing feature of the reformed tradition.9 Next, because the choice of the theological concept of the Heidelberg Catechism cannot be understood as a correction of the Larger Catechism, this indicates theologically the relationship between Christ and the covenant.10 Third, if we suppose (Bierma 2005, 138) that the theological committee has consulted the Larger Catechism, it is an indication that the theologians of Heidelberg had their considerations and reasons for using the concept of belonging to Christ, rather than the concept of the covenant.11 Without examining their considerations and reasons in any depth, we can nevertheless conclude that they made this choice consciously and that they preferred a Christ-centered theological approach. The relationship with Christ is described as a belonging to Christ; Christ does not belong to us, but we belong to Him. In this subtle nuance, the priority between the partners in the relationship is clarified. This has a larger impact on modern readers and listeners because the current ideal of human autonomy is at stake. But, what about the original intention of this relationship? First, the original intention was not to nullify the personality of the believer but to 9 Compare Graafland: 1994; Lillback: 2001. The Larger Catechism of Ursinus contains 55 references to the covenant in 38 questions and answers (Bierma: 2005, 97). For a recent study on the covenant in reformed tradition, see Woolsey : 2012, Chapter 14 on Ursinus, Chapter 15 on Olevianus. Coenen: 1963, 129 referred among others to Q&A 15 – 18, 20, 36, 54 for the presence of the covenant in this catechism. 10 Coenen: 1963, 129 remarkes: “Der Bund is also im Heidelberger völlig christozentrisch uns sozusagen einlinig verstanden. ” See also Latzel: 2004, 63. The covenant is the thematized legal relationship between God and man. 11 Bierma: 1999, 96 – 110 observes a development in Ursinus. Bierma: 2005, 97 f also discusses several opinions about the difference between Ursinus’ Larger Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism.

The Promise of Unio Mystica

173

restore an individual’s human personality and his sense of being free.12 The second aspect of the original intention was to humble man and bring him to meekness, so that he would give up his autonomous life and let Christ lead his life; in this way he would really be safe and happy. At this point, it is important to reflect on the character of the relationship which cannot be understood in terms of an impersonal property, as the biblical concepts of bridegroom and bride, head and body (see also HC 79 f), vine and branches are all present in this relationship. The first two metaphors are particularly revealing about the personal character of the relationship between Christ and the believers. Christ deals in a personal, authentic and careful way with his church. He has so much love for his church that he gave up his life, He has so much power that he is free of the bondage of the devil, He cares for his church to such an extent that He cares that not a hair on the believer’s head will fall and that all things will work together for their good, and He has so much sympathy that, by his Spirit, He assures all his believers of eternal life and changes their hearts so that they are full of a new willingness to serve Him. Three remarks can be added. First, the union with Christ is a union by the Spirit. It appears, for example, in HC 103, 109 and 116 that the union with Christ is inextricably connected with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Second, the main sentence in the answer on the first question is that believers belong to Christ. However there is a subtle detail, it is noteworthy that the subject of the first answer in the Heidelberger is not the Father or the Spirit, but the Son. The Son warns that without the will of the heavenly Father not a single hair falls and the Son is assured of eternal life by the Spirit. All light is shone on the character and activity of the Son. Third, at several points in the catechism it appears (Barth: 1960, 6 f) that believers are not only comforted by Christ, but that Christ Himself is their comfort, righteousness and redemption. These expressions clarify that the Christology of this catechism cannot be reduced to a functional Christology, but that it is characterized by its focus on the person of Christ. The special place of the person of the Son also becomes clear in HC 20. To answer the central question in the Heidelberg Catechism about the persons who are saved, the answer distinguishes between ingrafting in Christ and accepting his benefits.13 This distinction is all the more remarkable if we compare it with the first edition of Melanchthon’s Loci Communes (CR 21:85).14 The Wittenberg theologian explains knowledge of Christ as knowing 12 Compare Q&A 1 and 218. See also the Canons of Dordt, Chapter III/IV, art. 11, 12, 13 and 16. 13 In Ursinus’ Larger Catechism there is a distinction made between Christ and his benefits, but the believer accepts both, answer 37. 14 Latzel: 2004, 54 also underlines the difference with Melanchthon. Luther (WA 1.362) said, in his 20th thesis of the Heidelberg Theses in 1518, that true theology and knowledge of God exist in the crucified Christ. In his commentary on John 4:10 Calvin (CO 47:80) remarks that we know Christ only if we know the gifts of the Father.

174

Willem van Vlastuin

his benefits. The strength of this approach is that the knowledge of Christ is not abstract or without soteriological meaning. Against a background of the speculative theology of the Middle Ages about God’s essence, the soteriological approach of the Reformation made men the subject of theology.15 The weaker points of this approach, however, could be that Christology is completely functionalized and that Christ is identified solely with his benefits. The interpretation in the Heidelberg Catechism provides in a nuanced distinction between Christ and his benefits.16 However, although it is not completely clear which theological use the original authors intended when they made this distinction, it is clear that a distinct focus on the person of Christ is implied in this approach. A comparable distinction between Christ and his benefits appears in HC 53, 55 and 65. We can also conclude that HC 1, 20, 53 and 55—seen against the historical background of Ursinus’ Larger Catechism—are particularly useful examples clarifying that the Heidelberg Catechism has special focus on the union with the person of Christ. In the first answer it becomes very clear that sinners are not saved by any impersonal transaction made on our spiritual bank account, or by getting a gift from a store which is filled by Christ, but by the personal relationships that they have with Christ. 2.2 The theological dynamics of unio mystica 32. Because I am a member of Christ by faith, and thus am partaker of his anointing; A remarkable and important part of the Heidelberg Catechism concerns the doctrine of Christ’s threefold office (munus triplex). In the early church Eusebius (De Boer : 2013) spoke about Christ being anointed as priest, king and prophet.17 This concept of being anointed to the threefold office served as a matrix for interpreting Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament, despite the fact that he was never formally anointed as a prophet, priest or king.18 Initially in his first catechism of 1538 John Calvin did not apply the office of prophet to Christ, but in the Catechism of Geneva of 1545 (CO 6:21 – 24; HC 15 Lohse: 1995, 48 declares that the essence of the Reformation was its focus on the salvation of men. Compare Luther in his explanation of Ps 51 (WA 40/II:328): “The true subject of theology is the man who stands under the accusation of sin, and God, who justifies and saves the sinful man (…) Thus this is the essential theological knowing—that the man knows himself.” 16 Kater: 2013 defends the explicit focus on the person of Christ. In the puritan tradition (Jones: 2010, 202 – 214) the glory of Christ’s person was distinguished from his benefits. This aspect is presented in a slightly clearer and more detailed form in Beeke/Jones: 2012, 154 – 159. Samuel Rutherford: 2006, 72 f called the practice of loving Jesus because of his benefits, the love of a whore. 17 Maybe the fact that the three offices of Christ were a known concept has relativized the development of a Logos-Christology to a functional Christology (Van der Kooi: 2013, 243 f). 18 Compare Catechism of Geneva (1545, CO 6:19 f), Q&A 36.

The Promise of Unio Mystica

175

40 – 45) the reformer wrote clearly about the threefold office of Christ. Calvin went a step further by illustrating the soteriological meaning of Christ’s offices. The Heidelberg Catechism went a step further by applying the threefold office personally to the Christian. This is not found in the Smaller Catechism, but the Larger Catechism has a counterpart: Q 64: What does it mean to believe in Jesus Christ? A. It means that we have this comfort; that by him as our king we are given and ruled by the Holy Spirit and defended against all dangers; that by him as our high priest we are reconciled and brought to the Father, so that we can ask and expect all good things from him; and that by him as the true prophet we are illumined with the knowledge of the Father. Then indeed we are made kings with him, who have dominion with him over all creatures for eternity ; and priests, who already now offer ourselves and all that is ours as thank offerings to God; and prophets, who truly know and glorify God

The text of the Heidelberg Catechism is as follows: Q 32: But why art thou called a Christian? A. Because I am a member of Christ by faith, and thus am partaker of his anointing; that so I may confess his name, and present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to him: and also that with a free and good conscience I may fight against sin and Satan in this life and afterwards I reign with him eternally, over all creatures.

A comparison of the Smaller, Larger and Heidelberg Catechisms raises the following points. First, despite the fact that the threefold office was omitted from the Smaller Catechism, the theological committee which was responsible for the definite text of the Heidelberg Catechism, apparently did consider the notions about the threefold office for the Christian to be important. Next, a difference between the Larger and the Heidelberg Catechism is that the office names for the Christian are not explicitly mentioned in the Heidelberg Catechism. Third, in the context of this research the most important difference between the Larger and the Heidelberg Catechism is the theological argument which applies the threefold office to the believer. While preferring the Larger Catechism to the Smaller Catechism in relation to the threefold office for the Christian, the authors deemed it necessary to explain the theological framework to speak about the offices for the Christian. What was this theological framework? The theological paradigm to apply the offices of Christ to the believer is not a second blessing nor a special newtestamentic pneumatological charisma, but being “a member of Christ by faith,” and thus being a “partaker of his anointing.” Karl Barth (1960, 9) remarked on these expressions, commenting that they were the most important and guiding expressions in this catechism. Thus the theological argument is that the believer is a member of Christ and therefore a participant in the anointing of Christ. The background of this theological argument is the spiritual union with Christ, because of this union,

176

Willem van Vlastuin

the believer participates in Christ’s anointing with the Spirit. This implies that Christ cannot be isolated from the Christian and vice versa. It is remarkable that a systematic-theological argument brought the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism to the concept of the Christian’s partaking in Christ’s offices. It shows that the spiritual-theological concept of the spiritual union with Christ is a creative theological concept. It is conceivable that other Christological concepts could be made fruitful with a comparably creative theological use of the concept of the spiritual union.

2.3 The participation-character of unio mystica 43. That by virtue thereof, our old man is crucified, dead and buried with him; that so the corrupt inclinations of the flesh may no more reign in us; but that we may offer ourselves unto him a sacrifice of thanksgiving. 45. secondly, we are also by his power raised up to a new life; 49. secondly, that we have our flesh in heaven as a sure pledge that he, as the head, will also take up to himself, us, his members; thirdly, that he sends us his Spirit as an earnest, by whose power we “seek the things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God, and not things on earth.” 51. that by his Holy Spirit he pours out heavenly graces upon us his members; 57. that this my body, being raised by the power of Christ, shall be reunited with my soul, and made like unto the glorious body of Christ. 80. that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ. Another characteristic of the spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism we learn by comparing the structure of this catechism with the Westminster Larger Catechism. The question and answers 46 – 56 in the Westminster deal with the history of redemption in Christ, namely the humiliation and exaltation of Christ. HC 67 – 90 describe the application of Christ’s grace in effectual calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, repentance, assurance and glorification. This distinction indicates a division between the accomplishment, and the application, of salvation, the work of Christ and the work of the Spirit. It is clear from the Westminster that this division is not an absolute separation. HC 69 makes clear that these benefits are due to the union and communion with Christ. Speaking about the communion in glory with Christ, we read that believers already, in this life, enjoy the first-fruits of glory with Christ. At this point in the Larger Catechism it appears that the union of Christ with the believers functions in their daily lives. Without discussing the structure of the Westminster extensively it can be stated that the superficial knowledge of the structure of the Westminster supports an understanding of the functioning of the union with Christ in the Heidelberg Catechism. It is characteristic of the Heidelberg Catechism that the

The Promise of Unio Mystica

177

accomplishment and the application of redemption are not divided or separated, but intertwined. When the Heidelberg Catechism explains the content of faith according to the apostolic confession and, in that context, deals with the history of redemption, it appears that the union with Christ is constantly present. However the catechism of Heidelberg interprets the accomplishment of redemption as one which is fulfilled once for all occurrences, it does not function as a history of the past, which is then applied by the Spirit. In the Heidelberg Catechism the Spirit contemporizes the believer with Christ. In other words: because of the union with Christ, the believer participates in salvation history in Christ.19 This appears when the Heidelberg Catechism deals with the various aspects of the history of redemption. These aspects are not described in an objective way only ; the Heidelberg Catechism, in fact, clarifies that the believer is united to Christ in these aspects. This participation in the history of Christ can be illustrated by reference to several questions and answers. When it is asked in HC 43 which benefit the believer has further from the death of Christ, it appears that the old man has been crucified, and that he has died and is buried with Christ, so that sinful lusts no longer reign in the believer. It is clear that the dying of the old self is an effect of the union with Christ. The opposite is the case in HC 45. Explaining the meaning of Christ’s resurrection, the Heidelberg Catechism confesses that believers are quickened by the power of his resurrection. Although it is not made explicit, it is clear that the catechism is explaining the effect of the union with the risen Christ. The same structure of the union with Christ as the Head of the body appears in HC 57 when the Heidelberger reflects on the article of the resurrection; because of Christ’s resurrection on the one hand and the union with the risen Christ on the other, the body of the believer will participate in Christ’s resurrection. When the history of the ascension is explained in HC 49, the Heidelberg Catechism shows that Christ as the Head and the believers as the members are united. So, the ascension of Christ is a pledge for the glorification of the believer. The other aspect of the same reality is that Christ sends his Spirit in the believers by whose power they seek the things above. We see a similar point being made in HC 51 when the Heidelberger elaborates on the comfort of Christ’s glory. In the second part of this answer, Christ is confessed as a mighty protector against enemies, and in the first part it is made clear that the glorified Christ sends his Spirit through his members.

19 This prompted Korn: 1963, 100 to remark: “Den‘Habitus-Gedanken’ kennt der Heidelberger nicht (…) Die eschatologische Existenz (Christus lebt in mir) ist die Wirklichkeit des ‘Christus prasens,’ des gegenwärtigen Christus im Heiligen Geist.”

178

Willem van Vlastuin

This underlines again that the union with Christ is characterized by the bond with the Spirit. Although the treatment of the several aspects of salvation-history in the Heidelberg Catechism is covered in HC 35 – 52, there is another point in the Heidelberger when the participation of the believer in the history of Christ can be perceived, namely the well-known and occasionally notorious HC 80. Explaining the difference between the Lord’s Supper and the Roman Eucharist, the Heidelberger teaches that Christ has offered himself once on the cross and that the believer’s benefit from this once-for-all crucifixion is because of the ingrafting in Christ by the Spirit. These examples make clear that the various aspects of the history of redemption have a distinct and explicit spiritual meaning in the lives of believers. This fact makes it understandable how, in the tradition of the Heidelberg Catechism (Moerkerken: 1979, 33ff), the tendency to go one step further and order the spiritual way of the believer according to salvationhistory. This development has theological implications; one the one hand history becomes a model for the order of salvation and, on the other, that the spiritual way of the believer is made substantial in relation to the union with Christ and gets a distinct attention. To reword this last phenomenon (Van Vlastuin: 2012, 79 f): the union with Christ is no longer an interpretative framework for the spiritual way of the believer, but becomes a gateway to the spiritual life of the Christian with Christ. We have, therefore, seen three possible interpretations of the way in which the relationship between Christ and the Christian could be ordered. First, in the Westminster Larger Catechism, the history of redemption is understood as having been fulfilled and that, by the union with Christ, the Christian profits from all the riches in Christ which are seen as a complete unity and applied in the order of salvation. In this understanding of the relationship between Christ and the believer, the order of salvation in the believer’s life has a distinct focus, but is not ordered according to salvation-history. Second, the above-mentioned spiritual structure of the Christian life also implies that a distinct focus be put on the order of salvation with the difference that the narrative of the spiritual life is ordered according to the narrative of the history of Christ. This also means that the Christian life is recognizable in several steps and that its growth can be easily measured. Third, the framework of the Heidelberg Catechism lies right between these two concepts. Believers, according to the catechism of Heidelberg, participate in the history of Christ by being made contemporaneous with this history. This means that the history and the order of salvation are not separated from each other ; the fulfilled work of Christ does not belong to the past and the applicative work of the Spirit to the present. The Heidelberg Catechism understands the history of redemption in a much more dynamic way. Being united to Christ, the Christian participates in the history of redemption. This participation is not understood as a spiritual repetition of the history of

The Promise of Unio Mystica

179

redemption, because the dynamics of the Heidelberg Catechism imply that the believer again and again lives in communion with the several aspects of salvation-history. On the whole we can conclude that the Heidelberg Catechism understands the relationship between Christ and the Christian in a dynamic way, in such a way that the history of redemption remains relevant in the spiritual life of the believer because of the contemporization with this fulfilled history. 2.4 The effectiveness of the unio mystica 64. for it is impossible that those, who are implanted into Christ by a true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness. 70. and sanctified to be members of Christ, that so we may more and more die unto sin, and lead holy and unblamable lives. 75. that he feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, with his crucified body and shed blood. 76. What is it then to eat the crucified body, and drink the shed blood of Christ? (…) to become more and more united to his sacred body, by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in us; so that we, though Christ is in heaven and we on earth, are notwithstanding ”flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone” and that we live, and are governed forever by one spirit, as members of the same body are by one soul. 77. Where has Christ promised that he will as certainly feed and nourish believers with his body and bleed? 88. of the mortification of the old, and the quickening of the new man. We come to the fourth and last characteristic of the spiritual union in the Heidelberg Catechism, namely the effectiveness of the ingrafting in Christ. We saw already that participation in the history of redemption is effective. There are other points in this catechism where the effectiveness of the unio mystica cum Christo appears without it having an explicit relationship to salvationhistory. These are considered in this section. An important example of this effectiveness is to be seen in HC 64. The question asks whether the doctrine of grace does not make an individual careless and godless. In the answer it is written that it is impossible to be implanted into Christ without bringing forth fruits of thankfulness. The answer refers to the true vine of John 15 with a variation. The text of the Bible speaks of branches that bear fruit and branches that do not bear fruit. The catechism of Heidelberg makes another point, namely that the real spiritual union with Christ cannot remain fruitless. The background of this position is that a branch without fruit is a branch without a real spiritual union with Christ. The interpretative framework of the Heidelberg Catechism is that Christ guarantees the fruits in the lives of the real believer, because it is impossible that the union with Christ by the Spirit remains without effect. This approach

180

Willem van Vlastuin

implies that this catechism is Christ-centered: the subject of the believer is not substantialized, but Christ is the greater subject.20 This way of reasoning is also to be found in other questions and answers. It can be perceived in the treatment of the questions around baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The effectiveness of the union with Christ can be seen in HC 70. To be washed with the blood and the Spirit of Christ means to be sanctified as a member of Christ. The answer clarifies that this spiritual membership cannot be isolated from the old man of sin’s death and the renewal of the life of the believer. The same thought is to be found in HC 75 and 77 where we read that the souls of the believers are fed by Christ himself when they eat the bread of the Lord’s Supper and drink the wine.21 The catechism does not answer the question as to whether the bread in the Lord’s Supper is an analogy or an instrument, but there is no lack of clarity about the effective feeding of the soul. In HC 76 the union with Christ is confirmed by the metaphor of the marriage. Perhaps the strongest words about the union between Christ and the believers are used in this question and answer which deals with the strengthening through the Lord’s Supper. The Heidelberg Catechism uses the expression that believers are ‘flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone’ and that they are led by one Spirit, as members of the same body. The catechism teaches us that, by the use of the Lord’s Supper in faith, the union with Christ is intensified and that the effect of this increasing union is to be governed by the Holy Spirit. In the table there is also a reference to HC 88 about the mortification of the old, and the quickening of the new man. It is debatable whether this refers to the union with Christ, because it is not explicitly mentioned. I think it could be argued that this question and answer also belongs to the effectiveness of the union with Christ, because it is HC 43, in particular, which reveals that the union with Christ is effective for the crucifixion of the old man.22 So, it can be concluded that when HC 88 describes the mortification of the old and the quickening of the new man, the union with Christ is presupposed.

20 Compare also HC 86; Barth: 1960, 22; Korn: 1963, 97. 21 Marcel: 1963, 157 remarkes: “Brot und Wein sind nicht nur Darstellung Jesu Christi, sie sind auch zugleich Darreichung an uns. Wir empfangen Christus im Glauben ganz. Die Zeichen sind Pfänder und Siegel der unio mystica, der wirklichen Gegenwart des Herrn.” 22 Barth: 1960, 14 understand the resemblance between HC 45 and HC 90 (88).

The Promise of Unio Mystica

181

3. Conclusions In what way can the functioning of the unio mystica cum Christo in the Heidelberg Catechism contribute to a contemporary concept of the unio mystica? First, while the spiritual union with Christ is only implicitly referred to in this catechism, one can imagine that it would be necessary and useful to make the union with Christ explicit in an upgraded contemporary concept of a catechism, so that the implications of the spiritual union can be explored, because it is not unimaginable that the spirituality and the riches of the spiritual union could disappear if the union is not made explicit. Second, the personal character of the spiritual union with Christ in the Heidelberg Catechism reminds us today that Christology and soteriology are intertwined. This balanced two-unity restricts every soteriological concept that is only interested in private interests or interest in the new earth without paying any attention to the person of the Savior. The two-unity of the Heidelberg Catechism clarifies that the Christian life has also to be characterized by an interest in the person of Christ, because of the believer’s personal relationship with Christ and, more importantly, the personal relationship that Christ has with the believer. Within a soteriological framework this opens up the possibility of developing a theology and a spirituality of a mutual and a disinterested relationship between Christ and believers. The opposite is also true. The twin of Christology and soteriology restricts any mystical interest in Christ which is isolated from soteriology. Next, the research in this essay has revealed that the unio-concept also unites Christology and soteriology in another way. The example of the threefold office of Christ that is applied to the Christian because of the spiritual union with Christ shows that the consequences of Christology for soteriology are radicalized. Believers participate in the once-for-all definitive eschatological aspects of Christ’s person and work. The lack of the unioconcept however implies several times that it is not possible to speak in a definitive way about the position of the believer, so that the perspective of faith pales in relation to the perspective of hope, while the unio-concept guarantees a balance of faith in the fulfilled work of Christ on the one hand and hope in the yet-to-be fulfilled work of Christ on the other. The research has also revealed that the unio-concept is a dynamic concept which can be used to develop theological insights. Calvin (Institutes 3.15.5) also applies this unio-concept to the wisdom, purity, power and life of Christ. J. Todd Billings (2011) has undertaken another development of the unio-concept in applying it to reframe salvation, total depravity, communion with God, public justice and the ministry. One could also foresee spiritual union being a useful concept for developing a theology of spirituality when the relationship between Christ and the believer is observed. The union with Christ can also be

182

Willem van Vlastuin

used to revitalize John Owen’s Communion with God (1990) in which he develops communion with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the framework of the union with Christ. Another application can be found in J. Veenhof ’s Christus Medicus (2005, 241 – 277). Convinced of the finished character of Christ’s work, he concludes that believers participate in the resurrection of Christ’s body, so that the union with Christ must imply consequences for bodily health. Despite the criticism which one could level at this approach, it does illustrate a creative application of the unio-concept; an application which is not beyond the realms of imagination. Another area in which theological profit is possible is the area of ethics. Because of the relationship with Christ, believers participate in a life of a transcendent quality which has implications for economics and ecology, marriage and media, sex and social life. Fifth, because having a union with Christ is the way to participate in salvation-history, believers participate in a certain way in the glory of Christ. Christians are conscious of the tension between this life and the future life, but reflecting upon the union with Christ makes one conscious that there is also a tension between participation in the present glory of Christ and earthly life. The denial of this earth is well known for the dark tones in history about this denial, but exploring the unio-concept underlines the positive perspectives of the Christian alien ship. Christians do not deny this earth as such, nor do they deny the earth because of disappointments, but they deny this earth in comparison with the heavenly life in which they participate. This participation in the heavenly life of Christ does not imply a forgetting of this earth, however, but having a real perspective of this earth and a much sharper sensitivity for the structures of unrighteousness in this history. This means that the heavenly life of Christians does not make them ‘un-useful’ for human history, but much more useful. Sixth, union with Christ implies union with the crucified and risen Christ, which in turn implies the effect of mortification and quickening of the Christian. This balance between mortification and quickening can be used as a theological conscience for theologies of personal renewal in which mortification is stressed at the expense of quickening, and vice versa. It also offers a counterweight to theological concepts in which mortification and quickening are isolated from one another as if mortification belongs to this dispensation and quickening belongs to the eschatological future. Union with the complete Christ makes clear that the different aspects of Christ’s work cannot be separated, with all the consequences that that has for the Christian life. In short, revitalizing the union with Christ appears to be creative and fruitful for reformed theology and spirituality today.

The Promise of Unio Mystica

183

Bibliography Barth, K. (1960), Einführung in den Heidelberger Katechismus, Zürich: EZVVerlag. Beeke, Joel R./Jones, Mark (2012), A Puritan Theology. Doctrine for Life, Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books. Bierma, Lyle D. (1999), Law and Grace in Ursinus’ Doctrine of the Natural Covenant: a Reappraisal, in: Carl R. Trueman/R. Scott Clark (ed.), Protestant Scholasticism. Essays in Reassessment, Carlisle: Paternoster, 96 – 110. – (2005a), The Sources and Theological Orientation of the Heidelberg Catechism, in: Lyle D. Bierma (ed.), An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism. Sources, History, and Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 75 – 102. – (2005b), Introduction, in: Lyle D. Bierma (ed.), An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism. Sources, History, and Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 137 – 140. – (2005c), The Smaller Catechism, in: Lyle D. Bierma (ed.), An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism. Sources, History, and Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 141 – 162. – (2005d), The Larger Catechism, in: Lyle D. Bierma (ed.), An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism. Sources, History, and Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 163 – 223. Billings, J. Todd (2005), United to God through Christ: Assessing Calvin on the Question of Deification, in Harvard Theological Journal 98/3, 315 – 334. – (2008), Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ, Oxford: Oxford University Press. – (2011), Union with Christ. Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church, Grand Rapids: Baker. Boer, Erik A. de (2013), Christology and Christianity : The Theological Power of the Threefold Office in Lord’s Day 12, unpublished paper. Burger, Hans (2008), Being in Christ. A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective, Eugene: Wipf & Stock. Busch, Eberhard (1998), Der Freiheit zugetan. Christlicher Glaube haute—im Gespräch met dem Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Calvin, John (1863 – 1900), Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, 59 vols., edited by Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss, Corpus Reformatorum 29 – 87, Brunsvigae: Schwetschke. Canlis, Julie (2010), Calvin’s Ladder. A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Carpenter, Craig B. (2002), A Question of Union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification, in: Westminster Theological Journal 64, 363 – 386. Coenen, Lothar (1963), Gottes Bund und Erwählung, in: Lothar Coenen (ed.), Handbuch zum Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 128 – 134.

184

Willem van Vlastuin

Exalto, K. (no date), De enige troost. Inleiding tot de heidelbergse catechismus, Kampen: Kok. Fesko, John V. (2012), Beyond Calvin. Union with Christ and Justification in Early Modern Reformed Theology (1517 – 1700), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Graafland, C. (1994), Van Calvijn tot Comrie: Oorsprong en ontwikkeling van de leer van het verbond in het Gereformeerd Protestantisme, 4 vols., Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Heimbucher, Martin e.a. (ed.) (2012), Zugänge zum Heidelberger Katechismus, Geschichte, Themen, Unterricht, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Hollweg, Walter (1961), Neue Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Lehre des Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Horton, Michael (2007), Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ, Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Jones, Mark (2012), Why Heaven Kissed Earth. The Christology of the Puritan Reformed Orthodox theologian, Thomas Goodwin (1600 – 1680), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kater, Maarten J. (2013), De dynamiek in de status van Jezus Christus, in: Theologia Reformata 56/2, 119 – 135 Klaassen, M. (2013), In Christus rechtvaardig. Reformatorische perspectieven op rechtvaardiging en eenheid met Christus, Apeldoorn: Labarum Academic. Korn, William E. (1963), Die Lehre von Christi Person und Werk, in: Lothar Coenen (ed.), Handbuch zum Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 91 – 104. Kooi, Cornelis van der (2013), De Heilige Geest volgens de Heidelbergse Catechismus, in: A. Huijgen, J.V. Fesko, A. Siller (ed.), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok, 239 – 248. Latzel, Thorsten (2004), Theologische Grundzüge des Heidelberger Katechismus. Eine fundamentaltheologische Untersuchung seines Ansatzes zur Glaubenskommunikation, Marburg: Elwert Verlag. Lillback, Peter A. (2001), The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker. Lohse, Bernhard (1995), Luthers Theologie in ihrer historische Entwicklung und in ihrem systematischen Zusammenhang, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Luther, Martin, (1883 – 1929), Kritische Gesamtsausgabe [WA], Weimar : Böhlau. Marcel, Pierre Ch. (1963), Die Lehre von der Kirchen und den Sakramenten, in: Lothar Coenen (ed.), Handbuch zum Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 135 – 158. Melanchthon, Ph. (1521/1834), Loci Communes, in: C.G. Bretscheider/H.E. Bindsell, Corpus Reformatorum, Philippi Melanchthonis opera, quae supersunt omnia, vol. 21, Halle: C.A. Schwetschke.. Moerkerken, A. (1979), Genadeleven en genadeverbond, Texel: Stark. Owen, John (1990), The Works of John Owen, Vol, II, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust.

The Promise of Unio Mystica

185

Rutherford, Samuel (2006), Letters of Samuel Rutherford, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. Spijker, W. van ’t (2005), De theologie van de Heidelbergse Catechismus, in W. van ‘t Spijker (ed.), Het troostboek van de kerk. Over de Heidelbergse Catechismus, Houten: Den Hertog, 108 – 150. Tamburello, Dennis E. (1994), Union with Christ. John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Theissen, Gerd (2012), Glaubenssätze. Ein kritischer Katechismus, Gütersloh: Güterloher Verlagshaus. Ursinus, Zacharias (1612), Opera theologica, ed. Quirinus Reuter, Heidelberg: Lancellot. – (1670), Catechesis Religionis Christianae. In Ecclesiis & Scholis plerisque Reformatis usitata, Amstelodam: Joannem Janssonium. Veenhof, J. (2005), Vrij gereformeerd. Verzamelde artikelen bezorgd door Dirk van Keulen, Kees van der Kooi, Aad van Egmond en Martien Brinkman, Kampen: Kok. Verboom, W. (1996), De theologie van de Heidelbergse Catechismus. Twaalf thema’s: De context en de latere uitwerking, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Vlastuin, W. van (2012), Naar het hart van Jeruzalem. Over de betekenis van de geestelijke gemeenschap met Christus voor de prediking, Houten: Den Hertog. Walker, Frank H. (2010), Theological Sources of the Heidelberg Catechism, 2nd, Lakeland: PhD thesis at Whitefield Theological Seminary. Wenger, Timothy L. (2007), The new perspective on Calvin: responding to recent Calvin interpretation, in: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50/2, 311 – 328. Woolsey, Andrew A. (2012), Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought, Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books. Wright, N.T. (2009), Justification. God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, London: SPCK Publishing. Westerholm, Stephen (2004), Perspectives Old and New on Paul. The ‘Lutheran’ Paul and His Critics, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Eberhard Busch

Die Gebote des gnädigen Gottes nach dem Heidelberger Katechismus

1. „Dreifacher Gebrauch des Gesetzes“? Es ist eine weitverbreitete These, dass auch der Heidelberger Katechismus die Lehre von einem dreifachen „Gebrauch“ des Gesetzes vertrete: der äußere Gebrauch im öffentlich-gesellschaftlichen Leben (usus politicus), der innere Gebrauch zur Aufdeckung unseres Sünderseins (usus elenchthicus) und der anfangsweise erfolgende Gebrauch im Leben der Gläubigen (usus in renatis). Der letztere „Gebrauch“ war im lutherischen Lager umstritten. Er wurde vor allem von den von Philipp Melanchthon geprägten Theologen vertreten und wurde dann doch 1580 ins lutherische Bekenntnis übernommen: Kap. 6 der Solida Declaratio in der Konkordienformel. Das wurde in dem Sinn gutgeheißen, dass auch „Wiedergeborene“ der Vergebung bedürfen. Das Gleiche sei dann aber auch auf reformierter Seite vertreten worden, so hört man (Staedtke: 1965). Und im Blick auf den Heidelberger Katechismus wurde erklärt, dass die Trias seines Aufbaus „Gesetz, Erlösung, Dankbarkeit“ aus dem lutherischen Lager übernommen worden sei, eben im Sinn eines dreifachen Gebrauchs des Gesetzes (Weiß: 2004). Aber ist diese These wirklich überzeugend? Fragen wir zunächst, ob denn schon Calvin diese Lehre vertreten hat! Das wird gemeinhin vertreten, und zuweilen wird dann sogar der dritte Gebrauch des Gesetzes als spezifisch reformiertes Anliegen hervorgehoben. Tatsächlich hat Calvin in Institutio 2.7 diese Lehre vorgetragen. Freilich horcht man auf, wie er dann vom „dritten Gebrauch“ redet: er sei der vorrangige (praecipuus) Gebrauch; denn das Gesetz sei hier verstanden als das Werkzeug (organon), um zu lernen und zu erkennen, was der Wille Gottes ist (2.7.12). Hier ist auf einmal nicht mehr die Rede davon, welche Wirkung das Gesetz auf uns hat. Hier geht es darum, dass wir im Gesetz den „Willen Gottes“ erkennen (in eius intelligentia). Von da aus kann Calvin den entscheidenden Schritt vollziehen, den er in 2.8.15 vornimmt. Er spricht jetzt vom Dekalog. Martin Luther liest dessen Einleitung abgekürzt so: „Ich bin der Herr, dein Gott“, und das wohl darum, um den Text der Gebote als mit dem natürlichen Gesetz im menschlichen Gewissen kompatibel zu verstehen. Hingegen heißt es in Calvins Genfer wie dann auch im Heidelberger Katechismus getreu nach Ex 20,2: „Ich bin der Herr, dein Gott, der dich aus dem Land Ägypten, aus dem Sklavenhaus herausgeführt hat.“ Dieser vollständige Satz gibt der Einleitung eine andere Be-

Die Gebote des gnädigen Gottes nach dem Heidelberger Katechismus

187

deutung als die gekürzte Fassung. Durch den längeren Satz ist es klargestellt— zum einen: der Dekalog ist zuerst den Juden gegeben, und die Christenheit hat ihn recht eigentlich in der Verbundenheit mit ihnen zu hören. Schon darum ist es klar, dass das zweite Gebot, das Bilderverbot nicht in der Zählung der Gebote unterdrückt werden kann. Zum anderen: es leuchtet jetzt ein, dass der Dekalog dem Volk Israel im Zusammenhang seiner Befreiung aus der Sklaverei gegeben ist. Er unterscheidet sich also tiefgreifend von den unterdrückenden Vorschriften des Pharao. Calvin sagt dazu: Gottes Volk ist aus der elenden Knechtschaft dazu frei geworden, dass es nun seinen Befreier in freudiger Bereitschaft gehorsam verehre. […] Da müsste doch jeder von der Liebe zu diesem Gesetzgeber durchdrungen werden, wenn er hört, dass er dazu erwählt ist, seine Gebote zu halten, die Gebote des Gesetzgebers, […] durch dessen wunderbare Kraft er sich aus dem Rachen des Todes gerissen weiß (Institutio 2.8.15).

Wir befolgen Gottes Gebot demnach gern oder gar nicht. Wir würden uns sonst ja benehmen als solche, die erneut „im Rachen des Todes“ unter einem versklavenden Tyrannen leben. Es ist nicht verdammendes Gesetz, sondern hilfreich gute Wegweisung. Man nenne dieses Verständnis des Dekalogs nicht den „dritten Gebrauch des Gesetzes“, im Sinn seines uns anfangsweise gelingenden Gebrauchs! Die Bedeutung des Gesetzes ergibt sich nicht aus dem, was der Mensch äußerlich kann, innerlich nicht kann und dann dank Gottes Hilfe doch ein bisschen kann. Sie ergibt sich aus der Erkenntnis des Gottes Israels, so wie er in der Gabe seines Gesetzes den Menschen begegnet. Es geht in dem recht verstandenen Gebot Gottes also nicht um einen Gebrauch, den wir Menschen von ihm machen, sondern um den Sinn, in dem der biblisch bezeugte Gott es uns gibt. Wir haben es zu verstehen im Licht dessen, dass der gnädige, barmherzige Gott hier uns Menschen gebietet. In diesem Licht deckt es uns wohl auch auf, dass wir der Gnade Gottes bedürftig sind und dass wir sie nicht verdient haben. Denn wir sind immer auch Übertreter von Gottes Weisung. Aber die sagt uns das im Licht der Gnade Gottes. Wir können das Gesetz Gottes, speziell die zehn Gebote auch abgesehen von Gott benutzen und gebrauchen. Wir können auch dann etwas spüren von der guten, hilfreichen Bedeutung, die diese Gebote für uns Menschen haben. Sie können dann aber auch missverstanden und missbraucht werden. Darum muss zwischen dem, was Gott gebietet, und dem, was Menschen gebieten, unterschieden werden. Es muss zwischen beidem kein Gegensatz bestehen, aber beides ist keinesfalls identisch. Menschliche Gebote können dem von Gott Gebotenen entsprechen, aber können dem eventuell auch widersprechen. Act 5, 29: hat grundsätzliche Bedeutung: „Man muss Gott mehr gehorchen als den Menschen.“ Calvin sagt dazu: „Nur soweit haben wir Rücksicht auf die Vorgesetzten zu nehmen, als Gottes Oberherrschaft dadurch nicht verletzt wird.“ (CO 48:109) Und schon zu Act 4,19 bemerkt er : „Mögen Menschen einen Titel haben, welchen sie wollen, man darf sie nur insoweit hören, als sie uns nicht vom Gehorsam gegen Gott abbringen. Alles, was sie vortragen, muss

188

Eberhard Busch

nach der Regel des Wortes Gottes geprüft werden.“ (CO 48:87 f) Das alles sind Erkenntnisse, die sich mit der These vom zwei- oder dreifachen Gebrauch des Gesetzes schwerlich erfassen lassen. Und wir haben uns Calvins Sicht zu vergegenwärtigen, um besser zu verstehen, dass und inwiefern der Heidelberger Katechismus sich auch in dieser Perspektive äußert.

2. Das Verständnis von Gottes Gesetz im Heidelberger Katechismus Es ist hilfreich, von Calvin her den Katechismus in der Frage nach seinem Verständnis des Gesetzes zu betrachten. Denn er bewegt sich auf dessen Linie. So erstaunt es nicht, dass er den Dekalog erst in seinem dritten Teil, der von der „Dankbarkeit“ handelt, bespricht—und nicht schon im ersten Teil, der an sich (auch) vom Gesetz handelt. Nach Luthers Katechismus jedenfalls müsste doch hier schon vom Dekalog die Rede sein. Aber nach dem Heidelberger bekommen wir erst in Teil drei das rechte Verständnis des göttlichen Gesetzes nach dem Dekalog in den Blick. Die Dankbarkeit ist hervorgerufen durch die in Teil zwei besprochene „Erlösung“, die Gott allein uns bereitet hat. Die Dankbarkeit ist unsere auf die Erlösung antwortende Tat. Zur Abstattung solcher Dankbarkeit sind uns die Zehn Gebote an die Hand gegeben. Art. 86 gibt zunächst eine zusammenfassende Erklärung, um was es in der Dankbarkeit geht: es geht darin darum, „gute Werke“ zu tun. Der Text antwortet auf die Frage, warum wir denn „gute Werke“ tun sollen, obschon wir „ohne unser Verdienst“ durch Christus erlöst sind. Wohlgemerkt: der Begriff „gute Werke“ wird im Neuen Testament, auch von Paulus (vgl. Röm 2,7; 13,3; Eph 2,10), durchweg positiv verwendet. Dem entsprechend nennt der Katechismus „allein solche“ Werke gut, „die aus wahrem Glauben nach dem Gesetz Gottes ihm zur Ehre geschehen“ (Art. 91). Wie es in reformierten Bekenntnissen auch sonst oft üblich ist, Bibelstellen an den Rand des Textes zu schreiben, so verfährt auch dieser Katechismus. Die Bibelstellen sind wegleitend und laden die Leser ein, die Heilige Schrift selbst aufzuschlagen und vom Bekenntnistext her die Bibel zu lesen und zu verstehen. Art. 86 lässt sich eben von Schriftstellen erklären, was denn die „guten Werke“ sind, und dazu sind beispielsweise folgende Hinweise angegeben: 1 Kor 6,20 „Ihr seid teuer erkauft, so verherrlicht Gott mit eurem Leib.“ Röm 6,13: „Gebt eure Glieder nicht der Sünde zu Werkzeugen der Ungerechtigkeit hin, sondern gebt euch selbst Gott hin als solche, die aus Toten lebendig geworden sind.“ Röm 12,1 f und 1 Petr 2,5.9 – 12: Hingabe der Leiber als Gott wohlgefälliges Opfer. Mt7,17 f und Gal 5: Das Leben der Christen ist dazu da, Frucht zu bringen—nämlich V. 22: „Liebe, Freude, Friede, Langmütigkeit, Freundlichkeit, Gütigkeit, Treue, Sanftmut, Enthaltsamkeit.“ 1 Petr 3,1 f: Durch den Wandel der Frauen werden sie Andere hinzugewinnen. Und Röm

Die Gebote des gnädigen Gottes nach dem Heidelberger Katechismus

189

14,19: „Lasst uns nach dem trachten, was zum Frieden, und nach dem, was zur Erbauung untereinander dient.“ Der Text des Katechismus, der sich an diese Bibelstellen halten will, liest sich in Art. 68 nachgerade wie eine Auslegung von ihnen. In der Auffassung des Katechismus besagen sie: Dass Gott uns in Christus erlöst hat und durch seinen Heiligen Geist erneuert, das zielt eben darauf hin, dass wir uns dafür dankbar erweisen. Und zwar vollzieht sich das, wie hinzugesetzt wird, „mit unserem ganzen Leben.“ Das heißt sicher auch: in der Dauer unserer irdischleiblichen Existenz, in guten wie in dunklen Tagen. Das heißt aber auch, dass wir das mit Leib und Seele tun, unter unserem Einsatz der uns gegebenen Möglichkeiten und Fähigkeiten. Das wird sich in drei Dimensionen auswirken. Es wird in solcher tätigen Dankbarkeit zuerst Gott gepriesen—nämlich im Blick auf dessen erlösende Tat. Es werden dadurch wir selbst unseres Glaubens gewiss, und dadurch können wir „unsere Nächsten auch für Christus gewinnen.“ Man verstehe gerade diese drei Blickrichtungen als Auslegung der angegebenen Bibelstellen! Die sich aufopfernde Hingabe an Gott ist eben unser wirkliches Gotteslob. Man lese hierzu Art. 91: Gute Werke sind „allein solche, die aus wahrem Glauben nach dem Gesetz Gottes ihm zur Ehre geschehen, und nicht solche, die auf unser Gutdünken oder auf Menschengebote gegründet sind.“ Dann die Aussage in Mt 7: „an ihren Früchten werdet ihr sie erkennen“, sie wird so verstanden, dass wir „unseres Glaubens aus seinen Früchten gewiss werden.“ Man verstehe das besser nicht als Beleg für den Syllogismus practicus, bei dem man aus dem persönlichen moralischen Wohlverhalten oder gar aus seinem ökonomischen Erfolg auf sein eigenes Erwähltsein durch Gott schließt. Sondern man lese hierzu Art. 89 f, die das Absterben des alten und das Auferstehen des neuen Menschen so erläutern: „sich die Sünde von Herzen leid sein lassen“ und „herzliche Freude in Gott durch Christus haben und Lust und Liebe, nach dem Willen Gottes in allen guten Werken zu leben.“ Was schließlich die Bereitschaft angeht, „unseren Nächsten auch für Christus zu gewinnen“, so geht es hier nicht um einen peinlichen Missionierungsdrang. Man habe hier vielmehr im Ohr, was die angeführte Stelle Röm 14,19 und zuvor Gal 5,22 über das Trachten nach Frieden und über die vielfache Frucht des Geistes sagen (s. o.). Blicken wir nun von hier aus zurück auf den ersten Teil des Katechismus und schauen, ob sich hier unser bisheriges Verständnis bewährt! Dort ist die Rede „von des Menschen Elend.“ Und gleich die erste Frage (Art. 3) richtet sich darauf: „Woher erkennst du dein Elend? Antwort: aus dem Gesetz Gottes.“ Dies Gesetz treibt den Menschen also nicht zur Sünde, sondern es gibt sie zu erkennen. Auffallend, dass dabei jedoch nicht von der Sünde die Rede ist, sondern von dem Unheil, von dem Elend, das durch die Verkehrtheit des Menschen über ihn kommt. Noch verwunderlicher ist, dass der Mensch von seiner ihn „von Natur“ (Art. 5) verderbenden Verkehrtheit nichts weiß. Es muss ihm von Gott gesagt werden. Er erkennt sein Elend „aus dem Gesetz

190

Eberhard Busch

Gottes“ (Art. 3)—wohlgemerkt: nicht aus irgendeinem allgemeinen Gesetz, sondern aus dem von Gott gegebenen Gesetz. Aber das Überraschendste ist, dass das vom Gesetz Geforderte nach dem Katechismus uns von Christus gelehrt und beigebracht wird (Art. 4). Das bedeutet doch offenbar, dass die Lehre Christi und die Forderung des Gottesgesetzes sich nicht nur nicht gegenüberstehen, sondern untrennbar eng zusammenstehen. Das zeigt sich nun sogleich in dem, was „das Gesetz Gottes“ inhaltlich besagt. Man beachte hier, dass wie für Calvin, so auch für den Heidelberger Katechismus das Gesetz keine abstrakte Forderung ist, der blindlings zu gehorchen ist. Das hier gemeinte Gesetz ist Gesetz, nicht weil es Gesetz, sondern weil es Gesetz Gottes ist. Es ist Gesetz des Gottes, der sich nach dem Zeugnis der Heiligen Schrift Menschen bekannt gegeben und vorgestellt hat. Was wir in Art. 3ff „zu hören bekommen, das ist […] in den Trost einbezogen. Es ist nicht aus einer anderen fremden Quelle geschöpft, sondern aus der einen christlichen Wahrheit und darf darum nicht abstrakt entfaltet werden (Barth, 30). Und so ist Gottes Gesetz ein besonderes gegenüber allen Menschengesetzen (vgl. Art. 91). Dass es das Gesetz Gottes ist, zeigt sich eben darin, dass es einen bestimmten Inhalt hat. Es hat diesen Inhalt, wie ihn—und weil ihn— „Christus gelehrt“ hat, nach Mt 22,37 – 40, par. Gemäß seiner Lehre hat das Gesetz, aus dem wir unser „Elend erkennen“ und das Gott „von uns fordert“, zwei Seiten. Beide lassen sich nicht trennen, beide sind aber auch nicht zu vermischen; und sie lassen sich nicht auf die letztere Seite reduzieren, wie es Albrecht Ritschl (1886/1966), in Absicht auf Vermeidung mystischer Gedanken, unternommen hat: Die Liebe zu Gott habe nämlich „keinen Spielraum des Handelns außerhalb der Liebe gegen die Brüder“ (Unterricht § 6). Vielmehr „dies lehrt uns Christus hier : ,Du sollst den Herrn, deinen Gott, lieben von ganzem Herzen. […] Dies ist das höchste Gebot. Das andere aber ist dem gleich: Das andere aber ist dem gleich: Du sollst deinen Nächsten lieben wie dich selbst. In diesen beiden Geboten hängt das ganze Gesetz und die Propheten“ (Art. 4). Wir sehen also: In dem Katechismus ist das Gesetz, auch sofern es unsere Sünde zu erkennen gibt, kein anderes als das Gebot Jesu Christi. Der hat den Dekalog in dem doppelten Liebesgebot zusammengefasst, und er hat zugleich mit dem Verweis auf die Liebe zu Gott und zu unseren Nächsten den Sinn genannt, in dem der Dekalog in all den in ihm genannten Dimensionen zu praktisieren ist.

3. Zur Auslegung einzelner Gebote im Dekalog Es sei vor allem auf die Auslegung des ersten Gebots hingewiesen. Die Art ihrer Ausführung zeigt, dass es als das wichtigste der Gebote des Dekalogs angesehen ist, grundlegend für alle weiteren Gebote. Geradezu dreißig Bibelstellen

Die Gebote des gnädigen Gottes nach dem Heidelberger Katechismus

191

aus dem Alten und Neuen Testament am Rand der Erklärung unterstreichen die Bedeutung dieses Gebots in der Sicht des Katechismus. Es war wohl mit daran geschult, dass Karl Barth 1933 erklärte, die Christenheit habe jetzt in Sachen des ersten Gebots zu bekennen (1934, 6). In bemerkenswerter Radikalität wird das im reformatorischen „sola fide“ bekannte „allein“ hier ausgeweitet und vertieft durch die Erkenntnis des „wahren Gottes“, im Blick auf den ein—wohl nicht umsonst!—dreimaliges „solus“ hervorgehoben wird: „Ich soll ihm allein vertrauen“, „von ihm allein alles Gute erwarten“, und „ihn allein soll ich […] lieben, fürchten und ehren.“ Und dieses dreimalige „allein“ ist keine bloße theoretische Spielerei, sondern hat ihre Anwendung in der existentiellen Bereitschaft, die an die hugenottische Entschlossenheit erinnert, „dass ich eher alle seine Geschöpfe preisgebe, als im Geringsten gegen seine Willen handle.“ Das derart ernstgenommene erste Gebot richtet sich damit gegen „allen Götzendienst.“ Was ist damit gemeint? Das erläutert näher Art. 95—und unter Beschreibung dessen wird deutlich, dass es sich hier um etwas für jeden Christenmenschen unheimlich Naheliegendes handelt. Es geht dabei darum, dass an die Stelle „des einen wahren Gottes“ oder neben ihn ein Anderes rückt, das uns sogleich von ihm entfernt—ein von uns Ersonnenes oder in Besitz Genommenes, eine Größe, die uns so Eindruck macht, dass darauf „der Mensch sein Vertrauen setzt.“ Es ist eine Größe, die so überwältigend ist, dass der Mensch in der Bindung an sie gar nicht merkt, dass er damit „Götzendienst“ treibt und sich von dem „einen wahren Gott“ lossagt. Er treibt den Götzendienst so hingebungsvoll, dass er ihn für echte Religion ausgibt. Wenn man ihm dazu Vorhaltungen macht, wird er sich damit erklären, dass halt „viele Wege nach Rom führen“, sprich: viele Wege zu Gott, und dass man doch keinen absolut setzen kann. Das wird er solange sagen, bis ihm die Einsicht geschenkt wird, dass der „eine wahre Gott sich in seinem Wort offenbart hat“, das heißt, dass Gott sich allein auf dem Weg zeigt, den nicht wir zu Gott finden, sondern den Gott zu uns gegangen ist und immer wieder geht: „in seinem Wort“, das er ganz von sich aus zu uns gesprochen hat und spricht. Darin sieht der Katechismus dann auch die Pointe des zweiten Gebots, des Bilderverbots. Es richtet sich ja nicht an sich gegen Bilder, sondern es besagt, dass Gott „seine Christenheit nicht durch stumme Götzen, sondern durch die lebendige Predigt seines Wortes unterwiesen haben will“ (Art. 98). Was die fremden Gottheiten zu Götzen macht, ist, dass sie stumm sind. Sie leben davon, was man in sie von sich aus in sie hineinlegt und hineindeutet. Hingegen hängt die Gottheit Gottes darin, dass er von sich aus dem Menschen anspricht. Von hier aus können wir nun gut zum vierten, dem Feiertagsgebot hinüberblicken (Art. 4). Die Auslegung redet konkret von der Gottesdienstsfeier der „Gemeinde Gottes.“ Bemerkenswert ist, dass hier dieser Gottesdienst, wie bei Calvin (CStA 2, 239), drei Elemente aufweist: Verkündigung des Wortes Gottes samt Gebrauch der heiligen Sakramente, öffentliche Anrufung Gottes und die Spende für Bedürftige „in christlicher Nächstenliebe“

192

Eberhard Busch

(Art. 103). Die allsonntägliche Feier der Eucharistie hat sich freilich so wenig wie in Genf, so auch in Heidelberg durchgesetzt. Man kann übrigens ohne Mühe in jenen drei gottesdienstlichen Handlungen auch eine heimlichen Hinweis auf die drei Ämter sehen, die in der Gemeinde leitende Verantwortung tragen (vgl. Institutio 4.3.8 f): die Pastoren im prophetischen Amt, die Ältesten bei ihrem Dienst unter der Herrschaft Gottes im königlichen Amt und die Diakone bei der Bemühung um die Bedürftigen im priesterlichen Amt. Doch nun steht im Art. 103 noch ein interessanter zweiten Teil. Mit der Teilnahme am Gottesdienst ist das Feiertagsgebot noch nicht genug ernst genommen. Der Sonntag will gefeiert sein, indem ich überhaupt „an allen Tagen meines Lebens“ von meinen bösen Werken „feiere“, das heißt jetzt: indem ich sie ruhen lasse und von ihnen Abstand nehme. Wohlgemerkt, nicht von meinen Werken, sondern von meinen bösen Unternehmungen! Dem Ruhen von allen meinen Werken am Feiertag folgt ein Handeln an den übrigen Tagen, ein Wirken, in dem ich den bösen Werken widerstehe, und das tue ich vor allem damit, dass ich suche, Gutes und Rechtes zu tun. Die weiteren Gebote der zweiten Tafel weisen originell und aktuell auf Dimensionen solches Tuns hin—so, dass wir „rücksichtsvoll und verantwortungsbewusst“ mit unserem Nächsten umgehen (Art. 108), „Schaden, so viel uns möglich, von ihm abwenden, auch unseren Feinden Gutes tun“ (Art. 107); und Gott „verbietet auch allen Geiz und alle Verschwendung seiner Gaben“ (Art. 110)—das eine widerspricht unserer verkehrt geschlossenen und das andere unserer gefährlich geöffneten Hand. Wie aktuell! Kurz, wie Art. 111 das eindrucksvoll zusammenfasst: „Ich soll das Wohl meines Nächsten fördern, wo ich nur kann.“ Verstehen wir es recht, es geht um das Wohl dessen, der unwohl dran ist. Die klassische reformierte Ethik lehrt, statt, wie die Medien es uns weithin vormachen, zu „denen da oben“ aufzublicken, vielmehr immer zuerst uns mit „denen da unten“ zu verbinden. Derart ist es eine Korrektur des Bildes von Max Weber vom „Calvinismus“, wenn Art. 111 sagt, ich solle gewissenhaft arbeiten, „damit ich dem Bedürftigen in seiner Not helfen kann.“ Ein glücklicher Einfall ist in Art. 113 die Antwort auf die Frage, was Gott im zehnten Gebot von uns wolle („du sollst nicht begehren“)? Der Art. lässt sich hier leiten von Röm 7,7 f, wo es heißt: „Die Sünde lerne ich nur kennen durch das Gesetz. Von der Begierde wüsste ich nichts, wenn das Gesetz nicht sagte: ,Du sollst nicht begehren.’“ Der Katechismus versteht von da aus das zehnte Gebot als eine Zusammenfassung des ganzen Dekalogs—weit entfernt davon, darin nur einen Anhang zu wichtigeren Geboten zu sehen. Man kann hier auch an die unheimliche Geschichte denken, in der Gott die Wurzel der Sünde in der Begierde erblickt, die dann bei Kain in der Ermordung seines Bruders Abel nach außen ausbricht. Gott warnt Kain zuvor, diese Wurzel nach außen sich entfalten zu lassen: „Handelst du nicht recht, so lauert die Sünde vor der Tür und nach dir steht ihre Begierde“ (Gen 4,7). Heißt das nicht, dass die Begierde eine solche Macht ist, dass der von ihr besessene Mensch nun selbst in sich der Begierde Raum gibt. Der Katechismus versteht das zehnte Gebot derart: „Wir

Die Gebote des gnädigen Gottes nach dem Heidelberger Katechismus

193

sollen jederzeit von ganzem Herzen aller Sünde feind sein und Lust zu aller Gerechtigkeit haben.“ Kann denn ein Mensch dem, was sein Innerstes, sein Herz bestimmt, wirklich ganz und jederzeit feind sein? Es gibt nur eines, was sein Herz neu bestimmt, so dass er von Herzen aller Sünde feind ist—das Positive, dass er Lust zu aller Gerechtigkeit hat. Dieses Positive aber hat seinen Grund und seine Kraft darin—wie es gleich zu Anfang des dritten Teils des Katechismus heißt: dass wir „ganz ohne unser Verdienst aus Gnade durch Christus erlöst sind“ (Art. 86).

Literatur Calvin, Johannes (1559), Institutio Christianae Religionis in: CO = Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia (1863 – 1900), Braunschweig: Schwetschke. CStA 2 = E. Busch (ed.) (1997), Calvin Studienausgabe, Bd. 2, Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener. Barth, Karl (1934), Gottes Wille und unsere Wünsche, TEH 7, München: Kaiser. – (1948), Die christliche Lehre nach dem Heidelberger Katechismus, Zollikon–Zürich: EVZ. Busch, Eberhard (1998), Der Freiheit zugetan. Christlicher Glaube heute—im Gespräch mit dem Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen: Neukirchener. B]sser, Fritz (1963), Die Bedeutung des Gesetzes, in: Lothar Coenen (ed.), Handbuch zum Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 159 – 170 Ritschl, Albrecht (18862/1966), Unterricht in der christlichen Religion, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag. Staedtke, Joachim (1965), Entstehung und Bedeutung des Heidelberger Katechismus, in: Walter Herrenbrück/Udo Smid (ed.), Warum wirst du ein Christ genannt?, Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 11 – 23. Weiss, Ulrich (2004), Woher stammt die Trias Elend—Erlösung—Dankbarkeit im Heidelberger Katechismus? Ein Beitrag zu seinem theologiegeschichtlichen Ort, in: J. Marius J. Lange von Ravensway u. a. (Hg.), Reformierte Spuren, Emder Beiträge zum ref. Protestantismus 8, Wuppertal: Foedus, 183 – 214.

Gerard den Hertog

The Heidelberg Catechism and the Art of Dying and Living

1. Introduction The organisation committee included my lecture under the heading: “Central themes of the Heidelberg Catechism.” Is the ars moriendi (et vivendi) indeed a “central theme” in the Heidelberg Catechism? This may not be obvious at first sight, but I think they are right. Although the Heidelberg Catechism in itself is not an ars moriendi nor even presents the outlines of it, there is enough reason to investigate what this most familiar textbook of the Reformed Churches either deliberately or unintentionally contributes to the art of dying and living throughout the world. I sum up a few arguments. First of all: The Heidelberg Catechism wasn’t published as an isolated confession, but was originally embedded in a whole set of formularies which had the function of applying the Reformed faith to the everyday ecclesial and familial practice. The Church Order of the Pfalz of the year 1563, the same year in which the Heidelberg Catechism appeared, was composed around this textbook and therefore shows the way it was meant to function. In this Church Order a number of hints are given in respect to the pastoral guidance of people who are severely ill and dying. In general it recommends that the servant of the Church should in his pastoral care admonish the severely ill brother or sister to comfort him or herself with the articles of the Christian faith. It proceeds to add that this is easily done by HC’s of the Heidelberg Catechism and other related sayings. The start of the regarding paragraph, in which it is especially advised to read HC 1 in order to comfort the ill ones, is an almost literal quotation of HC 27: Erstlich / daß alle kranckheyten nicht ohne gefahr / sondern von der handt Gottes vnnd seiner vätterlichen vorsehung vns zugeschickt werden / auff daß wir vnsere sünden / als die vrsach alles vnsers elends erkennen / vnd vns für Gott demütigen. Diese vrsach der kranckheyt soll der Kirchendiener denen krancken / welche jhre sünd nicht recht fülen / wol für die augen halten / Wie auch dargegen jm fall der krancke mit schmertzen seines gewissens geengstiget ist / der kirchendiener dz verwundte gewissen nicht herter engstigen / sonder viel mehr die heilsame gnad Gottes jme fleißig einbilden soll / Darzu der Kirchendiener brauchen mag die erste frag des Catechismi / vnd dieselbige dem krancken mit angezogenen sprüchen auß der heiligen schrifft wol einbilden / das nemlich der arme krancke leib / wie er da ligt /

The Heidelberg Catechism and the Art of Dying and Living

195

sampt der seelen / des Herrn Christi eigen sey / vnd durch das blut Jesu Christi / von allen sünden erlößt vnd erkaufft / etc. Diß soll auch der Kirchendiener zu mehrerm trost durch alle Artickel des Christlichen glaubens den kranken erklären / vnnd jme anzeigen / wie er sich eines jeden Artickels für seine eigne Person in seiner kranckheyt / habe zutrösten / wie dann dasselb leichtlich auß dem Catechismo / vnnd darbey angezognen sprüchen zuthun ist (Niesel: 1947, 210).

From this perspective it is both striking and appropriate that a Dutch monograph which deals with the preparation for death in the late Middle Ages, the Reformation and the Reformed Theology in the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century, although it does not elaborate on Ursinus and his contribution to the art of dying, nevertheless ends with an emphatic and extended reference to the central importance of HC 1 of the Heidelberg Catechism for a proper ars moriendi (Exalto: 1979, 225). It certainly is significant that the very first question of the Heidelberg Catechism asks what the ‘only comfort is, both in life and death’. Death and life are dealt with from the very beginning, in their reciprocal relation. To put it even stronger : the art of dying is the art of living, and vice versa. Secondly : Ursinus did write a small ars moriendi—Erinnerung—in the very year the Heidelberg Catechism was published. In a sense we may call this pamphlet a first spin-off or “valorization” of his catechism. The title Erinnerung was derived from the ancient call “memento mori” and hinted at what one could expect to find in it. In 1563 Heidelberg was harassed by the bubonic plague and many people left the city, in order to avoid becoming stricken by this often fatal disease. Ursinus however remained at his post and wrote his Erinnerung in order to give some support to his fellow-citizens. Where the genus of ars moriendi generally shows a certain variety in form and content, Ursinus’ version is unique in its intro. There he states that he writes an admonition for those who remain behind to grant their passed brothers and sisters in the Lord a good Christian funeral. This brings up the question what is necessary for that purpose, and from that perspective Ursinus composes his ars moriendi. This however does not mean that the content of the Christian faith, especially what it says about life and death, plays a minor role in this small book, on the contrary. The short intro is but the prelude for an extensive elaboration on central elements of Christian faith, in which several Q&A’s of the Heidelberg Catechism easily can be recognized. Three Q&A’s—HC 60 by far most frequently, followed by HC 1 and 103—are even quoted more or less literally. A strong emphasis is put on the doctrine of sin and atonement, as present in the Q&A’s 7 till 18.1 Therefore the proper approach to Ursinus’ essay 1 Other Q&A’s, to which the Erinnerung more or less literally refers: 21, 32, 35, 36, 37, 42, 57, 70, 73, 75, 79, 116.

196

Gerard den Hertog

the more raises the question how he himself related his small book to the Catechism that was issued earlier that year. The third and last observation is that the Reformation came into existence in a historical context in which the genus of ars moriendi had become very popular. There is consensus on the fact that in the twelfth century Anselm of Canterbury was the first to write an ars moriendi (cf. Lambert: 1979, 26 f). In the following centuries, in which epidemic diseases, especially pestilence, repeatedly ravaged Europe, death was a constant threat for people of all ages. At the eve of the Reformation this situation had brought about a spiritual anxiety, especially the fear of God’s judgment. Several paintings of late medieval artists like Hieronymus Bosch and Hans Memling present a vivid and realistic picture of the torture and punishment in hell. These paintings of course had their Sitz im Leben in the society of those days and show the anxiety of the average people in Christian Europe of the fourteenth and fifteenth century. In this respect the Reformation marked and produced a radical change. It is not accidental that it all started in 1517 with Luther’s protest against the Church’s policy on indulgences, which served as a comfort for those who feared God’s judgment after death. The rediscovery of the Gospel of salvation by faith in the grace of Jesus Christ alone, consequently also produced a radical new approach to the ars moriendi. In this the content of Christian faith is interpreted and conceived as a comfort and as a whole new (way of) life in Christ, which is characterized by gratitude for God’s grace. It is not accidental that Luther himself wrote an ars moriendi, the Sermon, “Von der Bereitung zum Sterben” (1519), in order to elaborate what his new understanding of the Gospel implied for the view on death and how to deal with it (see Barth: 1989, 45 – 66; Reinis: 2007; Baars: 2012; Schottroff: 2012). These three observations permit us to say without restraint that the Heidelberg Catechism in itself is of significant importance for an ars moriendi and that there are good reasons to investigate where this tendency and character of comfort in both life and death becomes evident.

2. Ursinus’ Erinnerung It is most obvious to start with a quick glance on Ursinus’ Erinnerung, in order to see what his ars moriendi is like. I won’t go into detail but will only give a brief impression of its line of thought and content.2 With the results of this 2 For a summary of the Erinnerung see Selderhuis: 2014.

The Heidelberg Catechism and the Art of Dying and Living

197

short exploration I will be able to return to the Heidelberg Catechism and trace what it contributes to the art of dying and living. The fact that Ursinus opens his small explanation by making clear what purpose he had with it, namely to bury the dead in a good Christian way, is so to speak a concretization of the diaconal calling of the Christian, as mentioned in HC 103 and 111. However, such a practice is definitely also a cause for a “Christian and a necessary meditation on death as far as our salvation is concerned.” Ursinus elaborates on this meditation in four paragraphs: 1. 2. 3. 4.

In what danger do we all find ourselves? What is the cause of our death? How can we comfort ourselves and our beloved ones with regard to death? How should we prepare ourselves for a blissful dying?

Ursinus opens the elaboration of his own ars moriendi by stressing that God’s wrath is upon us because of our sins and that therefore nothing but the perfect satisfaction of our one and only Mediator Jesus Christ can pay for our sins. In the second paragraph, in which he deals with the question what is the cause of our death, he returns to this theme and underscores that God’s righteousness and love of the truth require that man should be condemned to eternal pain. There is only one way to escape this fate, namely that either we ourselves or someone else, do justice to God’s righteousness and fully pay for our sins. In the third paragraph Ursinus reproduces HC 60, but intertwines it with an accent from the Instruction for the Holy Supper (in the Church Order of the Pfalz). I quote (my translation): God promises to all who believe in Jesus Christ that He, only of mere grace, without any merit on their side, grants and imputes to them the perfect satisfaction of Christ in such a way, that all their sins and disobedience, as well as all weakness, evil inclinations and failures, will be covered to such an extent as if they themselves had fully paid for their sins and fulfilled the law of God.

In the following lines Ursinus explains the benefits of baptism and Holy Supper, in which we can again recognise several Q&A’s of the Heidelberg Catechism, with an accent on the forgiveness of our sins, thanks to the satisfaction Christ merited by His death on the cross. This short overview is sufficient to acquire an idea of what the central accent in Ursinus’ Erinnerung is: the doctrine of atonement and reconciliation. In this focus he goes along with Anselm, whose line of thought on to atonement and reconciliation he had copied largely in the Q&A’s 9 till 18 of the Heidelberg Catechism. In an ars moriendi this accent on sin and forgiveness is obvious and understandable, but the question remains what this contributes to the art of living? With this question in mind we now return to the Heidelberg Catechism and see how the art of dying and living are related to each other.

198

Gerard den Hertog

3. What is “To Live and Die Happily”? What is the specific art of dying and living according to the Heidelberg Catechism? I try to find an answer to this question by examining how three key-words act and function in the Heidelberg Catechism: (1) death, (2) life, and (3) resurrection. 3.1 Death When we trace the words “to die” and “death” in the Heidelberg Catechism it is striking that it speaks far more about “death” (Q&A’s 1, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45) than about “dying” (Q&A’s 2, 42). However, the Q&A’s 1 and 2 set the tone by mentioning living and dying in one breath and focussing on “living and dying happily” (HC 2). It therefore explicitly refers to the existential aspect of death and from this perspective elaborates on the fruits of the redemption in and through Jesus Christ. In the intro of this textbook Christian existence is therefore put in the main theme of the comfort and relief that the last word is not that we inevitably have to die, as a shared and unavoidable prospect for all people, but that we are assured of the gift of both eternal life and our radical renewal, to be willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto our Lord Jesus Christ. The approach to the discussion of the problem of our being doomed to die is pastoral and insofar also theological. When the Heidelberg Catechism uses the substantive “death,” it almost always refers to the death of Jesus Christ. His death is strictly spoken not my personal experience, since I wasn’t there when He died, and it was He and not I who died. But that is merely a shallow observation. More important is that the death of Christ concerns my salvation, extra nos; it is the locus of the atonement of our sins. From this perspective it is not about fear and anxiety ; the language of the Heidelberg Catechism is “objective,” “substantial” and to the point. That might be why in this context the substantive “death” is used— and not the verb “dying.” Therefore, when it is said in HC 39 that Christ “died the death” on the cross, the verb is not used in order to focus on Christ’s dying as an existential occurrence; the emphasis lies on the statement that he took on him the curse which lay upon mankind. It is true that in HC 42 the word “death” is once used in respect to us, but that is only in order to contrast our death to the vicarious death of Christ and to emphasize that our death is not an atonement for our sins. We can read the same accent on the first page of Ursinus’ Erinnerung. Further, in HC 44 the existential aspect of the suffering of Christ is brought up, but it emphatically does not refer to his death, but his being abandoned by God during the last dark hours of his life. It can easily be observed that in the Heidelberg Catechism the existential aspect of our death is closely linked with the biblical view of death as a punishment, which is not arbitrary, but appropriate. Then, when we reject

The Heidelberg Catechism and the Art of Dying and Living

199

eternal joy, what else do we choose than eternal death? Death can only have the shape of eternal punishment (Q&A’s 10, 11) and eternal damnation (Q&A’s 37, 52, 84), since God’s anger is eternal as well (HC 14). This enumeration of the respective Q&A’s shows how this aspect of eternity is emphasized in the Heidelberg Catechism. Death is by definition eternal. It is important to take this into account in the interpretation and evaluation of the Heidelberg Catechism, because here we face a significant difference with the contemporary spirit of the times, in which death is merely considered to be “the end of the story.” It would, however, be a misinterpretation if we think that “eternal” in the Heidelberg Catechism first and mainly refers to the future life. “Eternal” above all points to the seriousness of sin and to God’s punishment of it. Death is the sealing of our eternal damnation, if Jesus Christ as the true and eternal Son of God had not endured the burden of God’s wrath by the power of his Godhead in his human nature, and obtained and restored righteousness and life to us (HC 17). For the believers, however, death henceforth only has one part to play. For them it is no longer a payment for their sins, but merely a dying to their sins and an entrance into eternal life (HC 42). Death has therefore lost its sting. And that is not all, it even has to serve God, to serve life. There is a sense of humour in it: it’s like Haman, who endeavours to have Mordecai killed, in order to get rid of him forever (Esther 5 to 7). However, in the end it appears that all his work is in vain: Haman had gallows erected for Mordecai, but turned out to be hung on it himself. As a result of Christ’s death the death of the believer becomes in a comparable way the midwife of eternal life. A first, preliminary conclusion can be drawn: the Heidelberg Catechism conveys to us the fear of death, but not from an anthropological-existential perspective. The problem which it faces is that to those who are not “ingrafted into Christ by the Holy Spirit” (HC 80), death is their entrance into eternal punishment, since God’s anger over our sins is eternal as well. The only remedy is the atonement in the death of Jesus Christ as our substitute. With this stress on death as damnation and punishment, the Heidelberg Catechism nevertheless largely leaves out other biblical aspects of death, especially that of death as a serious life-threatening power, with in a sense, a personal character. The notion that we are surrounded by death in the midst of life, as Martin Luther put it, just like sin doesn’t manifest itself only occasionally, but is a determining and inescapable permanent reality, is as good as absent. According to Paul sin and death “reign” as kings (Romans 5,14.17.21; 6,12) in a fatal and indissoluble cooperation. Being dead therefore means: not to be able to live freely in the true sense of the word, not to be able to live.

200

Gerard den Hertog

3.2 Life Although “resurrection” should logically precede “new life” I first focus on the third keyword: “life.” We will examine whether the picture confirms that which we’ve seen so far or should else be rectified and receive new accents. We can state beforehand that it is not necessary to spend many words to prove that the theme of “life” is central in the Heidelberg Catechism. HC 1 argues that the Holy Spirit assures us of eternal life, and in HC 6 it is said that God created man good and after his own image, that is, in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness, to glorify and praise him.

In this HC the significance of man’s creation in the image of God is first of all explained in the terms of “righteousness and holiness,” as the basic condition for the knowledge of, the love to and the life with God. This observation is confirmed by the striking fact that it occurs no less than six times in the Heidelberg Catechism that “life” is directly linked to “righteousness” respectively “forgiveness of sins” as the fruit of God’s righteousness in the cross of Jesus Christ. HC 56 shows us how Ursinus views forgiveness of sins in close connection with righteousness: Q. What do you believe concerning “the forgiveness of sins”? A. I believe that God, because of Christ’s satisfaction, will no longer remember any of my sins or my sinful nature against which I need to struggle all my life. Rather, by grace God grants me the righteousness of Christ to free me forever from judgment.

Forgiveness of sins is a synonym of righteousness here. There appears an almost perfect parallellismus membrorum between the two phrases of this answer, since “because of Christ’s satisfaction” corresponds with “by grace” and “no longer remember any of my sins” goes in the same direction as “by grace God grants me the righteousness of Christ” together with the consequence that this “free[s] me forever from judgment.” We can therefore safely conclude that both concepts are interchangeable and that Ursinus used them promiscuously. I now briefly mention the six contexts, in which “righteousness” respectively “forgiveness of sins” appears in combination with “life.” Q. 17 Why must the mediator also be true God? A. So that the mediator, by the power of his divinity, might bear the weight of God’s wrath in his humanity and earn for us and restore to us righteousness and life. Q. 37 What do you understand by the word “suffered”? A. That during his whole life on earth, but especially at the end, Christ sustained in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race. This he did in

The Heidelberg Catechism and the Art of Dying and Living

201

order that, by his suffering as the only atoning sacrifice, he might deliver us, body and soul, from eternal condemnation, and gain for us God’s grace, righteousness, and eternal life. Q. 59 What good does it do you, however, to believe all this? A. In Christ I am righteous before God and heir to life everlasting. Q. 66 What are sacraments? A. Sacraments are visible, holy signs and seals. They were instituted by God so that by our use of them he might make us understand more clearly the promise of the gospel, and seal that promise. And this is God’s gospel promise: to grant us forgiveness of sins and eternal life by grace because of Christ’s one sacrifice accomplished on the cross. Q. 70 What does it mean to be washed with Christ’s blood and Spirit? A. To be washed with Christ’s blood means that God, by grace, has forgiven our sins because of Christ’s blood poured out for us in his sacrifice on the cross. To be washed with Christ’s Spirit means that the Holy Spirit has renewed and sanctified us to be members of Christ, so that more and more we become dead to sin and live holy and blameless lives. Q. 76 What does it mean to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink his pouredout blood? A. It means to accept with a believing heart the entire suffering and death of Christ and thereby to receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life. But it means more. Through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us, we are united more and more to Christ’s blessed body. And so, although he is in heaven and we are on earth, we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. And we forever live on and are governed by one Spirit, as the members of our body are by one soul.

In all these Q&A’s “life” is conceived and interpreted from the perspective of the “righteousness of Christ.” The “righteousness” of Christ is the presupposition of “life,” in this sense that his death “pays” for what God’s “justice requires, (namely) that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, also be punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting punishment of body and soul.” (HC 11) This result becomes even more convincing, when we take the central and crucial Q&A’s 1 and 21 into account. Q. 1 What is your only comfort in life and in death? A. That I am not my own, but belong—body and soul, in life and in death, to my faithful Saviour, Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil. He also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven; in fact, all things must work together for my salvation. Because I belong to him, Christ, by his Holy Spirit, assures me of eternal life and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.

202

Gerard den Hertog

Q. 21 What is true faith? A. True faith is not only a sure knowledge by which I hold as true all that God has revealed to us in Scripture; it is also a wholehearted trust, which the Holy Spirit creates in me by the gospel, that God has freely granted, not only to others but to me also, forgiveness of sins, eternal righteousness, and salvation.

These are gifts of sheer grace, granted solely by Christ’s merit. In both HC 1 and 21 we discover that the word “salvation” is twice connected with the word “eternal.” In the light of HC 58 “salvation” is interchangeable with “life everlasting.” Q. How does the article concerning “everlasting life” comfort you? Even as I already now experience in my heart the beginning of eternal joy, so after this life I will have perfect blessedness such as no eye has seen, no ear has heard, no human heart has ever imagined: a blessedness in which to praise God forever.

I think we now have a complete picture of the concept “life” in the Heidelberg Catechism, in which “life” is mainly conceived as the escape of the sentence of death or eternal damnation. Which raises the question: up to which extent is this strong link between “righteousness of Christ” and “life” determined by the tenet of reconciliation in the Heidelberg Catechism, in which “righteousness” is interpreted as the payment for our sins and is contrasted with “mercy”? Does a conception of God, in which “righteousness” and “mercy” are conceived to be mutual opposites, more or less hinder the elaboration of the positive aspect of eternal life, which—also according to the Heidelberg Catechism (HC 103)—begins in this life? There is a direct and substantial relationship between “righteousness” and “life,” which is in fact a good biblical notion, although “righteousness” in biblical idiom is not only and even not first of all vindication, but points to God’s liberating work and His bringing to justice. For “righteousness” does not merely mean escaping from condemnation, but opens God’s grace and goodness to us. In the Heidelberg Catechism, however, it is a gift of the satisfactory sacrifice of Christ, but not a recreating power (Q&A’s 21, 37, 45, 56, 59, 113, 115).

3.3 Resurrection Now the third and last keyword: resurrection. In HC 45, which deals with the resurrection of Christ, the first statement is that Christ by his very resurrection has “overcome death, so that he might make us share in the righteousness he obtained for us by his death.” Death is mentioned twice here and therefore receives extra emphasis. The line of thought is clear : the death of Christ is atonement for our sins and the significance and merit of his victory over death is that he can make us share in the “righteousness” which we, as lost sinners, lack. It confirms that the Heidelberg Catechism primarily regards and deals

The Heidelberg Catechism and the Art of Dying and Living

203

with the victory of death from the perspective that the believers share in the reconciliation that Christ effectuated. No attention is paid to the corporeal references of Christ’s death and resurrection and their implications for those who are incorporated in Him. Before pursuing our research on the meaning of resurrection in the Heidelberg Catechism we briefly return to what it says about the death of Jesus Christ. Q. 43 What further benefit do we receive from the sacrifice and death of Christ on the cross? A. That by virtue thereof, our old man is crucified, dead and buried with him; that so the corrupt inclinations of the flesh may no more reign in us; but that we may offer ourselves unto him a sacrifice of thanksgiving.

The metaphor “old man” is definitely an example of “corporal” language. However, it has no counterpart in the explanation of the “profits” of Christ’s resurrection. In Q 45 the second “profit” is that “we are also by his power raised up to a new life.” In Latin the word “excitare” is used. Although we have to take into account that Ursinus varies his terminology for pedagogical reasons, nevertheless the word “excitare” shows a lack of objective reference to the resurrection of Christ. Ursinus could have used the word “vivificatio” here as he did in HC 88, but he refrains from doing so, as well as in Q&A’s 69 till 74, which deal with baptism. In HC 70 he uses the word “renewal” (renovari) by the Holy Spirit, but this word also doesn’t immediately point to the resurrection of Christ, as the victory over death. Moreover, when the Heidelberg Catechism speaks about “vivificatio”—in the part which deals with penance, the Q&A’s 88 till 90—no reference is made to the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Q. 88 What is involved in genuine repentance or conversion? A. Two things: the dying-away of the old self, and the rising-to-life of the new. Q. 90 What is the rising-to-life of the new self ? A. Wholehearted joy in God through Christ and a love and delight to live according to the will of God by doing every kind of good work.

The absence of any reference to the cross and resurrection is even more remarkable, when we take into account that the first biblical reference in HC 88 is Romans 6:4ff and in HC 90 Romans 6:10 f. These are both references to the Chapter of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, in which the apostle deals with baptism and describes it as being incorporated and included in the death and resurrection of Christ. Isn’t it therefore curious that in these two clear and explicit references to the Chapter in the New Testament which explain the significance of baptism, any reference whatsoever to baptism itself is lacking? This becomes even more striking when we consider that the words „through Christ” in HC 90 are missing in the first edition of the Heidelberg Catechism,

204

Gerard den Hertog

which means that in the discussion on penance there originally was even no reference to Christ whatsoever. In the Heidelberg Catechism baptism is strictly viewed in connection with the payment for sin as well. The renewing power of the resurrection of Christ is absent, whereas according to HC 43 Christ’s death has actual virtue or power. Although the Heidelberg Catechism does acknowledge that there is renewing power in the resurrection of Christ, the references are but indirect and implicit. Like in the Q&A’s 3 till 18, the “righteousness” in the cross of Christ is only viewed from the perspective of atonement, as payment for our sins. And also “righteousness” does not appear as a virtue of God, in which we may rejoice because it shows His saving power. The same thing occurs in the passages about Christ’s resurrection. Is it possible, I wonder, that the strict and almost exclusive focus on the death of Jesus Christ from the perspective of God’s vindictive righteousness in HC 12 till 18 hindered Ursinus to work out the message of the renewing power of Christ’s resurrection?

4. Concluding Remarks Our first and most important conclusion can be that the Heidelberg Catechism not only contains elementary building stones for an ars moriendi but also elaborates an inspiring and strong ars vivendi. However, the combination of these two is hindered by the dominant concept of righteousness. The effect of the latter is that ars moriendi and ars vivendi are partly dealt with in different chapters and that the resurrection of the “new man” does not receive christological contours. Although the new life of the Christian in the Spirit is dealt with as a good and attractive way of life in the third section of the Heidelberg Catechism (on “Thankfulness”), it falls short in its participation in cross and resurrection of Christ. With the purpose of developing a good and appealing Christian art of dying and living, there is—especially in these days—a sense of urgency to correct the Heidelberg Catechism on this point by complementing it with genuine New Testament instruction on the notion that this new life is ingrained in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. When I make this plea, this is not a strange demand, because HC 1 of the Heidelberg Catechism clearly shows that it is its chief aim to recommend a comfort for both life and death.

The Heidelberg Catechism and the Art of Dying and Living

205

Bibliography Baars, Arie (2012), Pastoraat aan stervenden, lessen voor levenden. De visie van de vroege nadere reformatie op sterven en stervensbegeleiding, Documentatieblad Nadere Reformatie 36, 2 – 33. Barth, Hans-Martin (1989), Leben und sterben können. Brechungen der spätmittelalterlichen “ars moriendi” in der Theologie Martin Luthers, in: Harald Wagner (ed.), Ars moriendi. Erwägungen zur Kunst des Sterbens. Mit Beiträgen von HansMartin Barth, Hans Ebeling, Walter Falk und anderen, Quaestiones Disputatae 118, Freiburg: Herder, 45 – 66. Exalto, Klaas (1979), De dood ontmaskerd. De voorbereiding op de dood in de late middeleeuwen, in de reformatie en in de gereformeerde theologie in de 17e en begin 18e eeuw, Amsterdam: Bolland. Lambert, Wilfred George (1979), Ars moriendi I, TRE IV. Niesel, Wilhelm (ed.) (19473), Bekenntnisschriften und Kirchenordnungen der nach Gottes Wort reformierten Kirche, Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag. Reinis, Austra (2007), Reforming the Art of Dying. The Ars Moriendi in the German Reformation (1519 – 1528), (St Andrews Studies in Reformation History), Aldershot: Ashgate. Rolfes, Helmut (1989), Ars moriendi—eine Sterbekunst aus der Sorge um das ewige Heil, in: Harald Wagner (ed.), Ars moriendi. Erwägungen zur Kunst des Sterbens. Mit Beiträgen von Hans-Martin Barth, Hans Ebeling, Walter Falk und anderen, Quaestiones Disputatae 118, Freiburg: Herder. Schottroff, Luise (2012), Die Bereitung zum Sterben. Studien zu den frühen reformatorischen Sterbebüchern, (Refo500 Academic Studies Volume 5), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Selderhuis, Herman J. (2014), Stervenskunst uit Heidelberg, in: G.C. den Hertog/ H.R. Keurhorst/H.G.L. Peels (ed.), Triniteit en kerk. Bundel ter gelegenheid van het afscheid van prof.dr. A. Baars als hoogleraar aan de Theologische Universiteit Apeldoorn, Heerenveen: Groen, 242 – 253.

Arnold Huijgen

Practicing Gratitude The Spirituality of Prayer in the Heidelberg Catechism

1. Introduction 1.1 Spirituality In a sense, the theme of spirituality fits the Heidelberg Catechism nicely, while in another sense, it is rather alien to this document, the 450th anniversary of which is widely celebrated this year. For on the one hand, the Heidelberg Catechism breathes a distinct sort of spirituality, the specific tones of which can help to explain the lasting popularity of this little book even to this day. From the very beginning, the only comfort in life and death, to the final statement on the word ‘Amen’, a spirituality of trust in God characterizes this document. Still, the very idea of ‘spirituality’ reveals the immense historical distance between us and the Heidelberg Catechism. The closest contemporary synonyms available are the terms ‘soteriology’ or ‘pneumatology’. These terms seem more apt to express that humans need to be saved through the work of the Holy Spirit, whereas the term ‘spirituality’ in our time generally means that persons seek to fill in their highly individual needs for transcendence or more immanent forms of meditations. Spirituality stands in contrast to institutional religion; whereas the latter, according to a wide consensus in Western societies, is defined by authorities, fixed rules and behaviors—in short: a status quo—, spirituality is primarily perceived as a personal quest without doctrinal or traditional limits and authority claims (Taylor : 2007, 508). Needless to say that many modern and postmodern examples of spirituality would probably be as unrecognizable for Zacharias Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus as the Heidelberg Catechism may be unrecognizable to those engaged in postmodern spirituality stamped by authenticity. We should avoid caricatures of both the past and the present when it comes to our understanding of spirituality, for we may indeed learn lessons across historical, geographical and mental borders. Even more importantly, we must understand that the question of truth is at stake in all this. That was at least the apparent conviction of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, and it may ultimately be what drives the present quests for spirituality. Therefore, the present contribution is intended to be a distinctly theological one. The approach of this paper is not primarily historical, although the

Practicing Gratitude

207

historical context of the Heidelberg Catechism must be considered. Neither is my expertise that of the practical theologian, who is more versed in issues of spiritual practices. But in this contribution, the Heidelberg Catechism’s distinctly theological spirituality is our concern. Thus, we will focus on the implied spirituality in the section of the Heidelberg Catechism on prayer, where we shall find its distinct spirituality. As varied the quests for spirituality are, so are the definitions of ‘spirituality’. For our present purpose, I have not employed any systematic definition of the term. Suffice it to say that we are using the term loosely, but nonetheless in a way that fits the Heidelberg Catechism: by spirituality we mean inward and outward human attitudes and practices in communication with God. This paper will discuss several characterizations of the spirituality of prayer in the Heidelberg Catechism, after a short introduction on the theme of prayer in the catechism.

1.2 Prayer in the Heidelberg Catechism It is no coincidence that the section on the Lord’s Prayer is the Heidelberg Catechism’s final section. It serves as the climactic finale of the entire catechism, in which the major themes of the Heidelberg Catechism resound (Huijgen: 2013, 303 – 311). This is not only the case from a rhetorical point of view, in which the discussion of the Lord’s Prayer can be characterized as a peroratio, as Thorsten Latzel has observed (Latzel: 2004, 112, 128; cf. Lausberg 1973, § 434 f). The climactic function of the discussion of prayer also coheres with the specific method of the Heidelberg Catechism, which Otto Weber has called the “analytical method” (Weber : 1965, 25). This means that the Heidelberg Catechism is organized around the central theme of comfort, and that all parts are implicitly and explicitly connected to this central theme (Weber : 1965, 29). Thus, the discussion of any theme, whether it be the Law or the Lord’s Prayer, is shaped by its relation to the catechism’s central theme, and by its specific position vis-y-vis other themes. By contrast, Calvin’s Genevan Catechism (1545), is an instance of a catechism in which the various catechetical topics are not so much bound together by a central theme, but are more loosely related.1 But this does not yet explain why the section on prayer should become the finale of the entire piece, rather than any other theme. Awareness of the analytical method makes the question why prayer receives this place even more important, but it does not answer this question yet. To understand the climactic function of the discussion of prayer, it is useful to note that the 1 The comparison with Calvin’s Genevan Catechism is useful, since the Heidelberg Catechism was strongly influenced by this catechism, also in the section on prayer. See Neuser : 2009, 170; Goeters: 1963, 14.

208

Arnold Huijgen

Reformation brought about a theological landslide for the understanding of prayer (Locher : 1963, 171ff, 176; cf. Huijgen: 2013, 303 f). In earlier days, prayer was primarily reserved for the spiritual elite, and the common man could reap the benefits of the prayer of clergy and monks together, as he was part of the larger body of the Catholic Church. The Reformation, which may otherwise be understood as something like the penitential movements in the late Middle Ages (Locher : 1963, 173), brought about a fundamental revision of the theory and practice of prayer. The idea of the priesthood of all believers meant that the earlier hierarchical structure of religious life was replaced by a structure of personal responsibility before God. No longer could lay people rely on the prayers of deceased Saints, or of the body of the Catholic Church. The very distinction between laity and clergy was wiped out, or at least put into a completely new perspective. Moreover, prayer was no longer understood as meritorious, which was one of the reasons why Roman Catholic believers wished to tap into the holiness of the saints and of the Church. Rather, the Reformers’ understanding of justification meant that prayer was regarded as a response to God’s grace in Christ, as a part of sanctification, and not as a prerequisite for justification. So, no sanctification or any other form of meritorious preparation was needed before prayer, to cleanse oneself before appearing before the throne of God (Locher : 1963, 176). Rather, in prayer we appear as sinners to be justified by God’s grace, and prayer is the way by which humans are sanctified. This meant an entirely new understanding of prayer, which implied an enormous catechetical task to teach ordinary people to pray. Catechisms such as the Heidelberg Catechism contributed to this end. This explains, at least in part, the climactic function of the discussion of prayer in the Heidelberg Catechism: teaching people how to pray was of prime importance for the spiritual and catechetical tasks of the Reformation. Moreover, the Heidelberg Catechism can be read as a performative catechism, which teaches the pupil to believe step by step, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. From this perspective, it becomes even clearer why prayer serves as the climactic finale. Towards the end of the course—-for the Heidelberg Catechism is in a fact a course—the pupil practices what he or she has learned. There is no explanation of prayer in abstraction from the concrete practice of prayer.2 The dialogue between teacher and pupil opens up to become a trialogue with God (Ulrich: 2009, 438). For the answers the pupil provides are not a theory about prayer, but are themselves a prayer. Hence, the Heidelberg Catechism uses the first person plural and the second person singular in the section of prayer, which is unique in this catechism. Meanwhile, the questions almost vanish in sheer brevity and formality ; the teacher steps back to hear the pupil pray. There is no way to learn prayer without praying. The exposition of the Lord’s Prayer is nothing but the practice of prayer itself. 2 Cf. Locher : 1963, 173; Hollweg: 1961, 133; Verhey ; 1994, 31.

Practicing Gratitude

209

Ultimately, the teachings of the Heidelberg Catechism are intended to teach the pupil to pray, and to keep on learning the meaning of the ‘Amen.’

1.3 Towards the Spirituality of Prayer To the present author’s mind, three main traits characterize the spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism’s discussion of prayer: it is a spirituality of thankfulness, a spirituality of certainty, and a spirituality with a strong eschatological orientation. The remainder of this essay will explore these three characteristics, and then provide a concluding section on the Heidelberg Catechism’s place after 450 years.

2. A Spirituality of Thankfulness 2.1 Gratitude as receptivity The Heidelberg Catechism calls prayer “the most important part of […] thankfulness,” which is the third part in the division of the Heidelberg Catechism—the knowledge of our misery, of salvation, and of thankfulness or gratitude. The Heidelberg Catechism is obviously not original in the application of this threefold division; it has its roots not only in the Reformed, but also in the Lutheran tradition, even in Luther and Melanchthon, the latter of whom was the teacher of Ursinus (see Bierma: 2013, 31 – 39). Within Reformed circles, one would rather expect the third part of the division to be labelled “sanctification,” for “gratitude” could function as a synonym of “prayer,” and to the Reformed mind, not only prayer, but also the keeping of God’s Law, was a part of gratitude. Still, the Heidelberg Catechism subsumes both the questions and answers on the Decalogue and the Lord’s Prayer under the heading of thankfulness, of which prayer is the most important part. What is gratitude? Both the Catechism’s structure and content show that it relates to the central doctrine of justification. Gratitude is the response to God’s gracious gift in Jesus Christ. Therefore, gratitude in general and prayer in particular are focused on God Himself, rather than on other humans. The Heidelberg Catechism does not, as Calvin did in this context, discuss what humans do to us, either good or bad, and how we are to respond to that.3 The point is that humans stand before God as both sinners and justified. This means that all other roles that humans take in their lives, need to be put aside. Thus, we cannot hide behind role or title when we stand before God. All masks 3 Cf. Calvin, Cat. Gen. (1545), Q&A 235 – 238 (CO 6:85 f; OS 2:113 f).

210

Arnold Huijgen

must be removed, for prayer is not some performance, but rather a practice of grateful receptivity (cf. Barth: 1969, 107 f). This accent on thankfulness obviously stamps the religious life and spirituality. This spirituality evidently is receptive, responsive and reactive in nature. It is secondary to God’s grace, which evokes it. A spirituality of thankfulness is an answering spirituality. This means that it is not independent, but dependent. Although responsiveness can indeed be creative, this creativity remains dependent on God’s acts of grace, particularly God’s singular act of grace in justification. Gratitude does not primarily consist in humans acts of obedience to God’s commandments, although the Heidelberg Catechism stresses that it is impossible for those grafted into Christ through true faith not to produce fruits of gratitude, by keeping God’s commandments (HC 64). Thankfulness also does not primarily become apparent in human feelings and senses of the heart, although the feeling of the heart is highly important in the Heidelberg Catechism.4 But primary in gratitude is not our activity, but our receptivity that turns into reciprocity ; not what we give, but what we ask. The Lord’s Prayer is first of all a petitionary prayer (Barth: 1969, 106 f). The Heidelberg Catechism strongly accentuates this aspect, for whereas the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer obviously receives a place (HC 128), the Heidelberg Catechism focuses on the various petitions, which form the core of the catechism’s discussion of prayer. Note, for instance, how HC 118, which introduces and summarizes the Lord’s Prayer, stresses the petitionary nature of prayer: Q. What did God command us to pray for? A. Everything we need, spiritually and physically, as embraced in the prayer Christ our Lord himself taught us.

The same can be found in HC 116, in which prayer is described as: “asking God for these gifts and thanking God for them,” and in HC 120, in which calling God our Father means that He will not “refuse to give us what we ask in faith.” Evidently, the humans God wants to see praying, the humans God wants to see praying are those open to both petitioning Him and receiving from Him. This receptivity is not a transitional stage to be overcome in this life, but it is rather the lasting result of justification. When humans are justified by faith, and receive a new life, this new life is not characterized by partnership, let alone equality with God or independence from God, according to the Heidelberg Catechism. In other words, believers never get beyond the stage of justification to enter the realm of sanctification. Rather, sanctification, understood as gratitude, means that the believer continuously lives as both justified and sinner. The reverse side of this is that God’s being God is utterly respected: “we humble ourselves in God’s majestic presence” (HC 117). 4 See Q&A 1, 4, 6, 21, 58, 60, 65, 76, 90, 94, 102, 113, 117.

Practicing Gratitude

211

Prescribed though the petitions may be, thankfulness is per definition a matter of freedom and joyful spontaneity (Link: 2012, 468). This already shows in HC 1: Christ “makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.” For humans are allowed by God to pray and to offer their petitions to Him. This permission comes from the God who justifies and thus makes humans free. So, humility in prayer should not be misunderstood as a lack of freedom, nor does God’s commandment to pray (or the exact prescription of petitions) diminish the character of gratitude as freedom. Rather, as always, God’s commandment does not enslave humans, but intends their freedom (cf. Busch: 1998, 261 f). This, then, is the true life of freedom, according to the Heidelberg Catechism: to ask “for everything God has commanded us to ask for” (HC 117). We acknowledge our position as recipients, and acknowledge God as giver. For what do we have that we did not receive (1 Cor. 4:7)? This spiritual attitude frees us from the enslaving powers of the present world. 2.2 Problematic? So, here we find a typically Reformed spirituality, centering on grace, receptivity, and free and joyful spontaneity. It is receptive spontaneity.5 From the perspective of the present day, however, some stumbling blocks may bar us from practicing exactly this gratitude. First, there is a strand in popular Western culture, which stresses the importance of practicing gratitude. This may, as a short survey on the internet suggests, well be influenced by Eastern modes of thought, particularly various forms of Buddhism. It means accepting the situation as is, without judgment. The contrast with gratitude in the Heidelberg Catechism is obvious. The latter also depends on acceptance, but this is neither an acceptance of the status quo, nor a simple acceptance of oneself, but being accepted by God in justification. Besides, it does make a difference whether one practices humility before the One whom the person believes to be the living God, or whether one feels humbled by the very presence of reality. A reason why derivatives of Buddhist ideas dovetail more easily with the modern Western outlook than the Heidelberg Catechism does, may well be the major difference between an eschatological or a distinctly non-eschatological understanding of reality. Still, exactly this eschatological understanding is what faith is about. This brings us back to our starting point: without justification by faith through grace alone, prayer as thankfulness becomes an anomaly. Secondly, and more importantly, one may wonder whether the Heidelberg Catechism’s stress on prayer as petition and as receptivity need not be stretched to a more creative understanding of prayer. Does not the receptivity intended, when practiced, become true reciprocity and creativity? Does it not 5 Cf. Weber : 1962, 470 f (quoted by Latzel: 2004, 126 n. 253).

212

Arnold Huijgen

otherwise degenerate into mere passivism? In other words: does not the Heidelberg Catechism think too narrowly of prayer by stressing its distinctly prescribed character? As will be demonstrated in the next section, the exact prescribed character of prayer is a matter of certainty for the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism. Still, we would misunderstand the character of God’s commandments if we would think that these rule out any creativity. The phrase “Everything we need, spiritually and physically” (HC 118) is broad enough for a creative response, if only this creativity remains to be understood as responsive to God’s justifying grace. For thankfulness means: to remain within the sphere of God’s justifying grace, and no to move beyond that. Thirdly, the implied imagery of the Heidelberg Catechism’s discussion of prayer seems to be the sum total of petitions and gratitude of a subject or even vassal towards his monarch. This image is evidently remote from the Western democratic context, in an “Age of Authenticity” (Taylor 2007, 473 – 504), in which formal hierarchic structures seem obsolete and personal communication as equals has in many cases become the new standard. This question is: can we identify ourselves spiritually with the depiction of the situation of prayer the Heidelberg Catechism offers? To answer this question, it should first be noted that the Heidelberg Catechism discusses God’s majesty in prayer only after the exposition of God’s Fatherhood, in line with the Lord’s prayer itself. Not only does this hint at the idea that the position of a father in a sixteenth century family could be compared to that of a monarch, but it also shows that God’s reign is thought as fatherly, a majesty to be trusted. It is about “childlike reverence and trust” (HC 120). The flip side of the experienced distance between then and now, is the question whether our cultures and our spirituality could possibly benefit from a deeper sense of God’s majesty and transcendence. This coheres with the issue of certainty, to which we now turn.

3. A Spirituality of Certainty 3.1 Certainty of faith Contemporary forms of spirituality are not necessarily characterized by certainty of either personal salvation or of the existence of God, whatever definition of God is employed. Whether or not a question or longing for certainty underlies the various forms of spirituality, is a question beyond the scope of the present paper, although aspects of certainty in our context will shortly be addressed. But for the entire Reformation in general, and for the Heidelberg Catechism in particular, certainty was one of the central themes, if the not the central theme (Beintker : 1996, 56). This certainty means that the believer does not need to fear or to be

Practicing Gratitude

213

uncertain whether God will take pity on him, the sinner. Rather, faith in the crucified Jesus Christ takes away the uncertainty of salvation and any doubt, giving the believer rest in God’s grace alone. This is the intention of the Heidelberg Catechism’s opening HC on the only comfort in life and death: I am not my own, but I belong to my Savior Jesus Christ. As will be demonstrated below, this certainty is specifically important in the Heidelberg Catechism’s section on prayer. Discussion on the certainty of faith does tend to a paradox: the more this discussion is pursued, the more one is in danger of losing this very certainty. For there is no discussion without questions and even doubt, whereas the certainty of faith overcomes doubt, not by way of argumentation, but only by faith. Still, there are various forms of doubt, not every one of which is to be ruled out: faith overcomes the doubt concerning God, the lack of trust in God. Certainty of faith doet not overcome every kind of doubt. Rather, faith is trusting God in the face of temptations, certainty in the midst of highest uncertainties. Therefore, the certainty of faith is completely different from the security of one’s self — also known as pride — or utter despair because the person finds that there is absolutely nothing to hold on to. Surely, the certainty the Heidelberg Catechism aims at is the certainty of faith, the certainty of one’s salvation, not so much the certainty that God exists. The Heidelberg Catechism does not even address the question whether God exists, because this certainty is implied in the certainty of faith. Indeed, these are not two certainties, but one certainty in the world of the Heidelberg Catechism. There is no formal discussion about God and the knowledge of God. For, of what use would such a discussion be? Stated negatively : a discussion on the existence of God would not edify faith and does not teach us anything valuable in the existential situation the Heidelberg Catechism addresses. In other words, it adds nothing to the only comfort in life and death. Stated positively, the certainty of faith is the certainty that God exists, grounded in the experience of the certainty of salvation (Beintker : 1996, 57) As Eberhard Jüngel states: “wo ich an Gottes Gnade vorbei nach Gott fragen zu können meine, da beginnt auch schon das Ende der Frage nach Gott. [When I think that I can ask for God without God’s grace, then the end of the question for God is near.]” (Jüngel 1972, 75). In the Heidelberg Catechism, certainty of faith is crucial not only in the first HC, but also in the discussion of the sacraments and particularly in the section on prayer. In the discussion of the sacraments, the meaning of both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper is focused on certainty by means of parallel structures: “as surely as” the water washes away dirt of the body, “so certainly” His blood and Spirit wash away the impurity of my soul (HC 69), and “as surely as” I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken, “so surely” was His body offered for me (HC 75). The certainty of the physical sign implies the certainty of the signified grace. The sacraments are “signa certitudinis” (Beintker : 1996, 65). In the section on prayer, no such parallel structures are used, but while the

214

Arnold Huijgen

sacraments are outward signs of certainty, aimed at the inward (at the heart), prayer is an inward certainty that aims to be heard by the living God because it is expressed openly. It serves the afflicted believer no less than the sacraments do. On the one hand, the sacraments belong to the second part of the Heidelberg Catechism, the part on salvation, in which God’s activity is stressed, and the human confession through the sacraments is downplayed. On the other hand, prayer is the most important part of the third section of the Heidelberg Catechism, the part on gratitude, and focuses on human response to God, while staying utterly dependent on God’s grace. This prayer’s “firm foundation” is that, “even though we do not deserve it, [nevertheless (“doch”)] God will surely listen to our prayer because of Christ our Lord. That is what God promised us in his Word” (HC 117). So, a sense of unworthiness belongs to this spirituality of certainty. This does not lead to despair, however, because this unworthiness does not bar a person from access to God. Rather, the Heidelberg Catechism highlights God’s grace: He is willing to hear prayers of unworthy humans because of Jesus Christ. Here we see the justification of the ungodly function at the very heart of the Heidelberg Catechism’s discussion of prayer: the Heidelberg Catechism stresses God’s promise, and the word “nevertheless” (“doch” in the original German), corresponds with the “nevertheless” (“doch”) of HC 60 on justification: Even though my conscience accuses me of having grievously sinned against all God’s commandments, of never having kept any of them, and of still being inclined toward all evil, nevertheless (“doch”), without any merit of my own, out of sheer grace, God grants and credits to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never sinned nor been a sinner, and as if I had been as perfectly obedient as Christ was obedient for me.

Every prayer, also for daily bread and our various needs, is an exclamation of such a “nevertheless” of faith, appealing to God who justifies the unworthy (cf. Locher : 1963, 182). So, prayer is a daily exercise in thankfulness, an ongoing activity through which the believer finds the certainty of faith, time and again. Still, the character of this certainty needs to be explored. Why is the stress on our unworthiness so important, and what certainty remains in affliction, when the believer doubts even his best intentions? Two aspects need to be highlighted: first, the fact that prayer is commanded by God, and, second, the function of the final HC on the word “Amen.” 3.2 God’s command The Heidelberg Catechism stresses the fact that God has commanded us to pray. “Because prayer is the most important part of the thankfulness which God requires of us” (HC 116), and the first aspect which belongs to a prayer

Practicing Gratitude

215

which pleases God, is: “we must pray from the heart to no other than the one true God, revealed to us in his Word, asking for everything God has commanded us to ask for” (HC 117). The logical next question after these requirements of right prayer is therefore: “What did God command us to pray for?” (HC 118). This aspect is crucial for the Heidelberg Catechism’s spirituality of certainty : our prayers are grounded in God’s commandment. So, prayers are not primarily a personal expression of the heart, though they are heart-felt, but they are primarily responsive in nature: not only responsive to God’s justifying grace, as discussed above, but also responsive to God’s commandments. The Heidelberg Catechism is obviously not particularly interested in authentic forms of expressionism. Boldness and frankness in prayer are not the results of either joyful or sorrowful circumstances, nor do they originate in any feeling or sense of urgency, let alone that these would be based on any measure of sanctity the believer has reached. Rather, boldness stems from God’s commandment to pray. This stress exemplifies the actual Reformed renewal of prayer: there is no sanctification before one can pray ; rather, sanctification takes place through prayer. The Law does not help us to predispose ourselves for prayer, but it urges us to pray as we are. No predefined requirements need to be satisfied, for then no one would be qualified for prayer. Our unworthiness does not bar us from access to God, nor do we need to feel our unworthiness to a certain extent before we are welcome. Unworthy though we are, we are most welcome to pray, because of God’s commandment. This parallels the way the Heidelberg Catechism bases participation in the sacraments in what Christ “instituted” (HC 69) and “commanded” (HC 75). All these lines obviously converge in the justification of the ungodly. The Heidelberg Catechism connects the section on the Law and the section on prayer in such a way that the role of the Law becomes opposite to the role it had in Roman Catholic thought, at least from the Reformed perspective. Not only is it impossible to sanctify oneself in preparation for prayer, the Law even unveils the person’s unworthiness, which in turn leads to a more fervent prayer. Not the keeping of the Law leads to prayer, but the meagre results in keeping the Law lead to prayer. This is what the Heidelberg Catechism states in HC 114 f: no one can keep the commandments perfectly, but even the holiest have only a small beginning of this obedience. Therefore, “the longer we live the more we may come to know our sinfulness and the more eagerly look to Christ for forgiveness of sins and righteousness. […We] never stop praying to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, to be renewed more and more after God’s image.” Also in the exposition of the various petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, reference is being made to God’s commandments. Compare Question 120: “Why did Christ command us to call God ‘our Father’?” Another example is the explanation of the first petition, “Hallowed be your name,” which recalls the treatment of the third commandment (HC 99 f). The petition for the coming of

216

Arnold Huijgen

the Kingdom is explained as a prayer for submission to God’s rule and commandment (HC 123). In the case of the petition that God’s will be done, the relation to the commandments is obvious. The petition for our daily bread ends in “so help us to give up our trust in creatures and trust in you alone” (HC 125), a formulation that alludes to the exposition of the first commandment (HC 94). The forgiving of one’s neighbor in HC 126 reflects aspects of the exposition of the sixth and ninth commandments (HC 107, 112). The prayer “do not bring us to the time of trial” (HC 127) is related to the daily spiritual struggle, in which the exposition of the fourth commandment is reflected (HC 103). In short: God’s commandment resounds in the entire exposition of prayer (see Huijgen: 2013, 306ff).

3.3 Amen The explanation of the “Amen” in the final HC of the Heidelberg Catechism is the climax of the Heidelberg Catechism’s concern for certainty. In the discussion of the various petitions, it has become clear that the praying believer is under various temptations. Certainty is found in God’s solid promises, in the salvation extra nos. Now the word “Amen” means, once more, that “This shall truly and surely be! (war und gewiß)” (HC 129). “For God has much more certainly heard my prayer than I feel in my heart that I desire this of Him.”6 This can rightly count as the climax of certainty in the face of temptation, particularly when this explanation is compared to Ursinus’ earlier Smaller Catechism (Catechesis Minor).7 Q. 108 Why do you add the little word “Amen” to the end of the prayer? A. Because I know that God listens to my prayers just as surely as I really desire this.8

This explanation by Ursinus can only be assuring if one does not doubt the measure of one’s desires. If one does, it may not be such good news after all that God listens to my prayers by the measure of my desires. This could be an ongoing source of temptation, for there is reason to doubt one’s desires and intentions. The Heidelberg Catechism strikes a more pastoral tone: the measure in which God hears my prayers surpasses the desires of my heart. This is all the more important, since the Heidelberg Catechism had laid down some requirements of right prayer in HC 117: “First, we must pray from the heart to no other than the one true God.” Second, we must humble ourselves, and third, 6 This translation taken from: http://www.wts.edu/resources/creeds/heidelberg.html. 7 This is the main point of reference, for Calvin’s Genevan Catechism 1545 does not discuss the word “Amen.” 8 Translation from Bierma: 2005, 162. Cf. Ursinus’ Larger Catechism Q&A 263, ibid., 211.

Practicing Gratitude

217

we must rest on God’s promises. Although these requirements are not placed in a meritorious framework, the temptation, or self-accusation, can arise that we do no pray “from the heart” as we should. If believers cannot keep the commandments as they should, how then can they fully meet the requirements for prayer? Here, the pastoral notion that we are allowed to pray notwithstanding our unworthiness because of our imperfection in keeping God’s commandments, seems to turn against itself. But what had been said concerning the keeping of God’s commandments can be reiterated with respect to God’s commandment to pray : no one can do this perfectly, and the holiest only have a small beginning of this prayer (HC 114). So, not only does our unworthiness not hinder us from approaching God, but our lacking desires also do not hinder God from hearing our prayers. This pastoral sensitivity betrays the modern character of the Heidelberg Catechism. The authors reckon with a human self-understanding in which one’s desires can become suspect. But suspicion of one’s heart desires is no reason not to pray, nor is it a reason why God would refuse to listen to our petitions: it only serves as a further stimulus to prayer. Ultimately, the explanation of the little word “Amen” knots the end of the Heidelberg Catechism together with the beginning and the middle, the only comfort and the doctrine of justification. In utter dependence, unworthy humans receive what they did not deserve, only through Christ. Through Him, we learn “childlike reverence and trust” toward God (HC 120). Thus, the Christian life is basically an exercise in saying “Amen.” 3.4 Reflections The question is, whether this certainty that the Heidelberg Catechism highlights, can still be the certainty of the believer in the 21st century, for it leans heavily on human unworthiness, guilt, and sin. Obviously, in our present culture, this specific sense of guilt is not among the most prominent characteristics. Rather, the stress on living one’s life authentically implies that above all else, it is supremely wrong to live inauthentically, to live someone else’s life (cf. Taylor : 2007, 390). The very point where the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism found certainty, namely in God’s command and prescription, seems not understandable when prayer is primarily understood in expressionist and personalist terms. Why should our prayers be fixed and formalized by such prescriptions? It is therefore highly understandable that Wolfhart Pannenberg, for instance, has suggested to replace the language of guilt by the language of developing one’s identity by conquering various fake identities (cf. Pannenberg: 1986, 22). Even if one does not share Pannenberg’s suggestion, and may wish to speak up for the Heidelberg Catechism’s stress on guilt and unworthiness, the cultural rift between then and now is evident. Still, the fact that there is a certainty to be found that transcends our desires,

218

Arnold Huijgen

may offer a way out of the potentially narcissistic trap of the present stress on authenticity. Paradoxically, only the person’s self can assess whether he or she lives authentically, which often leads to existential uncertainty : who am I? To seek to answer this question without reckoning with God, leads to a situation of a person incurvatus in se (turned in on himself). The distinctly Christian answer is that human identity needs to be found in the Word of the God who justifies. This doctrine of justification also confronts us with our “need and misery” (HC 117). Though these words may sound outdated, they may serve to help us discover the Gospel anew. Present Western cultures in North-America, the United Kingdom and on the European continent (different as they may be), have become cultures of success, in which the division line between winners and losers becomes increasingly important in a variety of fields, not least in the academic society. While winners engage in ever newer competitions in which ever fewer winners remain, more and more losers only seem to have themselves to blame. This easily leads to a crisis of identity, for the losers who do blame themselves tend to lapse into various sorts of depressions, and those who do not blame themselves tend to lapse into various forms of victimhood. Because of the conviction that people need to claim their own chances and make the best of it, it is virtually unbearable to face that one’s failure is the responsibility of oneself and of oneself alone. Moreover, failure often cannot be reduced to mere personal responsibility ; often there are circumstances that can explain failure. Thus, one is not so much guilty as one is a victim. But it is very difficult to look our need and misery in the eye without denying our own share in their coming to pass. It may be even more difficult to regard one’s success not only as something one deserves, but as a gracious gift. While a sense of entitlement pervades our societies, it may not be so difficult to learn a certain sense of unworthiness anew. The doctrine of justification shows that human failure is not the end of everything: however enormous our unworthiness, God is willing to hear our petitions and grant us a new life. Without suggesting that a complete picture of the present society has been portrayed, there is more to the language of guilt and misery than it seems at first sight. Accepting and expressing our unworthiness, praying for God’s grace may well be more liberating than pursuing unlimited success. While success is temporary and uncertain, as the recent financial and economic crises have shown us, the doctrine of justification opens up a certainty beyond our unworthiness.

4. An Eschatologically Oriented Spirituality At first sight, the eschatological orientation of the Heidelberg Catechism is not as strong as it could be. The explanation of the petition “Your Kingdom come,”

Practicing Gratitude

219

for instance, includes God’s rule of us by His Word and Spirit, and the preservation of the church, until the fulness of His Kingdom comes. The coming of God’s Kingdom seems to be no more than a terminus ad quem of the present afflictions of both the believer and the Church. Where is the eschatological tension, or an awareness of the presence of the Kingdom, albeit in hidden forms?9 Is there no such thing as eschatological existence, particularly in prayer? This was present in HC 58 on eternal life, which not only aims at the life after this life, but also states that “I already now experience in my heart the beginning of eternal joy.” It was hinted at in the notion of the “small beginning” of the new obedience that even the holiest have in this life (HC 114). Both of these can be explained as expressions of a stronger sort of expectation. But in the section on prayer, in which one would expect an increase of this tension, the Heidelberg Catechism seems to have toned eschatological expectations down. These are not absent, but are relatively weak. There is the present in which God governs us by His Word and Spirit, and there will be a future, but the eschatological tension of the present because of the coming Kingdom seems to be lacking.10 Another question concerns the concreteness of prayer in the Heidelberg Catechism. From a modern perspective, the notions of human responsibility for the preservation of the world on the one hand, and a discussion of various eschatological and apocalyptical approaches on the other, are lacking. These remarks are evidently anachronistic and as such unfair. But the critique of lacking concreteness is not entirely unfair, for the contemporaneous Genevan Catechism shows more sensitivity for questions of social justice, discussing the differences between the rich and the poor when it comes to the daily bread.11 Admittedly, Calvin’s catechism is far more elaborate than the Heidelberg Catechism, but the question remains whether the Heidelberg Catechism is lacking the concreteness in the section of prayer, that it shows in the previous explanation of the Decalogue. Is the Decalogue more concrete than prayer? These critiques concerning lacking eschatological character and concreteness may well serve to indicate aspects of the specific eschatological orientation of the Heidelberg Catechism’s explanation of prayer. First, the Heidelberg Catechism focuses obviously not on concreteness, but on a strong bond between the twofold confessions of God as Father and God as King. In the inner ring structure of HC 121 and 128, reference is made to God’s Kingship, while the outer ring structure of HC 120 and 129 focuses on God’s Fatherhood (Latzel 2004, 128). The two are not only formally and structurally, but also substantially related: the attributes of God’s majesty not only underscore the 9 Compare the works of N.T. Wright for a renewed appreciation of eschatology and Kingdom, e. g. Wright: 1996; Wright 2013. 10 Such is the critique of Berkhof: 1963, 121 f. 11 Calvin, Cat. Gen. (1545), Q&A 279 (CO 6:100 f; OS 2:123 f).

220

Arnold Huijgen

distinction between God and humans, but also are the means to experience God’s nearness: Q 122. What does the first petition mean? A. “Hallowed be your name” means: Help us to truly know you, to honor, glorify, and praise you for all your works and for all that shines forth from them: your almighty power, wisdom, kindness, justice, mercy, and truth. And it means, Help us to direct all our living— what we think, say, and do—so that your name will never be blasphemed because of us but always honored and praised.

So, while the section on prayer may not be as concrete as the explanation of the Decalogue, it does serve to express the concrete nearness of God in His majesty, which is the concreteness at which much of the theology of the Reformation aimed.12 Exactly at this point, there are an eschatological tension and expectation, for God’s majestic rule not only functions at a distance, as it were, but comes intimately near by His Word and His Spirit, by which He draws us to Himself. We “never stop praying to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, to be renewed more and more after God’s image, until after this life we reach our goal: perfection” (HC 115). It should be kept in mind that the entire prayer is discussed under this header : the renewal after God’s image serves as the eschatological point to which we are drawn. The powers of the coming Kingdom do affect the present life. Once this has been noted, the formulation of HC 123 can be understood as eschatologically laden: “Rule us by your Word and Spirit in such a way that more and more we submit to you.” The duplicity of Word and Spirit characterizes the eschatological quality of prayer. The hope that originates from the Word and moves forward by the Word, gives the final questions and answers of the Heidelberg Catechism their distinct eschatological dynamic.13 Moreover, the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, sent as “a corresponding pledge. By the Spirit’s power we seek not earthly things, but the things above, where Christ is, sitting at God’s right hand” (HC 49). This kind of prayer does not satisfy itself with only the daily needs in the present world or to live one’s life in the face of a variety of sorrows. Rather it does not rest before it reaches the final goal, and it keeps on pressing forward, believing God’s Word and awaiting the fulfillment of His promises. This prayer is truly eschatologically oriented (cf. Link: 2012, 479). All in all, the eschatological dimension of prayer can be characterized in the terms Cornelis van der Kooi has used to typify the Heidelberg Catechism’s pneumatology : there are many hidden connecting points (Van der Kooi: 2013, 247), that can serve to lay out a fully eschatological understanding of prayer. 12 Cf. Baars: 2004, who concludes that Calvin’s doctrine of the Trinity is characterized by the tension between God’s exaltedness and His nearness. 13 Contra Zimmerman: 1994, 190 ff.

Practicing Gratitude

221

The eschatological orientation of prayer in the Heidelberg Catechism has two essential characteristics: the eschatological conflict and the promise of God. First, the martial imagery used in the explanation of various petitions strikes the eye of the modern reader. “Your Kingdom come” means, among other things, “Destroy the devil’s work; destroy every force which revolts against you, and every conspiracy against your holy Word.” (HC 123). This reaches a climax in HC 127: Q. 127 What does the sixth petition mean? A. “And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one” means: By ourselves we are too weak to hold our own even for a moment. And our sworn enemies— the devil, the world, and our own flesh— never stop attacking us. And so, Lord, uphold us and make us strong with the strength of your Holy Spirit, so that we may not go down to defeat in this spiritual struggle, but may firmly resist our enemies until we finally win the complete victory.

This language pictures a tough spiritual conflict. The Heidelberg Catechism does not offer an apocalyptic theory, but focuses on the war within believers, and the spiritual war going on in the present world. The Heidelberg Catechism’s discussion of prayer mentions both angels (HC 124) and the devil (HC 127), while not engaging in any form of angelology, but resorts to the imagery of a spiritual war that centers on enmity against the Church and individual believers, in short: against God’s holy Word (HC 123). Obviously, this takes enmity against the Bible into view, probably also the Roman Catholic resistance against the Bible in the vernacular. But it is not limited to the Bible alone. God’s Word is the Gospel itself, the promise of the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ. The Gospel is at stake. In the spiritual war, not only the devil rages, but also the world and our own flesh (HC 127). The Christian life is pictured as resistance against these enemies through the Holy Spirit. But this picture of the spiritual war never becomes spiritualist; the inward struggle is no abstraction of the concrete life.14 Rather, this spiritual war is waged within the concreteness of everyday life. We keep on praying for our daily bread. The second characteristic of the Heidelberg Catechism’s eschatology is that it leans heavily on the character of God’s promise. The final confession of the “Amen” gives the entire prayer its eschatological dynamic: through faith, the believer reaches higher than he actually could otherwise. It is God’s promise that He hears our prayers, not only notwithstanding our unworthiness, but also more than we desire to be heard. This is what the Word “Amen” expresses: the entire time of our lives is being sanctified to become the realm within which God renews us. This is an ongoing work of God’s Spirit, by which we need the Spirit anew and ever more amid the various temptations, until the 14 Contra Zimmerman: 1994, 196.

222

Arnold Huijgen

fulness of the Kingdom comes. Ultimately, the Christian life is nothing more and nothing less than learning to say “Amen” time and again against our spiritual enemies without and within.

5. Conclusion After 450 years, the Heidelberg Catechism’s approach to prayer stands out as evidently far different from mainstream spirituality, either Christian or nonChristian. Anti-authoritarian strands in Western cultures and the shift from organized forms of religion to individual, spiritual quests in broader circles make the Heidelberg Catechism’s prescription and explanation of the Lord’s Prayer seem obsolete. A revival of the popularity of the Heidelberg Catechism in general and of the section on prayer in particular is therefore not foreseen anywhere in the near future. This could be a source of regret, because of the rich theological content of the Catechism, although there are some obviously dated expressions in it. But there is no need to resort either to nostalgia or a simple restatement of the truths of the Heidelberg Catechism. The section on prayer in the Heidelberg Catechism can teach us to seek our comfort not in the past or the present, but in the expectation of God’s Kingdom. While “a selfsufficient immanent order”—as Charles Taylor calls it (Taylor 2007, 543)—is dominant in our culture, we may or may not long for earlier days in which a sense of transcendence was the default option in the history of ideas, though this will not bring the earlier frame back. Rather, practicing the eschatological orientation that is also found in the Heidelberg Catechism’s discussion of prayer, not only brings us closer to the actual riches of the Heidelberg Catechism than any sort of nostalgia does, but it also helps us in our present time to open up the closed structures of modern world views. Prayer is resistance against a closed world view. Besides, one needs not to think strictly in authoritarian ways to accept God’s authority, even His commandment to pray. For, as the Heidelberg Catechism masterfully highlights: God’s government as a King is thoroughly stamped by His Fatherhood.15 Accepting His authority over our lives is no blind obedience to orders, but it means entrusting our lives and ourselves to Him who can be trusted. Our minds, our feelings, our sense of authenticity, even the desire of our hearts can mislead us, but God’s promise will not. This is the very character of faith, to trust that God will hear us more than we wish. If our cultures need one thing in our time, it is to learn once more to spell the word “Amen.” 15 This is an accent one finds particularly in Calvin, for instance in Comm. Num. 2:1: “liberaliter, et paterno magis quam regio more regere volebat” (CO 25:150). See Huijgen: 2011, 185 – 190.

Practicing Gratitude

223

Bibliography Baars, Arie (2004), Om Gods verhevenheid en Zijn nabijheid: De Drie-eenheid bij Calvijn, Kampen: Kok. Barth, Karl (1969), Die Kirchliche Dogmatik III/4, Zürich: EVZ. Beintker, Michael (1996), Glaubensgewißheit nach dem Heidelberger Katechismus, in: Michael Beintker (ed.), Certitudo Salutis. Die Existenz des Glaubens zwischen Gewissheit und Zweifel. Symposion aus Anlass des 75. Geburtstages von Hans Helmut Eßer, Studien zur systematischen Theologie und Ethik 9. Münster : LIT, 55 – 69. Berkhof, Hendrikus (1963), The Catechism as Expression of Our Faith, in: Bard Thompson e.a. (ed.), Essays on the Heidelberg Catechism, Philadelphia: United Church Press, 93 – 122. Bierma, Lyle D. e.a. (2005), An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism. Sources, History, and Theology. With a Translation of the Smaller and Larger Catechisms of Zacharias Ursinus, Grand Rapids: Baker. Bierma, Lyle D. (2013), De oorsprong van de drievoudige structuur van de Heidelbergse Catechismus: een andere zienswijze, in: Karla Apperloo-Boersma/ Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), God, Heidelberg en Oranje. 450 jaar Heidelbergse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok, 31 – 39. Busch, Eberhard (1998), Der Freiheit zugetan: Christlicher Glaube heute—im Gespräch mit dem Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Calvin, John (1863 – 1900), Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, 59 vols., edited by Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss, Corpus Reformatorum 29 – 87, Brunsvigae: Schwetschke. – (1926 – 1936), Ioannis Calvini Opera Selecta, 5 vols., edited by Petrus Barth and Guilelmus Niesel, Monachii in Aedibus: Kaiser. Christian Reformed Church in North America (2013), The Heidelberg Catechism: 450th Anniversary Edition. Grand Rapids: Faith Alive Christian Resources. Goeters, J.F. Gerhard (1963), Entstehung und Frühgeschichte des Katechismus, in: Lothar Coenen (ed.), Handbuch zum Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen: Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 3 – 23. Hollweg, Walter (1961), Neue Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Lehre des Heidelberger Katechismus, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche 13, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag. Huijgen, Arnold (2011), Divine Accommodation in John Calvin’s Theology : Analysis and Assessment, Reformed Historical Theology 16, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. – (2013), Het gebed in de Heidelbergse Catechismus, in: Arnold Huijgen e.a. (ed.), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok, 303 – 311. J]ngel, Eberhard (1972), Gottes umstrittene Gerechtigkeit. Eine reformatorische Besinnung zum paulinischen Begriff diakosun{ theou, in: Unterwegs zur Sache.

224

Arnold Huijgen

Theologische Bemerkungen, Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie 61, München: Kaiser, 60 – 79. Kooi, Cornelis van der (2013), De Heilige Geest volgens de Heidelbergse Catechismus, in: Arnold Huijgen e.a. (ed.), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok, 239 – 248. Latzel, Thorsten (2004), Theologische Grundzüge des Heidelberger Katechismus. Eine fundamentaltheologische Untersuchung seines Ansatzes zur Glaubenskommunikation, Marburger Theologische Studien 83, Marburg: Elwert. Lausberg, Heinrich (1973), Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft, 2 vols., 2nd. edition, München: Hueber. Link, Christian (2012), Trost und Gewissheit. Beobachtungen zur Theologie des Heidelberger Katechismus, Evangelische Theologie 72, 467 – 480. Locher, Gottfried W. (1963), ‘Das Vornehmste Stück der Dankbarkeit.’ Das Gebet im Sinne der Reformation nach dem Heidelberger Katechismus, in: Lothar Coenen (ed.), Handbuch zum Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen: Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 171 – 185. Neuser, Wilhelm H. (2009), Heidelberger Katechismus von 1563, in: Andreas Mühling and Peter Opitz (ed.), Reformierte Bekenntnisschriften Bd. 2/2. 1562 – 1569, Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 167 – 212. Pannenberg, Wolfhart (1986), Christliche Spiritualität: Theologische Aspekte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Taylor, Charles (1989), Sources of the Self. The Making of Modern Identity, Cambridge MA: Harvard UP. – (2007), A Secular Age, Cambridge MA: Belknap Press. Ulrich, Hans G. (2009), Ethik lernen mit dem Vaterunser. Das Gebet als paradigmatische Praxis einer Lebensform, in: Johannes von Lüpke and Edgar Thaidigsmann, Denkraum Katechismus. Festgabe für Oswald Bayer zum 70. Geburtstag, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 435 – 448. Verhey, Allen D. (1994), Prayer and the Moral Life According to the Heidelberg Catechism, Reformed Review 48/1, 26 – 41. Weber, Otto (1962), Der Heidelberger Katechismus und die Predigt, Reformierte Kirchenzeitung 103, 468 – 472. – (1965), Analytische Theologie. Zum geschichtlichen Standort des Heidelberger Katechismus, in: Walter Herrenbrück and Udo Smidt (ed.), Warum wirst du ein Christ genannt? Vorträge und Aufsätze zum Heidelberger Katechismus im Jubiläumsjahr, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 24 – 39. Wright, N.T. (1996), Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God vol. 2, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. – (2013), Paul and the Faithfulness of God, London: SPCK. Zimmerman, Gunter (1994), Der Heidelberger Katechismus als Dokument des subjektiven Spiritualismus, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 85, 180 – 204.

Pieter Veerman

Prayer and the Law of God

1. Introduction A remarkable part of the spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism concerns the connection between law and prayer (Huijgen: 2013, 306 – 308). How Lutheran is the use of the law in the Heidelberg Catechism? While much research focuses on the different use of the law by Lutherans and Calvinists, I argue that in the section on prayer Lutheran and Calvinist catechisms share a spirituality regarding the use of law. Based on my research on the connection between prayer and the law in 16th century catechisms from Luthers catechisms up to and including the Heidelberg Catechism, I will examine three commonalities between Lutheran catechisms, Calvinist catechisms and the Heidelberg Catechism: 1. Prayer as a commandment of God 2. Prayer and the knowledge of our misery through law 3. Prayer as the means to keep the law In the first part of this paper I will show how these three lines of thought are present in both Lutheran and Reformed catechisms. I will conclude by assessing their importance in the Heidelberg Catechism.

2. Prayer as a Commandment of God Prayer is frequently associated with the needs of people. In his Large Catechism (Deudsch Catechismus) Luther gives the following definition of prayer “But praying, as the Second Commandment teaches, is to call upon God in every need” (cf. for the original German text BSLK, 663). The needs of people have a place in this definition. Nevertheless prayer is in the first place a commandment of God. In his catechisms Luther emphasizes that we should pray because it is ordered by God. In the Small Catechism (Enchiridion) Luther underlines the commandment character of prayer only by the explanation of the word amen (BSLK, 515). In his Large Catechism Luther connects the call to pray with the second of the ten commandments.

226

Pieter Veerman

And the first matter is to know that it is our duty to pray because of God’s commandment. For thus we heard in the Second Commandment: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain, that we are there required to praise that holy name, and call upon it in every need, or to pray. For to call upon the name of God is nothing else than to pray. Prayer is therefore as strictly and earnestly commanded as all other commandments: to have no other God, not to kill, not to steal, etc. (cf. for the original German text BSLK, 663).

The command to pray is, according to Luther, of the same value as the other commandments. All our prayers are based on obedience to God because God commands us to pray. Other Lutheran catechisms, and also Luther’s Small Catechism, generally follow this line of thought.1 Some catechisms that closely follow the Small Catechism of Luther make the connection even clearer. Interestingly, the Small Catechism of Luther for S. Anna Augsburg has an additional question to Luther’s Small Catechism, that underlines the commandment nature of prayer. The first part of the answer why we should pray, is “God has ordered Himself to call His name for all needs and to pray, Psalm 50” (cf. for the original German text Reu: 1904 – 1935, 1:835). In several Lutheran catechisms the command character of prayer is connected with a main theme in the Reformation theology of prayer. Namely the certainty of being answered by God (Locher : 1963, 183ff). A prayer commanded by God also provides security for the hearing of prayer. The command to pray is in various of these Lutheran catechisms accompanied by the promise of God.2 He connects His commandment of prayer with His promises. Hence, prayer can be deposited with confidence to God. The explanation of the word amen in Luther’s Small Catechism makes this apparent: 1 For this observation, I have studied a representative group of Lutheran catechisms, from 1529 until 1563, which J.M. Reu offers in its standard work. Cf. Reu: 1904 – 1935. The following catechisms underline the command character of prayer Luther-Marbach Catechismus 1557 in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 1:148 (the same as Luthers Small Catechism); Casper Gräter, Catechismus 1537 in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 1:318 (the same as Luthers Small Catechism); Jacob Other, Ein kurtze innleytung in die bekanntnuß 1535 in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 1:374; Caspar Huberinus, Der klaine Catechismus 1543/4 in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 1:807, 811, 812 and 813; Der Kleine Catechimus D. Martin Luthers für die gemeine Jugent der Evangelischen Schuelen zu S. Anna in Augspurg in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 1:835; Justus Menius, Catechismus 1532 in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 2.2:169; Nikolaus Hercko (Untitled) 1554 in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 2.2:253; Christoph Fischer, Ein Auszug und Begriff des Heiligen Christlichen Glaubens auff kurtze Frag und Antwort gestalt 1552 in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 2.2:271; Joh. Spangenberg, Des Kleinen Catechismi und der Haustaffel kutzer begriff 1541 in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 2.2:293; Greg. Storch, Catechismus 1555 in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 2.2: 935; Lukas Lossius, Eine korte summa des catechismi 1545 in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 3.2.2.:669; Joachim Mörlin, Enchirideon 1547 in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 3.2.2:873; Bartolomeus Wolffhart, Der Kleine Katechismus Lutheri 1562 in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 3.2.3:937. 2 Cf. Caspar Huberinus, Der klaine Catechismus 1543/4, in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 1:807 – 814; Justus Menius, Catechismus 1532 in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 2.2:168 f; Lukas Lossius, Eine korte summa des catechismi 1545 in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 3.2.2:669; Bartolomeus Wolffhart, Der Kleine Katechismus Lutheri 1562 in: Reu 1904 – 1935, 3.2.3.:937.

Prayer and the Law of God

227

Q. Amen. What does this mean? A. That I should be certain that these petitions are acceptable to our Father in heaven and heard; for He Himself has commanded us so to pray, and has promised that He will hear us. Amen, Amen; that is, Yea, yea, it shall be so (cf. for the original German text BSLK, 515).

The hearing of the commanded prayer is a spiritual mainline in prayer education in Lutheran catechisms. Although the command character of the prayer is a common phenomenon in Lutheran catechisms it is not visible in all Lutheran catechisms that give prayer education. The command to pray is not only Lutheran. Also Calvin in his Instruction et confession de foy teaches that prayer is a commandment of God. The explanation of the Lords Prayer Calvin begins with the following words “Now our most kindly Father in addition warns us and urges us to seek him in every need” (Hesselink: 1997, 29; cf. for the French original version Faulenbach: 2006, vol. 1,2, 127). In the interpretation of the words “Our Father” Calvin says And as a rule for calling upon God has been established, and a promise given those who call upon him shall be heard, so too we are particularly bidden to call upon him in Christ’s name; and we have his promise that we shall obtain what we have asked in his name (Hesselink: 1997, 30; cf. for the French original version Faulenbach: 2006, 1.2:127).

Like Luther we see that commandment and promise are connected to each other. The prayer that is commanded is, also according to Calvin, answered. Although less pronounced, then in his first catechism, Calvins Catechism of Geneva 1542 also emphasizes that prayer is a commandment of God (Q&A 234). In contrast to Luther, Calvin does not connect this commandment with the second commandment. Implicitly there is a connection with the first commandment. God commands to seek refuge with Him alone and not in others such as angels and saints (Cat. Gen. 1542, Q&A 239). In other Reformed catechisms like Bucer Kurtze schriftliche erklärung für die kinder und angohnden 1534, Zell, Gekürtzt Fragbüchlin auff die Zehen gebott/und uff das Vatter unser 1537, and Micron, De cleyne Catechismus 1552, the commandment to pray is less explicit present. We can conclude that the commandment nature of prayer is most clearly evident in the Lutheran catechisms, but is also present in Calvins catechisms.

3. Prayer and the Knowledge of our Misery through Law According to the teachings of the Reformation people are totally powerless to keep the commandments. Against the background of the prayer instruction is the law as source of the knowledge of misery. This follows from the order

228

Pieter Veerman

which we find in several, especially Lutheran, catechisms. Namely the order of commandment, faith and prayer. That knowledge of our misery belongs to prayer is also visible in Reformed catechisms. Calvin underlines in his catechism that we need to feel our misery when we are praying. He links this feeling of misery not directly, as Luther, to the law of God (Calvin, Catechism of Geneva 1542, Q&A 243). On the contrary in Bucers Kurtze schriftliche erklärung 1534 we clearly see prayer following the commandment. The teaching of the commandments and prayer are connected by Bucer together and not randomly placed. He ends the explanation of the last command as follows: That we always see ourselves as damned sinners, and us with God, the heavenly father, need to comfort alone in the death of Jesus Christ. And through Him always pray for the Holy Spirit, who our own love and sin lays down, for the true love of God, which brings also true love of the neighbor and directs us to do all things for God’s sake and true fulfillment of all its commandments (Stupperich: 1987, 143).

Bucer underlines that our inability to keep the commandment calls to prayer. Bucer also points out that prayer is the means by which power from the Holy Spirit is provided to keep the commandments. We can conclude that in both Lutheran and Reformed catechisms prayer education is given against the background of the knowledge of our misery. Luther and Bucer underline that this knowledge of misery is given by law.

4. Prayer as Way to Keep the Law The Reformation catechisms show prayer as way to keep the commandments. People can only exercise God’s commandments in prayer. Through prayer we receive the strength to renew the sinful life. This line is strongly present in both Lutheran and Reformed catechisms. Prayer as a means to fulfill the commandments is a common theme in many Lutheran catechisms.3 In the 3 Cf. Casper Gräter, Catechismus 1537 in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, 1:318; Jacob Other, Ein kurtze innleytung in die bekanntnuß 1535 in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, 1:374; Casper Löner, Der Klaine Catechismus 1544 in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, 1:637; Caspar Huberinus, Der klaine Catechismus 1543/4 in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, 1: 808; Johann Meckhart, Catechismus 1557 in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, 1:829; Der Kleine Catechimus D. Martin Luthers für die gemeine Jugent der Evangelischen Schuelen zu S. Anna in Augspurg in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, 1:835; Justus Menius, Catechismus 1532 in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, 2.2:168; Joh. Spangenberg, Des Kleinen Catechismi und der Haustaffel kutzer begriff 1541 in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, 2.2:293; Amelius, Enchiridion 1557 in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, 2.2:342; Greg. Storch, Catechismus 1555 in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, 2.2:936; Frankfurter Katechismus 1542, in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, vol. 2.2:1111; Peter Pretorius, Der Kleine Catechismus 1563 in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, 3.2.1:194 (the same as Luther); Alexius Gros, Ein einfeltige weise 1548 in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, 3.2.1:238; Lukas Lossius, Eine korte summa des catechismi 1545 in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, 3.2.2:669;

Prayer and the Law of God

229

Large Catechism Luther stresses that prayer is necessary to keep faith and to fulfill the ten commandments. For since we are so situated that no man can perfectly keep the Ten Commandments, even though he have begun to believe, and since the devil with all his power, together with the world and our own flesh, resists our endeavors, nothing is so necessary as that we should continually resort to the ear of God, call upon Him, and pray to Him, that He would give, preserve, and increase in us faith and the fulfillment of the Ten Commandments, and that He would remove everything that is in our way and opposes us therein (Cf. for the original German text BSLK, 662).

This line of thinking is comparable to Bucers catechism. Luther emphasizes our inability to keep the commandment. And then learn to pray for the fulfillment of the Ten Commandments. Typically Lutheran here is the link with faith. The fulfillment of the commandment in prayer is only possible through faith. This connection between faith, prayer and commandment is less explicit in most Reformed catechisms than in Lutheran catechisms (Verboom: 1996, 302 – 304). Furthermore Luther links the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer explicit to various commandments. For example Luther connects the first petition to the second commandment: “Thus you see that in this petition we pray just for that which God demands in the Second Commandment; namely, that His name be not taken in vain to swear, curse, lie, deceive, etc., but be usefully employed to the praise and honor of God” (Cf. for the original German text BSLK, 672). In prayer we learn to ask what God commands. Completely powerless, in prayer, we lay the fulfillment of the commandments in God’s hands. With the intention that we learn to keep the commandment in His power. In Calvin and other Reformed catechisms this so called tertius usus legis is also strongly present in their reflections on prayer. According to Calvin sanctifies prayer life (Cat. Gen. 1542, Q&A 258) and it is an exercise in obedience (Cat. Gen. 1542, Q&A 271). A strong connection with the commandments we find in Bucers catechism of 1534. The second petition for the coming of the Kingdom is explained in connection with the fourth commandment and expanded to all the commandments. “We ask just in this stuck that is offered to us in fourth commandment, that we assemble us to the word of God and the true spiritual exercises, from this must also follow keeping the other commanded all to the tenth” (Bucer, Kurtze schriftliche erklärung 1534, 148). So, there is a common understanding of connecting law and prayer in Lutheran and Reformed catechisms. Both underline the human inability to keep the commandment. Both see prayer as a means to lay the fulfillment of the commandments in God’s hands with the desire that we learn living according to the commandments of God. Joachim Mörlin, Enchirideon 1547 in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, 3.2.2:876; Bartolomeus Wolffhart, Der Kleine Katechismus Lutheri 1562 in: Reu: 1904 – 1935, 3.2.2:938.

230

Pieter Veerman

5. Heidelberg Catechism Above I discussed the three ways in which prayer and the law are connected in various Lutheran and Calvinist catechisms. In this section I will point out that they are clearly visible in the Heidelberg Catechism as well. The Heidelberg Catechism is in the middle of lines emanating from the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. In the Heidelberg Catechism praying is repeatedly presented as a commandment of God (HC 116, 117, 118 and 120). The part on prayer education begins even with the command character of prayer Q. 116 Why do Christians need to pray? A. Because prayer is the most important part of the thankfulness God requires of us.

This is a theme that particularly emerges from the Lutheran catechisms, but is visible in Calvins catechisms as well. This command to pray provides, according to the Heidelberg Catechism, the assurance that God hears prayer, because it is linked to God’s promise. According to answer 117 God promises in His word to hear prayer (He commands) for the sake of Christ (HC 117). The second way in which prayer and law are connected, i. e. prayer and the knowledge of our misery through law, is also present in the Heidelberg Catechism. In question and answer 115 the following clear connection is made between the Commandments and prayer: Q. 115 Since no one in this life can obey the Ten Commandments perfectly, why does God want them preached so pointedly? A. First, so that the longer we live the more we may come to know our sinfulness and the more eagerly look to Christ for forgiveness of sins and righteousness. Second, so that we may never stop striving, and never stop praying to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, to be renewed more and more after God’s image, until after this life we reach our goal: perfection.

Third, prayer is needed for the image of God to be renewed in our lives (see also answer 115). Furthermore links with the explanation of the commandments in the Heidelberg Catechism are found in the explanation of the petitions (HC 121 – 127). Although the explanation of the Lord’s Prayer is a summary of the entire teaching of the catechism, this explanation particularly focuses on our life before God. Consequently, when we see prayer as the means to fulfill the law we understand why prayer is the most important part of thankfulness.

Prayer and the Law of God

231

Bibliography Faulenbach, Heiner (2006), Reformierte bekenntnisschriften 1/2, Neukirchen: Neukirchener. Hesselink, John I. (1997), Calvin’s First Catechism, Louisville:Westminster John Knox Press. Huijgen, Arnold e.a. (ed.) (2013), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok. Locher, G.W. (1963), Das vornehmste Stück der Dankbarkeit. Das Gebet im Sinne der Reformation nach dem Heidelberger Katechismus, in: Lothar Coenen (ed.), Handbuch zum Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen: Neukircher Verlag, 171 – 185. Reu, J.M. (1904 – 1935), Quellen zur Geschichte des kirchlichen Unterrichts in der evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands zwischen 1530 und 1600, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. Verboom, W. (1996), De Theologie van de Heidelbergse Catechismus. Twaalf thema’s: de context en de latere uitwerking, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Stupperich, Robert (ed.) (1997), Martin Bucers Katechismen aus dem Jahren 1534, 1537, 1543 BDS 6.3, Gütersloh: Mohn.

Arie Baars

Theory and Practice of Preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism

In January 2013, it was 450 years ago that the Heidelberg Catechism was published for the first time. In the same period this catechism has also been adopted by a committee—or synod—consisting of theologians and church officers as the manual of instruction especially for the young people in the Palatinate.1 This small booklet was translated relatively quickly into numerous languages and was spread in an increasing number of countries and continents during the following centuries.2 Until the present day the Heidelberg Catechism is still in use in many reformed churches all over the world. Why this catechism so much esteemed in reformed circles? An important reason is the following. It has become a custom in many churches of Reformed persuasion to preach on a portion of the Heidelberg Catechism during the afternoon service on the Lord’s Day. This regular practice of Catechism preaching has been officially sanctioned by a number of early Dutch Reformed synods in the 16th Century. The well-known Synod of Dordrecht (1618 – 1619) also discussed the theory and practice of Catechism preaching extensively (Cf. a.o. Kaajan: 1914, 153ff; Moerkerken: 1987, 157ff). Moreover, this synod stipulated in its Church Order that the Heidelberg Catechism should be preached upon in the second service on the Lord’s Day. This should take place in such a way that no part of the catechism should be omitted in this series of sermons and that the entire catechism should be dealt with within the course of a year.3 With slight alterations this article of the Church Order of Dordrecht has been incorporated in the Church Order of many Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and of a large number of Dutch immigrant churches in other countries. It hardly needs any explaining that this practice of regular preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism has deeply influenced the church life and the spirituality of church members in these circles. We should realize that the phenomenon of catechism preaching originates 1 Verboom: 2009, 53ff; Bierma: 2005a. The Palatinate (in German: Pfalz) is the region or the electorate (Kurfürstentum) of which Heidelberg was the capital at that time. 2 Maag: 2005, lists no less than 65 different editions and translations which were published between 1563 – 1663. Nauta: 1963, offers a comprehensive list of all editions, translations and modern versions of the catechism until 1963. See also the contributions of various authors on the reception of the Heidelberg Catechism in Huijgen: 2013, 109 – 145. 3 Sinnema: 1997, 305 ff. The original Dutch texts are to be found in Rutgers: 1980 and Kersten: 1961.

Theory and Practice of Preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism

233

from the time of the early 16th century Reformation and that this kind of preaching was practised in almost every centre of the reformation-movement (Verboom: 1986, 11 – 85). From there it fanned out to various areas in Europe and later on also to a large number of other parts in the world. Therefore we may not consider the catechism sermon to be a typically Calvinistic specialism (Cf. Gootjes: 2010, 384ff). Also the Lutheran tradition is familiar with this form of preaching (Jetter : 1988, 748ff). It has also been practised in the Anglican church and in Reformed Presbyterian circles for a considerable period of time as well (Green: 1996, 93ff). Nevertheless it can be stated that the preaching of catechism sermons especially flourished in the Calvinistic tradition and most prominently in the Dutch churches and the immigrant churches which were founded from The Netherlands. Anyway, until recently the truly homiletic reflection on the theory and practice of the catechism sermon has almost exclusively been developed in Dutch Reformed circles. However, since the second half of the last century, there is also a growing interest in the homiletic aspects of catechism preaching in North America.4 Now it is obvious that Catechism preaching has its own specific problems and challenges. They are both of a theoretical and of a practical nature and in this article I intend to dwell on these two areas in some detail.

1. Theoretical Principles First of all a number of key-issues regarding the theoretical principles which have been developed during the centuries of homiletic reflection on the catechism sermon will be addressed: catechism preaching is (1) preaching of the Word of God; (2) didactic preaching; (3) apologetic preaching; (4) ethical preaching; (5) preaching with a pastoral and experiential thrust.

1.1 Catechism preaching is preaching of the Word A frequently recurring objection against preaching on a catechism is that in this way a human writing—the catechism—is considered to be equal to or even above the Holy Scriptures. For in this kind of sermons ministers preach from the catechism as if it was the Word of God itself. In addition the Bible texts which are quoted in the sermon are only used to verify the truth of the catechism. Hence these texts seem to be subservient to the text of a confessional standard written by men. This is in essence the objection to catechism preaching by the Remonstrants of the 17th Century, their 4 Cf. especially Beeke: 2013a/b, and the recent American books and articles which he refers to.

234

Arie Baars

forerunners and their followers. They wanted to do away with the catechism sermon mainly for this reason5. The advocates of the catechism sermon have always raised against this that also this kind of preaching is in essence proclamation of the Word of God (Cf. Hoekstra: 1975, 371; Dijk: 1955, 410; Gootjes: 2010, 399ff). They bring forward the following arguments to substantiate this claim. (1) First of all, different types of sermons have already existed in the Christian community ever since the earliest times and onwards. On the one hand there are exegetical homilies in the Ancient Church, which have a more expository nature. But on the other hand we encounter didactical homilies in which the ‘doctrine of the Scriptures’ is unfolded in a more thematic way (Cunningham/Allen: 1998; Siegert: 2001). From the outset the proclamation of the Word is therefore not synonymous to preaching on one single portion of the Bible (Van de Bank: 1993, 16). (2) However, generally speaking, the reformers strongly pleaded in favour of preaching which is closely connected to the Bible text: only the words from the Scriptures must be proclaimed to the congregation. Yet in these circles preachers also became aware of dangers which may occur when various different portions of Scripture are continually preached upon without exception. Are we not in danger of making the biblical message too fragmented in this way or using a rather one-sided approach? Doesn’t the congregation lose sight of the larger structures of the entire Scriptures in this way? After all, every preacher has his own preferences when choosing the text for his sermons. He may often tend to preach on the same type of portions of the Scriptures and thus unconsciously make the Bible smaller than it really is. For that reason many Reformers considered it to be necessary that the main elements of the Bible doctrine would continually be impressed upon the minds of those belonging to the congregation. According to them, the best way to do this was to gather together in separate second services on the Lord’s Day which were of an instructive or a didactic nature. For the churches should not only be instructed in a number of Bible-texts which are chosen at random, but in “all the counsel of God.” This expression is taken from Acts 20:27, “where the apostle Paul states that he has made known unto the congregation the entire spectrum of God’s will and revelation in his sermons” (De Ruijter : 2010, 272; cf. also Calvin, 1991, 180 f; Lindijer : 1979, 180; Gootjes: 2010, 403ff). The Heidelberg Catechism is an outstanding method of instruction to impress the main elements of the doctrine of the Bible on the hearts of the hearers. Naturally, this writing is not inspired by Gods Spirit like the Bible is, since it is of human origin. However, the well-founded argumentation of the catechism, based upon numerous texts taken from the Scriptures, does show that this 5 Sinnema: 1997, 315. Original Dutch text of the objections of Hermannus Herberts (1540 – 1607), a forerunner of the Remonstrants, in: Bakhuizen van den Brink: 1960, 274. Cf. also: Beeke: 2013a, 48 ff.

Theory and Practice of Preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism

235

summary is a faithful reproduction of what the church has heard in the Bible (Hendriks: 1983, 66 f). (3) The implication of the previous observation is, that the preaching in the second service on the Lord’s Day has its own character. In fact, the catechism sermon hovers between a sermon on a passage from the Bible and a thematic sermon. The main motive in a sermon on a Scripture-text is to bring the message from that specific text across to the congregation. In a thematic sermon the basis is usually not taken from a single Bible text. The preacher chooses a theme and expounds on this by referring to various passages from the Scriptures which are related to the topic (Wintzer : 1997, 86 – 97). However, in the catechism sermon the dogmatic themes are not chosen at random. They have deliberately been placed in a certain order by the Heidelberg Catechism which has officially been accepted by the churches. Moreover, because of the many proofs from the Scriptures, ministers are time and again compelled to return to the Scriptures themselves. Tersely stated: the catechism orders the material for the sermon which is offered by the Bible (De Ruijter : 2010, 274). 1.2 Catechism preaching is didactic preaching From the preceding paragraph it has become evident that catechism preaching has a strong didactical flavour. Now we should realize that instructive preaching has very ancient roots, for it goes back to the New Testament. One of the key words for the proclamation of the Word of God in the New Testament Scriptures is “to teach” (didaskein) and other related concepts (cf. e. g. Hoekstra: 1975, 151; Dingemans: 1995, 39 f; Brienen: 1999, 132ff). Although the boundaries between the various words for preaching in the original New Testament text are somewhat vague, the following proposition can be defended with some justice. The words “to teach” or “to instruct” are not so much used for sermons within a missionary context. This concept refers much more to a more specific unfolding of the message of grace for established congregations, in which the proofs from the Scriptures fulfil an important role. The aim of this kind of preaching is the edification of the congregation, so that she will gain more and more insight in the salvation which God has granted in Christ Jesus and will receive a more profound understanding of His will (Van de Bank: 1993, 9 f; Trimp: 1978, 89 and especially Salzmann: 1994, 42ff). Therefore we may not interpret this concept of ‘didactic preaching’ in the sense of the later doctrinal sermon, as it has been developed e. g. by Philip Melanchthon (1497 – 1560) (Schnell: 1968, 115ff). As a consequence the catechism sermon should not end up as an abstract dogmatic treatise on a number of ‘doctrines’. The word “doctrine” in the Scriptures (didache) and in the Reformation (doctrina) does not refer to a complete, logically well thought-out system of truths.It is rather a dynamic concept which may often best be rendered by “instruction” in or even “proclamation” of the great truths

236

Arie Baars

of the gospel. The immediate anchoring of the concept of doctrine in the Scriptures is powerfully underscored in this particular emphasis (Van ’t Spijker : 1977/1978. Cf. also: Hedtke: 1969, 40ff). The fact that the didactically oriented preaching aims at the edification of the congregation does not imply that it is only directed towards adults. On the contrary, the preaching of the doctrine first of all focuses explicitly on the children and the young people of the congregation. The origin of the catechism service in Geneva and other centres of the Reformation is a good illustration of this. The reformers first of all considered it to be the task of the parents to instruct their children in the doctrine of the Scriptures. Soon it became apparent that this was not feasible in the practice of everyday life because the parents failed to comply with this obligation. Therefore it was decided upon to hold a service on Sunday in which the children were instructed in the catechism. Because the parents brought their children to these services and remained present there, they soon became services for children and for their parents (Van ’t Veer : 1942, 171; Sinnema: 1997, 301). 1.3 Catechism preaching is apologetic preaching Preaching on the Catechism also has an apologetic focus. For the doctrines of Scripture must be defended against all kinds of deviating views and heresies. This becomes evident in the very wording of the Heidelberg Catechism. In this booklet polemics are directed towards four fronts. The author, Zacharias Ursinus,6 first of all rejects a number of RomanCatholic views (for example regarding the worship of saints—HC 30, 94, 96 – 98 and 102—and regarding the Mass HC 80). In the second place he opposes teachings of the Anabaptists (on the issue of infant baptism—HC 74—and the oath—HC 101 and 102). Objections are also raised against the Lutherans (concerning the ascension of Christ—HC 47 f and their views on the Holy Supper—HC 78 f). Finally the views of the anti-Trinitarians are more or less implicitly refuted (HC 24 f) (Exalto, 41 – 58; cf. also Bierma 2005b, 78ff). It is not very easy to preach about these passages from the catechism in our day and age. The following three comments may be of some help in this connection. First of all, we need to be on our guard to avoid two extremes. We should, on the one hand, not silently pass these passages by or suffice by commenting that these points of issue have become completely outdated in our time. The 6 There has been a considerable discussion on the autorship of the Heidelberg Catechism. Basically there are three opinions: (1) The catechism was written by both Zacharius Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus; (2) The catechism was prepared by a team or a committee of theologians and pastors under the chairmanship of Zacharias Ursinus; (3) The catechism was written by Zacharius Ursinus alone, although he may have consulted with other theologians and pastors (cf. Bierma: 2005a, 52ff; Verboom: 2009, 54 f). In my opinion the last view seems the most probable one.

Theory and Practice of Preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism

237

apologetic trait of the catechism must be recognized and therefore the apologetic element in the preaching on this book of instruction may not be lacking. On the other hand we must not be so attached to the exact wording of the apologetic passages that we fail to discern that this confession is a product of its own time and reflects the conflicts of its own time (Van de Bank: 1993, 17 f). The catechism dates from the 16th century and opposes heresies which were current issues at that time. This sometimes occurs in sharp words which were partly also influenced by controversies which flared up at that moment.7 Now this does not imply that the polemic issues of that time no longer exist today. However, it does signify that they perhaps manifest themselves in a different shape and that we must therefore state the same things in a slightly different way than the catechism does. It is a good thing to explain in the sermon why the catechism states things in that particular way and what its lasting and actual meaning may be for the congregation in our time. Secondly, several Dutch theologians, such as Hoekstra and especially G. Wisse, emphasized in the 1920’s and 1930’s that the preaching of the catechism should have an explicit apologetic character (e. g. Wisse: 1930; Hoekstra: 1975, 373). This reflects to a large degree the spirit in theology and church life in the Netherlands of that time. Berkouwer characterized this period as being dominated by “an atmosphere of apologetics” (Berkouwer : 1974, 29ff; Velema: 1996; Baars: 2010, 14ff).8 The apologetic focus was very strong in theological discussions, both in Europe and in the United States of America at that time. Moreover, inter-dominational relationships in the Netherlands were severely hampered by rather fierce polemics in the different churchmagazines. Now the question should be addressed what this explicit apologetic character of catechism preaching was all about. First of all the intention of this was to update the criticism against the deviating doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. This is also related to the polarization of the different points of view, since at that time the Catholic Church had a rather strong apologetic and propagandistic attitude towards the Reformed churches (Berkouwer : 1955). However, in their defence of an apologetic flavour in catechism preaching, the advocates of this accent did not stop at updating the very wording of the catechism concerning the errors which are combatted in this booklet from the 16th century. They also pleaded in favour of exposing 7 Bank: 1993, 255 f. Just to mention one example: HC 80, with its sharp condemnation of the Roman Catholic Mass as ‘an accursed idolatry’, is not to be found in the first edition of the catechism of 1563. In the second edition, which was published in the same year, this question and answer were inserted on the order of Elector Frederick III. It is even probable that the Palatine elector himself wrote this new section upon the urging of Olevianus. The immediate cause of this is to be found in the recent decisions of the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563) in which the Roman Catholic Church condemned the Reformed view of the Lord’s Supper in harsh anathema’s (cf. Denzinger/Schönmetzer: 1973, 404ff, 411. Cf. on the historical background of this question and answer: Bierma: 2005a, 56 f; Beyer: 1965; Moehn: 2013. 8 Cf. also the inaugural lecture of Wisse: 1928.

238

Arie Baars

‘modern’ forms of unbelief and superstition in this type of preaching. They had in mind things like atheism, occultism and theosophy, but also communism or rising fascism. Certainly in our time also other points of issue may be thought of. We may think of the controversies concerning creation and evolution, the doctrine of reconciliation through satisfaction and the reality of the resurrection of Christ. Catechism preaching will have to discuss these and other subjects in an apologetic way which suits our time in order to arm the congregation against heresies. The old catechism book offers sufficient means for this (cf. e. g. HC 26, 37, 45). Finally, it is also necessary to bring the instruction of the catechism up to date when it is not simply a matter of opposing doctrinal heresies, but opposing issues which play an important part in our post-modern society. We, among other things, have to deal with issues like secularization, materialism, hedonism and the fragmentation of our human life. In order to discuss this in a proper way, we can particularly link up with the explanation which the catechism gives of the Ten Commandments (HC 92 – 115). The relevance of our confession for our time is particularly great here, although the language may be antiquated. More or less famous is in this regard the phrase that, according to the Heidelberg Catechism, theft also consist of this, that we “design to appropriate to ourselves the goods which belong to our neighbour: whether it be by force, or under the appearance of right, as by unjust weights, ells (or : cubits), measures, fraudulent merchandise, false coins, usury, or by any other way forbidden by God” (HC 110).9 Obviously various expressions and statements of the ancient text of the catechism should be updated here and adapted to our time and culture. This is certainly permissible, since the minister is concerned with demonstrating the relevance of the message of the Scriptures in his catechism sermon for the congregation in our time, embedded in the tone of this traditional book of instruction.

1.4 Catechism preaching is ethical preaching Large sections of the Heidelberg Catechism deal with moral or ethical issues, or to state it more correctly, with the way of Christian living.10 Obviously, this is particularly true of the last section of the Heidelberg Catechism, the part of thankfulness or gratitude, for in this context the Ten Commandments are dealt 9 This is the English translation of the Heidelberg Catechism in The Psalter with Doctrinal Standards, Liturgy and Church Order (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books 20108), 79. The 450th anniversary edition reads: “theft also includes all scheming and swindling in order to get our neighbor’s goods for ourselves, whether by force or means that appear legitimate, such as inaccurate measurements of weight, size or volume; fraudulent merchandising; counterfeit money ; excessive interest; or any other means forbidden by God.” 10 Preaching on the ethical implications of the Word of God and of the Confession has its own difficulties and clallenges. Cf. e. g. Huyser: 1941; Smelik: 1962; Kremer : 1976.

Theory and Practice of Preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism

239

with extensively as a rule for the life of a Christian (HC 92 – 115). We should, however, realize that there are also some references to ethical consequences of the biblical doctrines in other parts of the catechism (e. g. HC 1, 2, 18, 24, 45, 55, 62, 63, 64, 70, 76, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 and 91). Moreover, also the final section of the Heidelberg Catechism—which deals with the Lord’s Prayer—belongs to the part of thankfulness and is therefore at least to some degree part of the ethical instruction of this booklet. This is underscored by the fact that in Reformed Theology, especially of the last two centuries, the topic of prayer was usually dealt with under the auspices of ethics (cf. Trimp: 1979, 43 – 115). Therefore, when preaching on the final section of the Heidelberg Catechism, we should continually realize that the Lord’s Prayer is located in an ethical setting. When we read the exposition of the Lord’s Prayer in the catechism carefully, this will become evident in several aspects of the very wording of this booklet (cf. e. g. HC 116, 122 – 127). When turning specifically to the Ten Commandments as a rule of thankfulness, or of Christian living, we should realize the following. In Reformed theology the law of God is usually dealt with from a threefold perspective.11 The so-called first use of the law (primus usus legis or usus civilis) refers to the Ten Commandments as a rule for civil life. Reformed theologians emphasize that the fundamental principles of the law of God are not only valuable and beneficial for confessing Christians, but also for society as a whole. Here these principles function as a bolt to protect men from living in open sin and to make a well-ordered social life possible (cf. Rothuizen: 1962). The second use of the law (usus secundus) is usually called usus elenchticus or usus paedagogicus. Here the law functions as a mirror to show us how great our sins and miseries are. The third use of the law (tertius usus legis) is often called usus didacticus or usus normativus. It lays down the standard according to which the life of a Christian should be ordered. As is well-known, the Heidelberg Catechism discusses the law of God twice. First of all—in the first part of misery—brief attention is paid to the usus elenchticus, the law as a mirror which lays bare our sins (HC 3ff). Much later, under the heading of the final section, namely that of thankfulness, we find an extended explanation of each of the commandments. Now the implication of this positioning of the exposition of the commandments is obviously, that the focus of our sermons in these Lord’s Days should particularly be on the law of God as the norm for Christian living. In preaching on this part of the Catechism, God’s children should be exhorted to desire and to resolve to walk in gospel-obedience. They may do so looking unto Jesus by faith and following his footsteps. Moreover, they should “never stop praying to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, to be renewed more and more after God’s image, until after this life we reach our goal: perfection” (HC 115). 11 Cf. e. g. Douma: 1986, 64 ff. For Calvin’s view on the ‘threefold use of the Law’ is especially important: Hesselink: 1992, 217 ff.

240

Arie Baars

However, this central focus in preaching from this portion of the Catechism does not imply that the first and the second use of the law should be absent in these sermons or may be more or less tacitly passed by. The very wording of these Lord’s Days solemnly warns against real and specific sins and urges the hearers to look into the mirror of the Ten Commandments. Therefore it may be said that the elenchtic or paedagogic use of the law in a sense recurs in the third part of the Catechism. The purpose is that sinners may be convinced of their sins for the first time and that “the longer we live the more we may come to know our sinfulness and the more eagerly look to Christ for forgiveness of sins and righteousness” (HC 115). Also the first use of the law (usus politicus or civilis) is present in this portion of the catechism, although it is less predominant. However, in most of the Lord’s Days there are at least certain hints that allow us to elaborate on the significance of the Ten Commandments for our postmodern society in our preaching. We may think e. g. of what the catechism says about the oath (HC 101 f); about those in authority over us (HC 104) and about the commandments: “you shall not kill” (HC 105ff); “you shall not not commit adultery” (HC 108 f); “you shall not steal” (HC 110 f); “you shall not bear false witness against your neighbour” (HC 112).

1.5 Catechism preaching has a pastoral and experiential thrust The catechism does not limit itself to a reproduction of the doctrinal and ethical injunctions of the Scriptures and their defence. It also wants to offer pastoral and spiritual guidance to the congregation (cf. Beeke: 2013a, 56ff). This among other things appears from the following aspects. The entire confession is governed by the motive of the only comfort with which the catechism sets in (HC 1). Then the question is asked: “What must you know to live and die in the joy of this comfort?” The answer is: three things; guilt, grace and gratitude (or : misery, deliverance and gratitude) (HC 2). This is not merely a principle for the division of the material for the catechism, although this of course plays an important part as well. The catechism also intends to indicate that these are three fundamental aspects of spiritual life. The knowledge of the three parts refers to the manner in which faith is experienced.12 Finally, another important aspect is that many questions of the catechism have a personal existential tone. The question is continually asked what is the meaning of a certain spiritual truth for the believer personally. I will mention a few examples: “How does the knowledge of God’s creation and providence 12 CGK: 1992, 292 f. (= Baars: 1998a/b); Verboom: 1996, 19 ff. In my farewell address: “Spiritual Guidance in Preaching” (Geestelijke leiding in de prediking) (to be published both in Dutch and in English in 2014) I deal much more in detail with the question how the three parts of guilt, grace and gratitude should function in preaching and spiritual life. Cf. also Verboom: 2002.

Theory and Practice of Preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism

241

help us?” (HC 28). “How does the holy conception and birth of Christ benefit you?” (HC 36). “How does Christ’s resurrection benefit us?” (HC 45). “How does Christ’s return ‘to judge the living and the dead’ comfort you?” (HC 52). “What good does it do you, however, to believe all this?” (HC 59). This tone invites and even compels preachers to give spiritual guidance to the entire congregation and to its individual members in a pastoral, personal way in the catechism sermon (Haitjema: 1948, 300 f). In all of this we need to realize that the catechism does not only pay pastoral attention to the beginning of spiritual life, or coming and fleeing to Christ for salvation. There are quite a few series of sermons on the catechism in the Dutch tradition which one-sidedly put great emphasis on this aspect (cf. Baars: 2012, 50ff). However, we should constantly be aware of the fact that the catechism speaks the high, confident language of faith and wants to give guidance to the entire spectrum of spiritual life. This should certainly not be omitted in the catechism sermon. For that reason issues like the full assurance of faith, joy in God and sanctification of life must also be dwelt upon (Wisse: 1930, 11; Hoekstra: 1975, 371). Of course this does not exclude the fact that attention should be paid to the questions and doubts of those who are ‘searching’ and those who experience difficulty regarding the way in which salvation is applied by the Holy Spirit.

2. Practical Implications We now turn to a number of practical questions which arise from this more or less theoretical reflection on preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism. The following practical issues will be discussed: (1) frequency ; (2) the Bible-text; (3) Q&A’s; (4) homiletic directions.

2.1 The frequency of Catechism Preaching The original Church Order of Dordrecht prescribes in article 68 that: “The ministers everywhere shall briefly explain on Sunday, ordinarily in the afternoon sermon, the sum of Christian doctrine comprehended in the Catechism, which at present is accepted in the Dutch Churches so that it may be completed every year in accordance with the division of the Catechism itself made for that purpose.”13 In practice, this rule appeared to have too many restrictions. It does not allow for a second service on a Sunday with a special nature, like a baptism service or a service of thanksgiving for the celebration of 13 I quote the English translation of article 68 of the Church Order of Dordrecht from The Psalter with Doctrinal Standards, Liturgy and Church Order, 187. The original Dutch text may be found in Kersten: 1961, 190.

242

Arie Baars

the Lord’s Supper. In addition, it soon appeared that many ministers needed more than a year to preach through the entire catechism. Some of the Lord’s Days of the catechism are indeed too full to explain adequately in one worship service (e. g. HC 31 f and 54ff). For that reason two things have been changed in most of the present Church Orders which originate from the Church Order of Dordrecht. It is no longer mandatory to explain the catechism in the afternoon service: this may also take place in the morning service. Moreover, the 52 Sundays no longer have to be preached upon within the course of one year. However, the consequence of this development is that it may take a long time before the entire catechism is dealt with in one series of sermons. Several factors may play a role in this. First of all, this may be caused by a certain aversion to the phenomenon of catechism preaching as such. In this case each opportunity is seized to postpone the catechism sermon or—in the worst case—to abolish it altogether. Besides this it is also possible that the weekly catechism sermons become much too detailed. This has something to do with the fact that in churches where the regular catechism sermons are customary, ministers are compelled to deliver a series of sermons which has a different line of approach each time. One of the important rules in the literature on this issue is: preach on an entire Lord’s Day in the first series and in a next series on one single question and answer or a combination of questions and answers (Dijk: 1903). In the last case a series of catechism sermons may easily expand to more than 100 sermons. In exceptional cases some even add a number of extra sermons on themes which, in their opinion, are not discussed, or not sufficiently covered in the catechism. The most extreme example that I know of is the series of sermons on the catechism of Henricus de Frein (1673 – 1747). He deals with the Heidelberg Catechism in no less than 170 (so-called) exercises. This author also weaves sermons on various subjects which are not (sufficiently) dealt with in the catechism in this rather lengthy series of sermons (Frein: 1746/1753). For him HC 6ff is the occasion to discuss the doctrine of the covenants. He adds eight exercises to HC 24 f in which the entire doctrine of God is discussed according to the pattern of the reformed orthodoxy : the existence, the names, the essence and the attributes of God. According to his opinion the confession on the person and work of the Holy Spirit in HC 53 is far too limited. Hence dwells on this topic in no less than 11 exercises, including one on the sin against the Holy Spirit (Frein: 1753, 1 – 100). It will be obvious that this method no longer accords with the conditions laid down by the Church Order of Dordrecht, that the catechism should be explained “briefly”.14 It is the intention of this article of the Church Order that 14 I therefore disagree with the suggestion made by Beeke: 2013b, 68, to insert rather lengthy series of sermons on topics which are not sufficiently dealt with in the Heidelberg Catechism within the framework of catechism sermons. Catechism sermons should remain sermons on portions of the Heidelberg Catechism, not on digresssions on the catechism.

Theory and Practice of Preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism

243

the main essential points of the doctrine of the Scriptures are time and again explained to the congregation within a period of time which should not be too lengthy. Moreover, ministers like De Frein implicitly criticize the Heidelberg Catechism for not being complete, when they add so many topics. I have the suspicion, however, that they were hardly aware of this and considered their method of explaining this confessional document of the church to be perfectly legitimate. However, what has been stated in the previous paragraph confronts us with the following question: “How do we deal with issues which are not, or not sufficiently dealt with in the Heidelberg Catechism, which is after all a catechetical document from the 16th century?” (cf. a.o. Lekkerkerker : 1964, 151 – 157). As far as I can see, there are three options to deal with this issue: (1) First of all, some expositors of and preachers on the Heidelberg Catechism add a number of sermons to particular sections of the Heidelberg Catechism in order to elaborate on issues which had not received sufficient attention in this traditional booklet of instruction. As has been stated in the previous paragraph, I do not believe that this is a proper way to deal with this problem. (2) The same may be said about the second option. According to some theologians we should add some questions and answers or some articles to our classical Reformed Confessions in which urgent contemporary issues are addressed. Verboom, for instance, suggests to insert a few questions in the Heidelberg Catechism on topics like the following: the confession of the Lord Jesus Christ as “the only name whereby we must be saved,” the position and the calling of the church regarding the people of Israel and the missionary calling of the church in the midst of this world (Verboom: 2008, 5 f, 24 f, 40 f). A similar development took place in recent times in a number of Presbyterian circles which adhere to the Westminster Standards. Some American Presbyterian Churches in the USA have added two articles to the Westminster Confession of Faith, viz. an article on the Holy Spirit (art. 34) and on the Love of God and Missions (art. 35) (cf. Schaff: 1983, 919ff; Rongen: 1986, 23 f, 80 f; Doekes: 1975, 155). The Presbyterian Church of Korea (Kosin) followed suit in 1983. The danger in this approach is twofold. First of all, present day theologians or synodical meetings tend to read something into or to add a number of aspects to these historical confessional documents which hardly seem to have been in the mind of the original authors.15 Secondly, these additions are only personal opinions of individual authors, or, at best, decisions made by certain ecclesiastical meetings. However, they are most definitely not adopted “with common consent” by the entire reformed community. In other words, the increased divisions within the Reformed and Presbyterian churches during the last centuries, seriously hamper all efforts to come to a general agreement on the revision or expansion of the traditional 15 See e. g. the rather forced efforts to read a strong missionary consciousness into the reformed confessions of the 16th and 17th century. E.g. Lloyd Bredenhof: 2011; Santos: 2009.

244

Arie Baars

Reformed confessions. These considerations should caution us not to insert new paragraphs or new questions and answers into these confessional standards. Hence, it also is not a real option to dwell on these new aspects in a series of doctrinal sermons on these documents. (3) Finally, it is also possible to add a completely new confessional standard to the three forms of unity, in which the important doctrinal issues of our day and age are addressed. This has happened, for instance, in the Netherlands in 1949. At that time the Synod of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands (NHK) published a confessional document entitled: Foundations and Perspectives of a Confessing Church (Fundamenten en Perspectieven van Belijden; cf. Landsman: 1955, 78 – 111). The synod did not intend this document to replace the three classical Forms of Unity. It should rather be added to these three confessional standards as a witness to the contemporary world, based on Scripture and the Reformed confessions. A leading concept in this synodical statement is the coming and the proclamation of the Kingdom of God, an issue, which according to the authors of this document, has not been sufficiently dealt with in the three forms of unity (Landsman: 1955, 82). As a consequence, this document contains some articles on the election and future of Israel (art. 3, 17) and the history of the world as the domain for Gods history of redemption which will ultimately come to its completion in the end of time (art. 14). This last aspect also implies a strong emphasis on the great commission: The church is called to proclaim the gospel to all peoples, even to the end of the world (Matt. 28:19 f). Initially, it has been the intention that a series of sermons should also be preached on this synodical document in the afternoon worship service on the Lord’s Day.16 However, as far as I know, this has rarely, if ever taken place. A few decades later a similar confessional statement has been published within the Netherlands Reformed Churches (GKN) by the professors G. C. Berkouwer and H. N. Ridderbos (Kruyswijk: 1974; Cf. also Endedijk: 1992). This “testimony” summarizes the teaching of the Three Forms of Unity and intends to accommodate it to the 20th Century. However, almost immediately some theologians voiced as their criticism that some keyissues of the Reformed confessions had been reduced in an unwarranted way (cf. e. g. Masselink: 1974). On the other hand this document elaborates considerably on topics which were important in contemporary church-life and theology at that time. The most important example of this is the proclamation and the coming of the Kingdom of Christ as a liberating and renewing power which affects not only the Church but all the areas of human life and the entire society.17 The “testimony” of the two professors, however, was never approved by synod as an official ecclesiastical confession. Finally, the Christian 16 Cf. e. g. Miskotte: 1950. Cf. also the series of Sermon Outlines on Foundations and Perspectives of a Confessing Church in Bolkestein: 1969 – 1977. These outlines are written by K. H. Miskotte and J. M. Hasselaar. 17 Kruyswijk: 1974, 23, 27, 39ff; Cf. for some critical remarks on this issue: Masselink: 1974, 39 ff.

Theory and Practice of Preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism

245

Reformed Church adopted a testimony in view of “the secularization of modern life and culture” in 1986, entitled: Our World Belongs to God. A Contemporary Testimony (cf. CRC: 1988, 1019ff). According to the decisions of the Synod of the Christian Reformed Churches in 1986 this synodical document should be viewed as “a testimony of faith for our times, subordinate to our creeds and confessions”. Key issues in this testimony are the doctrine of the covenant and the coming of God’s Kingdom here on earth. Consequently, there is much emphasis on missionary outreach of the Church and of believers individually (art. 32, 44, 45) and on the gifts of the Holy Spirit to all the people of God (art. 33, 41). This rather brief impression indicates that, generally speaking, additions to the traditional Reformed confessions or completely new confessional documents have not met with general approval. Moreover, they definitely have not received the status of a Reformed confessional standard, like the Heidelberg Catechism. Hence it is not feasible to preach on these additions or on (parts of) these recently published testimonies. Possibly preachers could borrow certain ideas from these statements in order to apply the text of the Heidelberg Catechism more pointedly to present day life and to contemporary theological concerns. However, catechism preaching should stick to the exposition and application of the text of the Heidelberg Catechism proper. If a pastor wants to deal with some contemporary issues which are beyond the scope of this classical confessional document, he should preach a sermon—or a small series of sermons—on one or more Bible-texts which are applicable to these matters. We now return to the proper theme of this section, viz. that the catechism should repeatedly be preached upon in the worship service on the Lord’s Day, preferably in the second service. This rule implies that when a pastor has finished preaching on the 52 Lord’s Days of the Heidelberg Catechism, he should start all over again with expounding this classical reformed booklet. For that reason it is desirable that he brings about some variation in his different series of sermons on the catechism. In most of the homiletic literature on this subject, it is suggested that a minster should first preach a series on an entire Lord’s Day. In the next series he should preferably deal with separate questions and answers in one sermon or a combination of two or three questions and answers at the utmost (Dijk: 1903). Besides these more analytical forms of dealing with the text of the catechism, several homileticians plead in favour of a more thematic approach. This means that they propose that ministers preach on all of the 52 Lord’s Days, taking one specific overarching motif as their starting point, which then has a decisive influence on the content and the form of each sermon. Some possibilities for this approach are, for example: a series in which light is shed upon the doctrines of the catechism from the viewpoint of the work of the Triune God, or the motif of comfort, the covenant of grace (Blok: 1969), the love (of God and to God; Feringa: 1904), or the assurance of faith. To mention just a few examples: in the first-named series the theme of every sermon may be formulated as follows:

246

Arie Baars

“The work of the triune God in providing the only comfort” (Lord’s Day 1); The work of the triune God in granting saving faith (LD 7), or : The work of the triune God in the resurrection of Christ (LD 17). When we turn to the overarching motif of comfort, we may specify this in the following themes: “The comfort of the doctrine of the Trinity (LD 8),” “The comfort of the doctrine of Providence” (LD 10), or : “The comfort of the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting” (LD 22). When the doctrine of the covenant of grace is the point of departure of a series of sermons, we may meet with themes like: “Sin as a breaking of the covenant” (LD 3); “The mediator of the covenant” (LD 6), or : “The Law of God as a rule of the covenant” (LD 34; cf. Blok: 1969, 23ff, 49ff, 306ff). It will be obvious that one theme is more appropriate for this than the other. It is especially important that the minister guards against any kind of artificiality in this area.

2.2 The Bible text and catechism preaching Also an important practical question is whether a text needs to be sought from the Bible with each Catechism Sermon, which should then also be announced to the congregation as point of departure for the message. Opinions differ on this, although we must state that a majority of the more recent homileticians have strong objections to the practice of choosing a Bible-text with each catechism sermon (Hoekstra: 1975, 227ff; Van de Bank: 1993, 16). Generally speaking at least five possibilities present themselves here.18 (1) The analytical sermon on the catechism without a Bible text. In this approach the portion of the catechism that will be dealt with, constitutes the text for the sermon. This implies that the words of the catechism are explained step by step and its message is brought to the hearts and lives of the hearers. An important danger is here that the catechism text receives such a central place, that its relationship with the Scriptures is no longer perspicuous. (2) The analytical sermon in which the Bible text is the point of departure, while the wording of the catechism is completely subservient to this passage of Scripture. In these cases the pastor may announce the theme of his sermon on Lord’s Day 39 (the 5th commandment) e. g. as follows: “Today I am preaching on the Prodigal Son.” The Scripture-reading is obviously from Luke 15:11 – 32 and the sermon dwells on this passage. Only a few references are made to the wording of the Heidelberg Catechism, mainly related to the obedience and disobedience of children. In my opinion, this method of preaching on the catechism is incorrect. The Heidelberg Catechism is not really expounded in this way, as the Church Order of Dordrecht demands. It is only used as an 18 In broad outline I concur with De Ruijter (2010, 274ff) at this point, although I add some new aspects. Also Beeke (2013b, 62ff) offers an overview of different approaches to Catechism Preaching, which, however, partly differs from the overview given in this article.

Theory and Practice of Preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism

247

illustration in a sermon on a certain portion of the Scriptures. In essence, these kind of sermons do not differ from expository preaching on a text from the Bible. (3) The analytical catechism sermon with a Bible text in which the wording of the Lord’s Day of the Heidelberg Catechism is blended with that particular passage of the Word of God. Here the exposition of the catechism is firmly anchored in a certain word from the Scriptures which has a decisive influence on the ‘colour’ of the sermon. Although the relationship with the Bible is strongly emphasized here, the problem with this method is that the sermon easily comes to rest on two pillars. It could become a rather ambiguous sermon about a text as well as about the catechism in which all sharpness is lacking. It is also possible that either the exposition of the text, or the explanation of the catechism is practically overlooked, because the sermon dwells almost exclusively either on the passage from the catechism, or on the text from the Bible. (4) The thematic catechism sermon without a Bible text. Now the catechism is no longer primarily regarded as a text which needs to be explained, but it offers material in order to explain a central theme from the doctrine of the Scriptures. Here the risk is that the theme can easily begin to lead its own life when it is not firmly anchored in the Bible. In addition the meaning of large parts of the catechism text may remain rather at a distance for the congregation, because it is not covered in the sermon. (5) The thematic catechism sermon with Bible text. In this case the portion of the Scriptures usually provides the theme from the perspective of which the Lord’s Day of the catechism is dealt with. The danger of this approach is that the Bible text is not really expounded upon in the sermon, but a central element of the text is merely used as a peg to hang the sermon on. Moreover, the focal point taken from the Word of God may determine the sermon in such a way, that important aspects of the wording of the catechism are more or less completely left out. Apart from the second option, all these approaches may be justified, provided that the minister takes the objections which are mentioned into account and seeks to avoid them. I personally prefer the third possibility, although I have used other options as well. 2.3 Questions and answers in catechism preaching We also need to comment on the fact that the catechism is put in the question and answer form. Let it be clear that it is impossible to preach about a question only. The catechism sermon will in that case quickly deteriorate into a sermon on a motto. The objection of Hoekstra that “a sermon on a question without an answer cannot be a proclamation of the gospel” is even more important (Hoekstra: 1975, 375).

248

Arie Baars

The following issue aims more at the content of the catechism sermon: “Who asks the questions and who gives the answers?” (Baars: 2012, 64ff). During the course of time a rather large number of ministers have argued in their printed catechism sermons that the person who asks the questions is a sinner who is convicted of his guilt and is searching for grace in Christ. The answer is then given by an experienced Christian who lives out of the full assurance of faith. It will be clear that this approach has a strong influence on the colour of the content of the sermon and can even influence its style. One of the implications is, that in this case all catechism sermons especially focus on the way in which a sinner flees to Christ for salvation and on the hindrances he may experience. Another line has also become visible, especially in the Canadian Reformed Churches. Some ministers in these churches emphasize—correctly by the way—that the confessing church speaks in the catechism. However, they draw the conclusion from this that he who asks the questions is not the individual believer. It is a sort of collective ‘I’: the believing congregation in her entirety confesses her faith, both in the questions and in the answers. Hence we may read in these kind of sermons: “The comfort [of Lord’s Day 1 of the Heidelberg Catechism, AB] is not simply a personal matter, something that regards only the solitary soul. No, “comfort is given to and within the community of the church” (cf. a.o. De Vries: 1999, 6ff; Tunderman: 1949, 2ff). “We confess our sins and guilt [in Lord’s Day 2, 3 and 4, AB] as the believing congregation which has been redeemed from sin” (cf. Blok: 1969, 15, 23). “God adopts you for Christ’s sake as His children” (Bremmer : 1991, 86 f; Tunderman: 1949, 112ff; De Vries: 1999, 102ff). Obviously also this approach influences the practice of catechism preaching and the spiritual guidance which is offered to the congregation. In view of the history of the catechism both interpretations are debatable. The original intention of the Heidelberg Catechism is that the teacher asks the questions and says the answers aloud for the students. He does this in the hope that the students personally will learn the content of the subject matter as well as possible so that they will be able to give the answers independently. In this the teacher is not so much concerned with the acquisition of intellectual knowledge, but rather with taking children in particular by the hand and seeking to lead them to faith and godliness. As catechism teachers we may plead upon the promise of the Holy Spirit, Who leads in all truth and desires to bless the instruction (Verboom: 1986, 191ff; Bremmer : 1991, 18, 33, 50ff). It is also important to honour this approach in the catechism sermon. It implies that the preaching will mention the aspect of coming to the knowledge of salvation in Christ, as well as living out of His grace. In this way both the personal as well as the congregational aspects of the catechism will receive their own place (HC 54) and the message in the answers may be impressed upon the hearts of the readers in an appealing and even in a confronting and discriminatory way.

Theory and Practice of Preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism

249

2.4 Homiletic directions for catechism preaching We now turn to some practical homiletic directions for catechism preaching. Of course it makes quite a difference if someone preaches about the catechism in a more analytic or in a more thematic way. Still some rules may be given which count for both types of catechism preaching. (1) Obviously the relevant passages from the old book of instruction need to be explained in the catechism sermon. However, this should not take place in exactly the same way in which the Scriptures are expounded upon (Hoekstra: 1975, 372). Within this context it is especially important to regularly refer to the Scriptures in the sermon and to point out that the language of our catechism is based on the Word of God. In this way it becomes clear what the position of the catechism is when compared with the Word of God. The Heidelberg Catechism wants to be subservient to the Word of God by summarizing the key doctrines of the Bible for the church. (2) Difficult sentences and words from the catechism need to be explained in the sermon, certainly if we use the traditional version of the catechism (Beeke: 2013b, 74 f). It is not recommended to quote lengthy portions from the catechism literally in the sermon. We should bring the content as close to the contemporary hearers as possible, while paraphrasing in appealing language. However, it is imperative to explain the important—and often irreplaceable— words and concepts from the vocabulary of our confession well, but also to allow them to recur in the sermon several times. Our people should know what words like faith, justification and conversion mean and we should steep them in this type of biblical and confessional language. (3) A minister should study the Lord’s Day or the questions and answers he has to deal with in their immediate context, when he prepares his sermon. It makes a difference whether a certain topic or doctrine is treated within the framework of the part of misery, of deliverance, or of gratitude. The function of the Law of God within the section on misery (HC 3ff), for instance, differs from the emphasis which is predominant in the part of thankfulness (HC 92ff; cf. Hyde: 2009, 111 f). In the same way we should bear in mind to which of the four catechetical kernels a Lord’s day belongs: to the exposition on the creed, the sacraments, the Decalogue or the Lord’s Prayer. The way in which the topic of the forgiveness of sins is dealt with in the context of the Apostles Creed (HC 56) differs from what the catechism says in this regard in explaining the fifth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (HC 126). Moreover, it should be taken into consideration which function those Lord’s Days have which connect the major kernels of the catechism (HC 12 – 19, 59 – 64, 83 – 91, 114 – 117). Some of these questions and answers are of great significance and spiritual depth. However, inorder to understand them properly, we should consider them first of all in the light of the catechetical kernel which has been treated before and from the perspective of the kernel which will follow (cf. Beeke: 2013b, 74 f).

250

Arie Baars

(3) Ministers should have a keen eye on statements from the catechism which could possibly evoke questions, irritation or even protest in their postmodern hearers. They should pay ample attention to this and especially show from several places in the Scriptures how this confession is similar to and agrees with the testimony of the Word of God. (4) Let ministers of the Word beware of preaching on the catechism in a too dogmatic way. This has occurred too often in the past, particularly in the 18th century (cf. Baars: 2012, 32ff). In that way we do not only wrong the hearers, but also the catechism itself. For this old book of instruction is extremely suitable for a simple, appealing, spiritual and practical preaching. For simplicity is not only characteristic of what is true—as a well-known Dutch proverb says—,19 it is also characteristic of the truth! (5) In the more recent homiletics a strong plea is made for the fact that preaching in our days should be clear, contemporary and expressive (Oskamp/ Geel: 1999). This certainly also counts for preaching on the catechism. Ministers should make the most important point in the sermon on the catechism as clear and actual as possible, certainly in the exposition of the Ten Commandments. In addition, it is also important to illustrate the proclamation and explanation of the catechism with images as much as possible. Illustrations and examples taken from the Bible itself are to be considered first in this (Beeke: 2013b, 76 f). The images should also not be too diverse and not vary too much in one sermon. For this will only distract the hearers and cause confusion. Moreover, the dialogue is an important method to preach on the catechism in an expressive way. The dialogical structure of the book of instruction itself as it were invites us to make use of this technique. There are several splendid examples of catechism preaching with a dialogical tone from the past, notably some of the catechism sermons of Bernardus Smytegelt (1665 – 1739; Smytegelt: 1766; cf. also Baars: 2012, 37 f). (6) Consistent with the intention of the catechism and the roots of the catechism service in Geneva, the children and the young people of the congregation may not be overlooked in the catechism sermon. For that reason the Synod of Dordrecht emphasized that “Catechism sermons should be brief and understandable; doctrine must be presented at the layperson’s level so that even children could understand it” (cf. Beeke: 2013a, 43; Kaajan: 1914, 162).

3. Actual Challenges The second Sunday service and the catechism sermon in particular, experience difficult times in many churches. I mention several reasons why this is the case, which form an equal number of challenges for the church 19 In Dutch: ‘Eenvoud is het kenmerk van het ware’.

Theory and Practice of Preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism

251

today. The second worship service is under pressure. In many congregations the attendance of the afternoon service is considerably less than in the morning service. This tendency seems to be increasing on a large scale. That demands an answer to the following questions: how can we convince the congregation of the significance of the catechism service and how can we affect the form and the content of the second worship service in such a way that members of the congregation will continue to come or even come back? In this quickly changing time we need to realize that young people learn in a different way than their grandparents and certainly than people from the 16th century did. We do not have to remain wide awake in the church about each new learning concept with announces itself. But a minister does need to bear these changing learning concepts in mind and, where this is possible, respond to them in his sermons. Moreover, for many people the word “doctrine” has a negative sound. It reminds them of strict, imperatively enforced doctrines and rules. These do not suit self-confident and articulate people who live at the beginning of the 21st century (cf. Beeke: 2013a, 47). This evokes the question: how do we show that the doctrines of the Scriptures are not a barren and dry system, but that they brim over with life and power (Hebr. 4:12)? In addition, it is of vital importance that we convince our hearers how beneficial and guiding the sound doctrine is in a time which is individualistic, fragmentary and confused. We all need well-structured instruction on the great doctrines of the Bible and the regular preaching of the Heidelberg Catechism is an excellent means to provide the church with this. Finally, I wholeheartedly concur with the final observation of Joel Beeke in his articles on catechism preaching: When churches hear the major doctrines of the Reformed faith expounded in sermons every twelve to twenty-four months, they will be better informed of their faith than those that sit under preaching where such teaching does not take place. In churches where catechetical preaching is not practiced, some doctrines may not be touched upon (depending on the pastor) for several years or even decades, whereas good catechetical preaching ensures the periodic repetition of nearly every major doctrine of the Bible. Our people will then hear the whole counsel of God as contained in his Word on a regular basis. For believers, this will be their comfort and delight (Beeke: 2013b, 78).

Bibliography Baars, A. (1998a), The “Appropriation of Salvation” in the Creeds, Part 1, The Clarion 46, no 24. – (1998b), The “Appropriation of Salvation” in the Creeds, Part 2, The Clarion 46, no 25.

252

Arie Baars

– (2010), Wisse als prediker en homileet, in: G. Wisse, Vrije Genade. Een selectie uit zijn preken, Apeldoorn: De Banier, 12 – 36. – (2012), ‘De eenvoudige Heidelberger…!’ Een korte geschiedenis van de Catechismuspreek in Nederland, Apeldoorn: Theologische Universiteit. Bakhuizen van den Brink, J.N. (ed.) (1960), Documenta reformatoria. Teksten uit de geschiedenis van Kerk en Theologie in de Nederlanden sedert de Hervorming I, Kampen: Kok Bank, J.H. van de (ed.) (1993), Kennen en vertrouwen. Handreiking bij de prediking van de Heidelbergse Catechismus, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Beeke, Joel R. (2013a), Holding Firmly to the Heidelberger : The Validity and Relevance of Catechism Preaching, in: Jon D. Payne/Sebastian Heck (ed.), A Faith Worth Teaching. The Heidelberg Catechism’s Enduring Heritage, Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 35 – 61. – (2013b), Preaching the Catechism Today, in: Jon D. Payne/Sebastian Heck (ed.), A Faith Worth Teaching. The Heidelberg Catechism’s Enduring Heritage, Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 62 – 78. Berkouwer, G.C. (19553), Conflict met Rome, Kampen: Kok. – (1974), Een halve eeuw theologie. Motieven en stromingen van 1920 tot heden, Kampen: Kok. Beyer, Ulrich (1965), Abendmahl und Messe: Sinn und Recht der 80. Frage des Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Bierma, Lyle D. (2005a), The Purpose and Authorship of the Heidelberg Catechism, in: idem (ed.), An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism. Sources, History, and Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 49 – 74. – (2005b), The Sources and Theological Orientation of the Heidelberg Catechism, in: idem (ed.), An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, 75 – 102. Blok, M.J.C. (1969), Beleden beloften. Preken over de 52 zondagen van de Heidelbergse Catechismus, Groningen: De Vuurbaak. Bolkestein, M.H. (ed.) (1969 – 1977), Postille 21 – 2, ‘s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum. Bremmer, R.H. (1991), 52 open vensters. 52 catechismuspreken, Enschede: Kerkenraad Gereformeerde Kerk Enschede Oost. Brienen, T. (1999), Handboek voor de diaconiologie. Inleiding in de theologie van de ‘bediening van het Woord’ in al zijn dimensies, Heerenveen: Groen. Calvin, John (19912), The Acts of the Apostles II (trans. John W. Fraser), Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. CGK (1992), Acta van de generale synode van de Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland gehouden te Apeldoorn-Centrum van 11 september–13 november 1992. CRC (1988), The Psalter Hymnal, Grand Rapids, MI: CRC Publications. Cunningham Mary B./Allen, Pauline (ed.) (1998), Preacher and Audience. Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics, Leiden: Brill. Denzinger, Henricus/Schçnmetzer, Adolfus (197335), Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, Freiburg: Herder.

Theory and Practice of Preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism

253

Dijk, K. (1903), De catechismuspreek in haar verscheidenheid, Franeker : Wever. – (1955), De dienst der prediking, Kampen: Kok. Dingemans, G.D.J. (19952), Als hoorder onder de hoorders. Een hermeneutische homiletiek, Kampen: Kok. Doekes, L. (1975), Credo. Handboek voor de gereformeerde symboliek, Amsterdam: Bolland. Douma, J. (19865), Verantwoord handelen. Inleiding in de christelijke ethiek, Kampen: Van den Berg. Endedijk, H.C. (1992), De Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland 2 (1936 – 1975), Kampen: Kok. Exalto, K. (n.d.), De enige troost. Inleiding tot de heidelbergse catechismus, Kampen: Kok. Feringa, J.H. (1904), God is liefde. De Heidelbergsche Catechismus behandeld in zijn twee en vijftig deelen, Amsterdam: Höveker en Wormser. Frein, Henricus de (1746/1753), Hondert en Zeventig Oeffeningen over den Heidelbergschen Catechismus I/II, Middelburg: Callenfels. Gootjes, Nicholaas H. (2010), Catechism Preaching, in: idem, Teaching and Preaching the Word. Studies in Dogmatics and Homiletics, Winnipeg: Premier Publishing, 383 – 409. Green, Ian (1996), The Christian’s ABC. Catechisms and Catechizing in England c. 1530 – 1740, Oxford: Clarendon. Haitjema, Th.L. (1948), De prediking als catechismus-prediking, in: S.F.H.J. Berkelbach van der Sprenkel/P.J. Roscam Abbing (ed.), Handboek voor de prediking. Bijzondere dagen en gelegenheden, Amsterdam: Holland. Hedtke, Reinhold (1969), Erziehung durch die Kirche bei Calvin. Der Unterweisungs- und Erziehungsauftrag der Kirche und seine anthropologischen und theologischen Grundlagen, Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer. Hendriks, A.N. (1983), De catechismusprediking, in: idem, Om de bediening van de Geest, Bijdragen over het ambt, de prediking en het pastoraat, Kampen: Van den Berg, 55 – 75. Hesselink, I. John (1992), Calvin’s Concept of the Law, Allison Park, Pennsylvania: Pickwick Hoekstra, T. (19753), Gereformeerde homiletiek, Amsterdam: Bolland. Huijgen, Arnold e.a. (ed.) (2013), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Kampen: Kok. Huyser, Ph.J. (1941), De Paraenese in de prediking, Franeker : Wever. Hyde, Daniel R. (2009), The Principle and Practice of Preaching in the Heidelberg Catechism, in: Puritan Reformed Journal, Vol 1/1, 97 – 117. Jetter, Werner (1988), Katechismuspredigt, in TRE 17, Berlin: De Gruyter, 744 – 786. Kaajan, H. (1914), De Pro-Acta der Dordtsche Synode in 1618, Rotterdam: De Vries. Kersten, G.H. (19612), Kerkelijk Handboekje. Opnieuw uitgegeven op last van de Generale Synode der Gereformeerde Gemeenten in Nederland, Utrecht: De Banier. Kok, J. (1903/1915), Schetsen over den Heidelbergschen Catechismus. Een handboek voor predikanten 1/2, Kampen: Kok.

254

Arie Baars

Kremer, W. (1976), Prediking en ethiek, in: idem, Priesterlijke prediking. Een bundel eigen werk, verzameld en aangeboden ter gelegenheid van zijn gouden ambtsjubileum, Amsterdam: Bolland, 35 – 57. Kruyswijk, A. (ed.) (1974), Proeve van belijden, opgesteld door dr. G. C. Berkouwer en dr. H. N. Ridderbos op verzoek van de synode van Dordrecht (1971/73) van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland en ter beoordeling aan de kerken aangeboden door de synode van Haarlem (1973/75), Utrecht: informatiedienst GKN. Landsman, F.H. (ed.) (1955), Documenten Nederlands Hervormde Kerk. Verklaringen, kanselafkondigingen, boodschappen, herderlijke brieven en rapporten, uitgevaardigd door of namens de Generale Synode der Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk in de jaren 1945 – 195, ‘s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum. Lekkerkerker, A.F.N. (1964), Gesprekken over de Heidelberger, Wageningen: Zomer en Keuning. Lindijer, C.H. (1979), Handelingen van de apostelen II, Nijkerk: Callenbach. Lloyd Bredenhof, Wesley (2011), For the Cause of the Son of God: the Missionary Significance of the Belgic Confession, Felismere, Florida: Reformation, Media and Press. Maag, Karin Y. (2005), Early Editions and Translations of the Heidelberg Catechism, in: Lyle D. Bierma (ed.), An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism. Sources, History, and Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 103 – 117. Masselink, E. (1974), Hoe spreekt de kerk vandaag? (N.a.v. het zg. Eenparig Geloofsgetuigenis opgesteld door de prof. G. C. Berkouwer en H. N. Ridderbos, en door de Generale Synode aan de kerken ter overweging aangeboden.), Waarheid en Eenheid. Miskotte, K.H. (1950), De kern van de zaak. Toelichting bij een proeve van hernieuwd belijden, Nijkerk: Callenbach = Verzameld werk 11, Kampen: Kok 1989, 5 – 272. Moehn, W.H.Th. (2013), Blijvend geding om mis en avondmaal. Betekenis en actualiteit van Heidelbergse Catechismus, vraag en antwoord 80, Baarn: Willem de Zwijgerstichting. Moerkerken, A. (1987), Van catechismusprediking tot boekencensuur, in: W. van ’t Spijker (ed.), De Synode van Dordrecht in 1618 en 1619, Houten: Den Hertog, 157 – 172. Nauta, D. (1963), Die Verbreitung des Katechismus, Übersetzung in andere Sprachen, Moderne Bearbeitungen, in: Lothar Coenen (ed.), Handbuch zum Heidelberger Katechismus, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 39 – 62. Oskamp, Paul/Geel, Rudolf (1999), Concreet en beeldend preken, Bussum: Coutinho. Rongen, G. van (ed.) (1986), De Westminster Confessie met de Grote en de Kleine Catechismus, vertaald en ingeleid door G. van Rongen, Barneveld: De Vuurbaak. Rothuizen, G.Th. (1962), Primus Usus Legis. Studie over het burgerlijk gebruik van de wet, Kampen: Kok. Ruijter, Kees de (2010), WeerWoord. Preken over de Heidelbergse Catechismus. Onder redactie van drs. Harm Boiten en ds. Pieter Schelling, Barneveld: BDU.

Theory and Practice of Preaching on the Heidelberg Catechism

255

Rutgers, F.L. (ed.) (19802), Acta van de Nederlandsche synoden der zestiende eeuw, Dordrecht: Van den Tol. Salzmann, Jorg Christian (1994), Lehren und Ermahnen. Zur Geschichte des christlichen Wortgottesdienstes in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Tübingen: Mohr. Santos, Valdeci S. (2009), A Missiological Analysis of the Westminster Confession of Faith, in: J. Ligon Duncan III (ed.) The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century. Essays in Remenbrance of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 327 – 353. Schaff, Philip (19832), The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes III, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. Schnell, Uwe (1968), Die homiletische Theorie Philipp Melanchthons, Berlin/ Hamburg: Lutherisches Verlagshaus. Siegert, Folker (2001), Homily and Panegyrical Sermon, in: Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, Boston/Leiden: Brill 2001, 421 – 443. Sinnema, Donald (1997), The Second Sunday Service in the Early Dutch Reformed Tradition, in: CTJ 32, 298 – 333. Smelik, E.L. (1962), De ethiek in de verkondiging, Nijkerk: Callenbach. Smytegelt, Bernardus (17664), Des Christens enige troost in leven en sterven, of verklaringe over den Heidelbergschen Catechismus in LII. predikatien, benevens V. belydenis-predikatien, Middelburg: Callenfels. Spijker, W. van ’t (1977/1978), ‘Doctrina naar reformatorische opvatting’, in: Theologia Reformata 20, 263 – 280; 21, 7 – 25. Trimp, C. (1978) , Inleiding in de ambtelijke vakken, Kampen: Van den Berg. – (ed.) (1979), De biddende kerk. Een bundel studies over het gebed aangeboden bij gelegenheid van het 125-jarig bestaan van de Theologische Hogeschool te Kampen, Groningen: De Vuurbaak. Tunderman, J.W. (1949), ‘t Beginsel der eeuwige vreugde I, Goes: Oosterbaan en Le Cointre. Veer, M.B. van ’t (1942), Catechese en catechetische stof bij Calvijn, Kampen: Kok. Velema, W.H. (1996), De taak van de apologetiek in de hedendaagse theologische discussie, Apeldoorn: Theologische Universiteit. Verboom, Wim (1986), De catechese van de Reformatie en de Nadere Reformatie, Amsterdam: Buijten en Schipperheijn. – (1996), De theologie van de Heidelbergse Catechismus. Twaalf thema’s: de context en de latere uitwerking, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. – (2002), Een oude drieslag als theologisch paradigma in de twintigste eeuw, Leiden: Universiteit Leiden. – (20082), De Heidelbergse Catechismus. Een eigentijdse weergave met uitleg van woorden, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. – (2009), The Completion of the Heidelberg Catechism, in: Willem van ’t Spijker (ed.), The Church’s Book of Comfort, Grand Rapids MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 27 – 61.

256

Arie Baars

Vries, W.G. de (1999), De Hemelse Leer. Preken over de 52 zondagen van de Heidelbergse Catechismus, Barneveld: BDU. Wintzer, Friedrich (ed.) (19975), Praktische Theologie, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Wisse, G. (1928), Het Apologetisch Element in de Bediening des Woords, Utrecht: Kemink. – (1930), Catechismusprediking voor onzen tijd, Dordrecht: Van Brummen.

T. Theo J. Pleizier

Heidelberg as Best Practice Catechism A Practical-Theological Exploration of Constructing Catechisms in a Post-Christian and De-churched Context

Catechisms present the essentials of the Christian faith. They do this in a specific manner : as a didactic instrument for religious instruction. For centuries the Heidelberg Catechism has served as catechetical text, although its confessional status gradually took over its didactic function. In contemporary pedagogics, there is considerable doubt concerning its viability as catechetical text for contemporary religious education (Schoberth: 2012; Dressler : 2013). This is strengthened by the fact that catechetical methods that indeed include the HC in their curriculum primarily use the HC as a confessional standard. These catechetical materials also demonstrate a didactic insecurity to use the HC as a means for religious instruction (Pleizier : 2013). Obviously, this is not a problem of the HC itself. Its textuality and historicity, however, raises various objections against the use of catechisms in the contemporary religious context as we will see. On the other hand, the popularity of catechetical missionary courses such as the Alpha Course, but also the theological apologetics for catechesis (Parrett/Kang: 2009; Packer/Parrett: 2010) or new pedagogical agenda’s for catechetical practices (De Kock: 2013), leaves the impression that the premodern phenomenon of a catechetical text did not die a modern or postmodern death. Further, in recent years a variety of authors presented new instances of the genre of ‘catechism’.1 This fits a broader observation, namely that several theologians both in academical and in church positions, have offered fresh introductions in the Christian faith.2 Though these introductory books do not properly count as catechisms, they at least indicate that a new interest in the basics of Christianity has arised. While the cultural, social and religious explanations may yet have to come forward, the phenomenon itself is noteworthy. Added to that, the 450th anniversary of the HC also called forth several publications that demonstrate the actuality of the HC for contemporary Christianity.3 This essay is located between the postmodern reluctancy concerning fixed 1 “New City Catechism,” last visited July 16, 2013, http://www.newcitycatechism.com/; Strengholt: 2013, Van der Deijl: 2010, Wentsel: 2012. 2 I only mention Wright: 2006 and Williams: 2007. This British connection has its continental counterparts. Both in translations of these English works, but also in similar products in The Netherlands, such as Veldhuis, 2005. 3 Among many others: Plasger : 2012, Verboom/Vergunst: 2013.

258

T. Theo J. Pleizier

catechetical texts on the one hand and the factual reassessment of catechetical practices in contemporary Christianity on the other hand. The first part explores the phenomenon of a catechism as a literary genre. The second part explores a few objections against the use of catechisms and presents some methodical aspects of writing new catechisms. The hinge that integrates both parts is the idea that the Heidelberg Catechism exemplifies a ‘best practice’ catechism.

1. Catechisms as Literary Genre: Christian Spirituality Taught A wide diversity of religious texts has shaped the self-understanding of Christianity, its spirituality and its theology. The various strands and traditions in Christianity have their own formative literature, yet some books stand out as ‘classics’. They have found their way across the traditions in mutual enrichment and a catholic recognition of speaking the same faith. The list obviously Western texts like Augustine’s Confessiones, John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, and Thomas a Kempis’ De imitatione Christi. These texts did not survive in Western Christianity only, but travelled around the globe and continued to be read through the centuries. No doubt, the Heidelberg Catechism takes its place in this series of Christian classics,4 albeit not as theological auto-biography, nor as apocalyptic allegory or Christian fantasy. It represents a specific genre of Christian texts:5 the genre of catechism. As a literary genre, a catechism has spiritual, didactic-rhetorical, and confessional features. First, a catechism is a spiritual text. It is an instrument in spiritual methodology :6 it moves the human mind towards understanding who God is, how salvation works and how the world runs; it guides into methods of how to interact with God and provides a pattern for living a religious life. It can be studied, memorised, meditated upon, and used to deepen the commitment to Christian faith. The question-and-answer form creates involvement. Spiritual here means that a catechism aims to involve the mind of the believer to deepen the knowledge of faith. Its textual aim is to involve the readers religiously. This goes beyond representing a mere list of ‘frequently-asked-questions’ or informational guide. A catechism is a form of spiritual formation through presenting the believer religious concepts, such as the inhabitation of the Spirit, forgiveness, creation, church, or being in Christ; 4 The reception of the HC is documented in chapters 9 – 11 in Huijgen: 2013. 5 In theology the analysis of literary genres emerged in biblical exegesis. The idea of ‘genre’ has become influential, yet not uncontested, through Form criticism, practiced by German exegetes such as Hermann Gunkel and specifically applied to the Psalter. Cf. Barton: 1996, 30 – 44. Genres are classifications of literary works, see “Genre” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Grand Rapids, 2005), 252. 6 For the idea of ‘spiritual methodology’, see Josuttis: 2002.

Heidelberg as Best Practice Catechism

259

it explains these concepts and helps the believer to become more religiously competent. The spiritual aspect does not coincide with one particular piety. Contemporary catechisms have a different tone and atmosphere, yet their essence is still to communicate and shape Christian spirituality, whether in the form of a prayer (B. Wentsel’s Brief Protestant Catechism) or in a witty, apologetic style (Strengholt’s Small Catechism for Freethinkers). In the case of the HC, it breathes Reformed spirituality. Secondly, a catechism has specific didactic-rhetorical features. Most notably, of course, is its question-and-answer structure. The questions and answers frame the user of the catechism into a particular role. This is quite obvious in for instance Calvin’s Catechism of Geneva in which questions are posed by the ‘minister’ and answers are provided by the ‘pupil’. This roletaking in questioning and answering shapes the didactics of the catechism. Quite different is Strengholt’s approach in his apological Small Catechism for Freethinkers in which he answers atheist’s objections against the Christian faith and presents it in a catechetical style. The questions are fierce, sharp, sometimes even blunt and offensive. The answers are witty, sharp, and sometimes as offensive as the questions are. Between the questions and answers a rhetorical fight is going on, a debate as part of a didactic situation. When questions and answers are the micro-level of the didactic-rhetorical structure, the macro-level of a classic catechism is about the way it structures the canon of Christian teaching. Sometimes Catechisms are structured according to the Creed. At other times, Catechisms present a full-blown presentation of the fore core elements of Christianity : the Creed (the doctrinal aspect of faith), the Decalogue (the ethical aspect), the Lord’s Prayer (the devotional aspect), and the words of institution concerning the sacraments (the ritual or worship aspect). The HC is a clear example of having these four core elements as its secondary textual structure.7 The student in Christianity is taught how to trust the gospel (HC 7) and the Creed follows accordingly ; she has to learn how to acquire faith and salvation by participating in the sacraments as signs of God’s grace (HC 25) and the Sacraments are presented. A Christian has to behave in a certain way, to show a desire of living a good life, a life of ‘conversion’, turning away from the old self and being renewed into a new being (HC 33), so the Decalogue follows as exposition of those works that are ‘good’ according to God. Finally, living in a close relationship with the heavenly Father, a Christian exercises prayer. The Lord’s Prayer, the fourth catechetical kernel, closes the catechism’s didactics of Christian faith. A similar pattern is visible in other sixteenth century protestant catechisms. Each putting the four central elements of the Christian faith in different orders, fitting to the overall, primary didactic structure.8 7 The primary structure consists of the three parts: misery, deliverance and gratitude. The four catechetical kernels are arranged within this larger pattern. 8 For Calvin this primary structure is given in question 7 of the Genevan Catechism that inquires

260

T. Theo J. Pleizier

The next two features point to a twofold connection between spirituality and didactics: (1) the spirituality taught in a catechism is closely connected to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; (2) a catechism is not a free floating interpretative exercise and embodiment of highly individualised spirituality, but it connects the believer to the wider church. In other words, a catechism has also hermeneutical and confessional features. As a form hermeneutics, a catechism aims to provide a framework for understanding the canonical text of the Scriptures. Christian doctrine and practice is presented as summary of the Bible implicating that there is a narrative plot or substance that unites the diversity of voices in the Scriptures. So, essentially a catechism offers a hermeneutical model to read and interpret the Scriptures. This hermeneutical function of a catechism becomes apparent in three ways: through explicit quotations of biblical texts; by means of implicit allusions to biblical passages or ideas; or in suggesting interpretative rules. In the HC all three of these hermeneutical devices are present: HC 2 inquires into the ‘law of God’, and answers: ‘this is taught by Christ’ followed by an explicit quotation from Matthew 22. In this Q&A the third device is also apparent: the fact that the Catechism explains the law as ‘the law of Christ’ functions as an interpretative rule to understand the relationship between law and gospel. Finally, a catechism unites believers. It has a confessional function. Generally speaking, a didactical text turns knowledge into a common good. Textbooks disperse knowledge in a wider scale and creates shared knowledge among a body of learners. This makes education an important instrument for creating and maintaining a society that consists of free subjects that nonetheless belong together because they share certain values and have access to a body of knowledge. A religious text that is primarily meant for educational purposes and not just for personal devotion, has a similar inherent capability to create a religious community. The text does not only helps new individuals become part of the community of faith through communicating its values, practices, and doctrine, the text also expresses the shared beliefs and practices of the church. Confessions express the common faith of the church. Due to their educational purposes, catechisms are bearers of the confession. They are confessional literature, in the sense that they enable the church to pass on its faith. For the HC this is true in a particular sense due to its historical circumstances. While it was written as a statement of faith as well as an educational instrument, it acquired an official status as confessional standard in many—mostly—Reformed churches in Europe and beyond. For the HC it meant that its didactic and confessional functions, became inseparable from after the ‘method’ of honoring God. As a secondary structure, Calvin sums up four elements or practices: to put our trust in God (the Creed), serve and obey God (the Decalogue), to call upon God in our needs (the Lord’s Prayer) and to seek salvation in God (the Sacraments).

Heidelberg as Best Practice Catechism

261

its confessional status that it acquired already a few decades after its publication in January 1563. It must be noted here that the confessional function of the text must be distinguished from its confessional status. The former being an inherent function of religious texts that aim to disperse the knowledge of faith among a body of believers; the latter refers to its ecclesial authority as a ‘founding document’. The social-religious fact that a catechism does unite believers, not always results in the institutional fact that a catechism is accepted as confessional standard for a particular denomination. During the period of the Reformation hundreds of catechisms did not make it into the Church Orders of the various Reformed churches that emerged in Europe during the sixteenth century. The HC—and a few other catechisms, such as the Genevan Catechism and the Westminster Catechisms—did play a part in the subsequent period that is indicated as the era of ‘confessionalisation’ of Protestant Orthodoxy by becoming instutionalised in Church Orders. These four features—the confessional, the didactic-rhetorical, the spiritual and the hermeneutical—indicate the textual functions of a catechism. In his work on the classification of types of discourse, Matthias Dimter (1985) distinguishes between three other categories: text content, text form, and the communication situation of the text. Hence, a catechism is also characterised by a certain textual content. This has been discussed above when the four catechetical kernels—Creed, Decalogue, Lord’s Prayer and Sacraments—were discussed as part of the didactic feature. The text form has also been touched upon, when the issue of questions and answers came up as specific textual form that shapes a catechism. The final category Dimter mentions is the ‘communication situation’ of a text. Texts determine and shape a communicative situation. The communicative situations shaped by catechisms are religious educational practices. Faith is lived in the everyday practices of believers (Immink: 2005). These practices entail actions, words, symbols, rituals, texts, roles and various other elements. The practice of preaching, for instance, entails the meeting of a speaker and a religious community, in an oral situation in which a sermon is performed. Religious practices are intentionally directed towards contact and interaction with God, yet they remain human activities and consist of a certain, socially constructed, patterned behavior. Catechetics in church communities embodies a religious practice: in an educational environment (De Kock, 2013), religious interactions take place. Religious discourse, the personality of the teacher, the relationship between teacher and class, the material and sources used, constitute a specific arrangement of interactions that is not only ‘about’ religion but is in itself practicing religion. Catechisms are texts that represent the reflective dimension of this practice of learning in the Christian tradition. Kathryn Tanner’s (2001) notion of ‘explicit theological reflection’ is relevant here. Reflection ‘fills’ practices with a historical, contextual, and theological richness that would be lost otherwise. Certain practices in Christianity are designed and acted-out in order to pass on this

262

T. Theo J. Pleizier

richness in a more reflective way. Catechisms represent examples of practices that are saturated with ‘explicit theological reflection’ in the way Tanner describes. In his influential discussion of practices, the ethicist Alasdair Macintyre (1985, 190 – 196; McCabe: 2005, 19 – 26) states that every practice has excellent standards. In order to learn to skate or to practice skating, one have to look for great examples in which the practice of skating has been exemplified in a unique way as a standard for all other skaters. In a similar way, the catechism from Heidelberg can be assessed as a paradigm, an exemplary example or excellent standard of the literary genre of catechisms. When catechisms are texts that embody spirituality and aim for religious teaching, the HC has proven itself to be an ‘excellent standard’.

2. Constructing New Catechisms? According to Bernard Dressler (2013, 206), “we can hardly imagine how in contemporary educational processes the HC will still be the structuring and guiding text.” He concludes that catechetical instruction by means of catechisms is a phenomenon that no longer suites modern educational insights. New pedagogical insights stress experiential modes of learning, a variety of learning-styles, and incorporate a different understandings of the dessimination of knowledge. A. de Kock distinguishes between three paradigms of learning in a catechetical situation: a behavioural, developmental and apprenticeship paradigm. At first sight, a catechism as expert ‘text’ fits the behavioural paradigm of learning, while the developmental paradigm centres around the student as meaning-making subject and the apprenticeship paradigm stresses the relationship between the teacher and the student (Cf. De Kock: 2013). But their eventual use in catechetical environments, however, must be reflected upon methodically. Why can they not be used for students in their own process of meaning-making? Next, the use of catechisms is also culturally rather spurious. As a religious text, a catechism suggests authority and normativity. This is especially felt, when a catechism—such as the HC—is part of the confessional standards of a denominational church. In a post-Christian culture this ecclesial authority is at least doubtful. A catechism stands for a Christian monoculture and assumes an institutional view of the church, both very much at odds with a culture in which knowledge is socially constructed, truth is democratic, institutions are spurious systems of power, and Christianity is a religious option among many others. Multiple systems of meaning co-exist and a text with peculiar proposition-like statements hardly fits in a pluralist society. Also from the inside, a catechism does not fit the way how many Christians think about their faith. Spirituality has become much more de-churched. In these de-

Heidelberg as Best Practice Catechism

263

institutionalised forms of Christianity a catechism appears as a relict from sixteenth century Western-European Christendom and is simply culturally outdated as a means for Christian learning. Thirdly, is faith something that you can be instructed in? Is it a form of knowledge such as driving a car or doing mathematics? Can faith be taught? The un-teachability of faith (Schweitzer) is a pneumatological precaution that Reformed theology is ready to make against the suggestion as if faith is like math which can be taught with the right mix of educational competency of the teacher and intellectual capacity or will-power on the part of the student. In its famous HC 21, the Heidelberg Catechism states that it is the Spirit of God who makes the human mind trust in God’s promises of forgiveness and eternal life. Faith is a gift from God. Yet faith is also an act of the human mind. There cannot be trust in God’s promises without human cognition. The other half of Heidelberg’s definition of faith entails the learnability of faith. It thus seems that faith is simultaneously unteachable and learnable (cf. also Schweitzer : 2006, 26; Schoberth: 2012, 188). One way to deal with this dialectic is another classic idea in Reformed theology : the Spirit of God and the spirit of man interact in the creation and maintenance of faith. The Pelagian controversy over free will lies right around the corner : faith remains a gift, not a human product. Yet with the Heidelberg Catechism we have to retain the intimate connection between the Divine Spirit, the presentation of the gospel and human understanding. Faith is shaped through cognitive practices, and a catechism is one means among others. In the end, as a gift of the Spirit, faith is a phenomenon that is thoroughly anthropologically grounded. Practices, such as preaching and catechetics, are means to engage the human mind through which faith is shaped and survives. Finally, though one does not have to agree with Dressler’s dismissal of catechisms as texts in religious-pedagogical situations (Dressler : 2013, 218), there is one problem in particular that is barely touched upon in many studies that were published on account of the HC’s 450 years. Various books and articles attempt to revive the ‘actual message’ of the HC or stress its continuing significance. Despite the worldwide confessional acceptance of the HC, there is a hermeneutical problem with the text that especially emerges in contexts of learning: it’s a sixteenth century text. Not its textuality, yet its historicity poses a specific problem in educational environments. The books and articles that stress the vitality of the HC present hermeneutical solutions and offer interpretations of the HC in order to show its actuality. By implication, its actuality has to be demonstrated. Yet this is rather problematic for a textbook. Implicated in its 450-year anniversary is its historicity and the historical distance that has to be dealt with accordingly. The HC addresses sixteenthcentury theological issues, for instance its approach to the sacraments; it frames religion in the everyday life of its ages, such as the use of ‘comfort’ in a society that is burdened by religious wars, persecution and with medical insecurities, including a high rate of child-deaths; and it presents the narrative

264

T. Theo J. Pleizier

of salvation in terms of the biblical-theological categories of the time. These aspects are not at all problematic for a conscious appropriation of the confessional history of the church. Yet for a text to function as bearer of Christian faith for new Christians and to articulate the substance of Christianity in new contexts, it poses a particular hermeneutical challenge. A text that is meant to provide a framework for interpretation has become the object of interpretation. Commentaries and reflections on the HC aiming to demonstrate its actuality, silently confirm the fact that the text itself is not a text that originates from our world. It actuality emerges serendipitously when the contemporary world meets the sixteenth century text or it is consciously stipulated by means of interpretation and extrapolation. In order to overcome this hermeneutical problem without completely discarding the phenomenon ‘catechisms’ in Christian teaching and practice, another route may be worth pursuing: constructing new catechisms. From the previous reflections, this direction should not be dismissed too quickly. Why not produce contemporary texts that aim to function as some kind of spiritual didactics, presenting a hermeneutical framework of understanding the Scriptural narrative and providing a confessional context for believers to feel connected to the worldwide church and to learn to speak the language of faith? Why not methodically turn to the HC as ‘best practice’ catechism or ‘excellent standard’? When constructing new catechisms, four specific characteristics of the HC must be taken into account: (1) its religious intentionality ; (2) its theological structure; (3) the relationship between the theological structure and the four key-texts of Christianity or kernels of faith; and (4) the choice for and definition of theological issues that were relevant for the Reformed movement in the 16th Century. The first famous question and answer of the HC illustrates the importance of the religious intentionality of a catechism. Though the notion of ‘comfort’ reoccurs only occasionally in the HC, the first question and answer gives a definite direction to the catechism as a whole. The catechism puts the questions of life and death, salvation and Christ’s Person and work in the framework of comfort. Comfort in a world of sadness, of wars and of persecution. Thus the intentionality of the HC is deeply embedded into the world in which it is written. Though not an exclusive biblical notion, comfort resounds with many Scriptural passages. So, a need of the day is taken, brought into contact with the Scriptures and the rich Christian tradition, and directs the whole text accordingly. In constructing new catechisms we can learn from this approach. In the context of the 21st Century Western Europe, a notion like ‘happiness’ refers to a need that is addressed in magazines, movies, philosophical analyses, and countless advertorials. We ‘should’ be happy, though we do not know how of what it is supposed to be. Happiness also connects to the biblical language such as the various beatutides in the Old and New Testament, it refers to a state in which human beings enjoy fulfillment and

Heidelberg as Best Practice Catechism

265

have gone beyond a broken world and a state of frustration. Happiness is a rich concept that may help to address shame and guilt as well as God’s original intent with this world and its final restauration. Hence, a religious intentionality provides a catechism with a coherent direction, in which contemporary (spiritual) needs are transported into the biblical world and transformed accordingly. Next, the HC has an elegant, easy to grasp, theological structure. From ‘comfort’ it moves to the question what should be known in order to live and die faithfully. This question gives way to a practical-epistemological theological structure in which three aspects of ‘self-knowledge’ of the believer are expounded: I should know my misery, I should know I will be delivered from my misery, and I should know how to demonstrate gratitude towards God for my deliverance. Misery, deliverance, and gratitude are not just theological concepts, they are excercises in self-knowledge, in knowledge of salvation, and in practical knowledge of being a grateful human being. This theological structure is easy to memorise, and it has changed the Reformed self-understanding for centuries. A catechism needs a theological structure in which for instance is explained how a Christian finds happiness. Finding happiness may consist for instance in trusting God and following Christ. Thirdly, the four kernels (Creed, Decalogue, Prayer and Sacraments) have to fit this structure accordingly. The HC connects the knowledge of deliverance with the Creed and the Sacraments, while living a life of gratitude is expressed in the Decalogue and in Prayer. This demonstrates a clear connection between the theological structure and the four central texts. Therefore, the placement of these kernels needs careful reflection. For instance, if finding happiness consists of trusting God’s character and following Christ (or : discipleship), then the four kernels can be distributed along these two acts of faith: the Creed and the Sacraments explain how trust works; Prayer and the Commandments explain discipleship. Finally, the HC addresses the theological issues of the day. Its definitions and theological interests are derived from the context of the Reformed church that expresses its foundational teachings in the light of the controversies with Rome. Though not a polemical document, its theological context is visible in the way the Sacraments are dealt with as signs of God’s promise; how justification and sanctification are defined christologically ; and how ‘good works’ are part of the teaching, but placed in the third part on gratitude. The way HC introduces its burning theological issues and how it defines its theological concepts is illuminating. One does not need to introduce evolutionbiology in a question on God the Creator. The answer to the question, however, will no doubt resound a worldview in which nihilism and naturalism are dominant. Similarly, in explaining the Decalogue, modern medical ethics or the omnipresence of the media do not have to be included on the level of questions. They do form the background against which discipleship is illustrated.

266

T. Theo J. Pleizier

3. Conclusion A catechism teaches spirituality, in a methodical way with a contextual awareness and an eye to the worldwide church. The HC is widely accepted as a best practice catechism. Yet in a post-Christian culture, new issues need to be addressed and different theological definitions may be provided. An individualised spirituality, though, still requires a common articulation of Christianity on the side. The resurgence of introductions in Christian faith indicate a need for a newly formulated basic Christianity and new catechisms fit into this broader trend in constructing religious texts.

Bibliography Barton, John (1996), Reading the Old Testament. Method in Biblical Exegesis, London: Darton. Deijl, Aarnoud van der (ed.) (2010), Doornse Catechismus. Oude vragen, nieuwe antwoorden, Kampen: Kok. Dimter, Matthias (1985), On Text Classification, in: Teun A. van Dijk, Discourse and Literature. New Approaches to the Analysis of Literary Genres, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 215 – 230. Dressler, Bernard (2013), Ein religionspädagogischer Blick auf den Heidelberger Katechismus, in: Pastoraltheologie 102, 200 – 218. Huijgen, Arnold e.a. (ed.) (2013), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Kampen: Kok. Immink, F.G. (2005), Faith. A practical theological reconstruction, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Josuttis, Manfred (2002), Religion als Handwerk. Zur Handlungslogik spiritueller Methoden, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Kock, A. de (2013), Promising Approaches to Catechesis in Church Communities. Towards a Research Framework, in: International Journal of Practical Theology, 16/2, 176 – 196. MacIntyre, Alisdair (1985), After Virtue. A Study in Moral Theory, London: Duckworth. McCabe, H. (2005), The Good Life. Ethics and the Pursuit of Happiness, London: Continuum. Packer, J.I./Parrett, Gary A. (2010), Grounded in the Gospel. Building Believers the Old-Fashioned Way, Grand Rapids: BakerBooks. Parrett, Gary A./Kang, S. Steve (2009), Teaching the Faith, Forming the Faithful. A Biblical Vision for Education in the Church, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Plasger, Georg (2012), Glauben heute mit dem Heidelberger Katechismus, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Heidelberg as Best Practice Catechism

267

Pleizier, T. Theo J. (2013), Het gebruik van de Heidelbergse Catechismus in geloofsonderwijs, in: Arnold Huijgen e.a. (ed.), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Kampen: Kok, 337 – 346. Schoberth, Ingrid (2012), „Meines getreuen Heilands Jesu Christi eigen sein“, Religionspädagogische Anmerkungen zur katechetischen Praxis des Heidelberger Katechismus“ in: Helmut Schwier/Hans Georg Ulrichs, Nötig zu wissen. Heidelberger Beiträge zum Heidelberger Katechismus, Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 173 – 190. Schweitzer, Friedrich (2006), Religionspädagogik, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus. Strengholt, Jos (2013), Kleine Catechismus voor Freethinkers, Heerenveen: Medema. Tanner, Kathrine (2001), Theological Reflection and Christian Practice, in: Miroslav Volf/Dorothy C. Bass, Practicing Theology. Beliefs and Practices in Christian Life, Grand Rapids, 228 – 242. Veldhuis, Henri (2005), Kijk op geloof. Christelijk geloof uitgelegd, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Verboom, W./Vergunst, P.J. (2013), Catechismus.nu. De Heidelberger voor vandaag, Zoetermeer : Boekencentrum. Wentsel, B. (2012), Kleine Protestantse Katholieke Catechismus. Vijftig gesprekken met en over God, Kampen: Kok. Williams, Rowan (2007), Tokens of Trust. An Introduction to Christian Belief, Norwich: Canterbury Press. Wright, Tom (2006), Simply Christian, Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Hans Burger

Gospel Presentation and the Structure of the Heidelberg Catechism

1. Introduction To what extent is the framework of the Catechism helpful in understanding the gospel and the Scriptures, and to what extent is it not? Personal experiences in my own church denomination raised this question. I am member of a Reformed denomination, in which the Heidelberg Catechism used to play an important role. In my youth, pastors all knew the Catechism by heart. Its framework often influenced their theology significantly. But during my theological studies, I increasingly wondered: to what extent is the framework of the Catechism really helpful, and to what extent is it not? This is a question that has not often been considered. Literature on the Catechism, such as the many commentaries on the Catechism, often concentrates on giving commentary on separate Lord’s Days. Other works, like the recent Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus (Huijgen: 2013), contain thematic articles dealing with theological themes like comfort, God the Father, or the law of God. Literature giving a theological overview of the Heidelberg Catechism often deals with the Catechism from the perspective of one theme, which is often near to the heart of the interpreter of the Catechism. Van ‘t Spijker gives an exposition of the theology of the Catechism in light of the theme of communion with Christ (Van ’t Spijker : 2005a); Kruidhof chooses the kingdom of God as the centre of his interpretation (Kruidhof: 2013). Avery careful and detailed analysis of the structure of the Heidelberg Catechism is given by Thorsten Latzel, which makes it possible to see the strengths but also the weaknesses of this structure (Latzel: 2004, especially 94 – 140). However, his work is an exception, although Van ’t Spijker gives elements of such an analysis as well (Van ’t Spijker 2005a). In general, criticisms and concerns focus either on the manner in which the Catechism deals with certain themes, or on the fact that certain themes are ignored. (Ulrichs: 2013; Weinrich: 2013; Van ’t Spijker : 2005b, 284 – 290). Nevertheless, the strengths and weaknesses of the manner in which the Catechism deals with its themes are not significantly analysed. The Heidelberg Catechism offers a perspective of the gospel of Jesus Christ and of the Christian doctrine. Hence, it is important to analyse this view, for example by giving a structural analysis of the text of the Catechism. Any catechism, and especially the Heidelberg Catechism, structures its content

Gospel Presentation and the Structure of the Heidelberg Catechism

269

from a theological and pedagogical point of view. Themes are selected; these themes are arranged in a certain order, and connections are shown between these themes. Some words and images are used, maybe overused, whereas other words and images are not at all. This is what we customarily do when we explain the gospel to someone else: we use an “evangeliepresentatielijn” as Kees Haak has called it (Haak: 1998, 71 – 77), a certain line of presenting the gospel. This means that someone tries to present the gospel to someone with the intent to clarify the significance of the gospel in a way that communicates the message effectively. We do the same in education, but also in systematic theology, putting theological themes together in a certain structured way as Rinze Reeling Brouwer has shown (Reeling Brouwer: 2009). We always have a certain point of view from which we select and order theological themes, choosing words and images that fit our purposes. This is done in response to certain questions, which are being asked in our context. Rhetorical analysis can be helpful to clarify the chosen strategies. Seen this way, the Heidelberg Catechism offers a perspective on the gospel of Jesus Christ and of Christian doctrine, developed in answer to some important questions. And this perspective has influence: its emphases, its ordering, its selection, its vocabulary, its blind spots, they all influence our understanding of the Gospel and the Christian doctrine, and consequently our spirituality and our Christian life as well. In this paper I will set out to provide an analysis of the structure of the Heidelberg Catechism. After the analysis of this structure, I will discuss to which questions this structure gives answers. In the final part of my paper, I will address the question concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen structure for presenting the gospel and its possible influence on spirituality.

2. The Structure HC 1 gives a comprehensive answer to the question concerning our only comfort that is strongly christocentric and Trinitarian in nature. This, however, is secondary to the basic structure, introduced in HC 2, which sets forth the anthropological and soteriological emphasis of HC.1 HC 2 introduces the tripartite structure of the Catechism, that on the surface structures the Catechism (misery, deliverance, gratitude): What must you know to live and die in the joy of this comfort? Three things: first, how great my sin and misery are; 1 See for an analysis of HC 1 and the concentration of the Heidelberg Catechism on the preaching of the gospel Latzel: 2004, 43 – 93.

270

Hans Burger

second, how I am set free from all my sins and misery ; third, how I am to thank God for such deliverance.

The traditional elements of churchly catechesis receive their place within this macrostructure (Latzel: 2004, 94 – 97, 111). This leads to the following structure: HC

Part/traditional element

Content

1

Our only comfort

2

Introduction of three parts

3 – 11

I – Misery

3 – 11 12 – 85

Law, sin, punishment II – Deliverance

12 – 22

Satisfaction, mediator, faith

23 – 25

Apostolic Creed

Creed, trinity

26 – 28

God the Father and our creation

Creation, providence

29 – 52

God the Son and our redemption Name and history of Jesus Christ

53 – 58

God the Spirit and our sanctifica- Spirit, church, forgiveness, resurtion rection

59 – 64

Justification, good works

65 – 68

Sacraments

69 – 74

Holy Baptism

75 – 82

Lord’s Supper

83 – 85 86 – 91

General introduction

Keys of God’s kingdom III – Gratitude

86 – 91

Good works, conversion

92 – 113 Ten Commandments 114 – 115 116 – 129

Use of the law The Lord’s Prayer

Gospel Presentation and the Structure of the Heidelberg Catechism

271

It is important to note that the empty spaces in the second column are misleading. The analysis of Thorsten Latzel shows the significance of these parts of the Heidelberg Catechism. Latzel distinguishes between the hamartiological-soteriological foundation, introducing parts and connecting parts (Latzel: 2004, 62 – 71, 111 – 121). His analysis of these parts can be summarised in a table as: HC

Function

Theological theme

Relation to faith

3 – 11

Sin/Punishment

Hamartiological foundation

12 – 19

Satisfaction/Mediator

Soteriological foundation

20 – 25

Introduction Faith

Content of faith

59 – 64

Connection

Relation faith–good works in soteriological perspective

65 – 68

Introduction Sacraments

83 – 85

Connection

86 – 87, 91 – 93

Introduction Law

Expression of faith

87/88 – 90

Connection

Relation faith–good works in ethical perspective

Justification/ good works

Origin of faith

Keys of the king- Relation faith–good works in sacradom mental perspective

Penitence and conversion

114 – 115 Connection

Use of the preaching of the law

116 – 119 Introduction Prayer

(Expression of faith)

This second table demonstrates the importance of the introducing and connecting parts for the structure of the Heidelberg Catechism. Further, it shows the importance of justification by faith alone and related themes for the structure of the Catechism. Finally, it indicates that to understand the perspective of the Catechism on the gospel and on Christian doctrine, we need to do more than investigate its tripartite structure: we need to reconstruct its central theological argument. This central argument can be reconstructed as follows: 1. 2. 3.

God created man good, capable of performing what the law required. Fallen in sin, we are no longer capable to do so, but we are now inclined to all evil. In his just judgment God will punish our sin temporally and eternally.

272 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Hans Burger

We can escape from this punishment if God’s justice is satisfied by making full satisfaction. We cannot make this satisfaction. Only Jesus Christ, true and righteous human, but also true God, can make satisfaction for sin, bear the weight of God’s wrath and restore to us righteousness. Only those who are by true faith grafted into Christ receive the benefits of his salvation. A Christian has to believe what the gospel promises. Hence, as elaboration on this faith, the apostolic creed is explained, following its Trinitarian structure. Only by true faith in Jesus Christ are we righteous before God, for God imputes to us Christ’s satisfaction, righteousness and holiness. Our good works do not add anything to our righteousness. If only faith makes us partakers of Christ and his benefits, it is important to know where faith comes from: from the Holy Spirit who uses the proclamation of the gospel and the sacraments. Next follows the exposition of the significance of the sacraments: they assure that we are partakers of the sacrifice of Christ (and in his benefits, in case of the Lord’s Supper). The kingdom of heaven is opened and closed by the keys of God’s kingdom, and requires conversion and true faith. Justified by faith, we need to do good works because Christ’s Spirit renews us according to the image of Christ: the old nature has to be mortified, the new nature to be quickened. By faith, good works are performed according to God’s law and done for God’s glory. Hence, the meaning of the Ten Commandments is described. Although we cannot perfectly keep these commandments, they are preached to acquaint us with our misery and our salvation in Christ, and to awaken in us the prayer for the sanctification by the Holy Spirit. Prayer is necessary, for it is the chief part of gratitude which God requires of us and the treatment of the Lord’s Prayer follows.

This reconstruction of the argument of the Heidelberg Catechism shows that the theme of justification by faith alone is indeed its “systematisches Herzstück” (Goeters: 1989, 226). Justification and the language of the court of justice determine the perspective of the Catechism and the chosen line of gospel presentation. Hence, the central issues are themes such as the law and its requirements, sin as violation of the law, judgment, punishment or satisfaction to satisfy God’s justice and to restore to us righteousness, faith and good works. Further, we see the theological expertise of its authors, who very powerfully related the traditional elements of ecclesiastical catechesis to the central theological problems of their time. It is a wonderful example of contextual theology.

Gospel Presentation and the Structure of the Heidelberg Catechism

273

3. The Question Hence, the main question to which the Heidelberg Catechism is an answer, as already indicated: how am I righteous before God? That this became a pressing question cannot be understood without mentioning something about the development of theological thinking concerning atonement and justification in Medieval Western Europe. According to Jaroslav Pelikan, during the Middle Ages “penance rather than infant baptism was taken as the paradigm for the way God and man interacted in the relation of grace” (1975, 330 f).Thus, the sacrament of penance became probably “fundamental not alone to a full understanding of sacramental doctrine, but to the pastoral and disciplinary life of the church” (Pelikan: 1978, 210; further 1985, 95, 128). Practices of penance introduced by Irish and Anglo-Saxon monks played an important role in this development.2 Other historical analyses show developments that could lead to this centrality of penance, hence supporting Pelikan’s thesis. Ohlig mentions the juridical ordothinking of the Latin and Christian-Latin mentality (2001, 12 – 17). Further, Angenendt’s theory of the re-archaisation of early medieval thinking makes it more understandable how penance with its plain practical logic became a central practice (1997, 1 – 7, 13, 23, 25, 34ff). Early and later scholastic thinking can be understood in this light as a series of attempts to correct the legalistic and Pelagian tendencies favoured by these early medieval practices of penance. These tendencies remain possible as long as the concept of participation in Christ is ambiguous because it can be read in two directions: “we participate in Christ by what we receive” as well as “we participate in Christ by what we do or experience”. When this is understood as participation in Christ’s suffering, in his work of satisfaction, or in the justification of Christ (cf. Rom 4:25) it easily (or necessarily in the case of participation in his work of satisfaction) leads to Pelagian tendencies. Oberman’s analyses of the theology of Gabriel Biel show that justification was both sola gratia and solis operibus and hence that the ambiguity of a theology of justification that can be read in two directions was indeed a reality (Oberman: 1965, 167, 183). People in the uncertain late Middle Ages lived in a period full of death and violence. Every time they entered a cathedral, they saw the last judgment of Christ. But the powerful church who pretended to be the distributor of salvation was at the same time a corrupt institution in decline. In this context, the theological ambiguity caused by Pelagian tendencies lead to a continuing existential uncertainty. The central question remained unanswered: how am I righteous before God? 2 See on Irish and Anglo-Saxon influences on the practice of penance e. g. Angenendt: 1997, 21 – 22, 35, 39, 626 – 639; Dinzelbacher : 2001, 41 f; Kolmer: 1996, 52 f; Pelikan: 1984, 32; Speelman: 2010, 161 – 186; Vorgrimler: 1978, 93 – 113.

274

Hans Burger

The Reformation of the sixteenth century rediscovered the significance of the gospel as an answer to that question. The Heidelberg Catechism testifies to the theological strength of the movement of the Reformation. But it is a contextual answer, and an admirable one, to a tradition wrestling with theological problems evoked by the sacrament of penance as it was practiced in medieval Western Europe. Other presentations of the gospel, in different contexts and as an answer to different problems are possible as well. To explain the gospel in a changed context in answer to new problems, alternate lines of presenting the gospel are not merely possible, but necessary.

4. The Effects A chosen line of gospel presentation has its effects. It selects, orders and relates themes. Some themes that have a prominent position in a structure receive emphasis and are easily kept; other themes that are made less prominent are easily forgotten. When a perspective on the gospel as the Heidelberg Catechism offers plays an important role in a community over the centuries, it influences the understanding of the gospel and the spirituality of that community. Consequently, it is important to see what the Catechism does and does not do, evaluate its strengths and weaknesses and estimate the effects of the chosen structure. 1. The language the Catechism uses is especially related to the law court, as we observed. This is a good option, but not the only one. Especially its use of the language of law and punishment is a reason for Charles Taylor to criticise the Reformation in his book A Secular Age, especially its Calvinist stream (Taylor : 2007, 77ff; cf. 262). It is very well possible to present the gospel using other concepts, such as concepts related to the world of the temple as we find it in the letter to the Hebrews: impurity, unholiness, guilt that has to be atoned, a sacrifice, priest, temple, dedication and devotion. Other images used in the Bible stem from the world of the battlefield (war, enemies, victory), the world of slavery (liberty, prison, liberation, redemption, ransom) or the world of the hospital (disease, doctor, medicine, healing). These words evoke other images and appeal to other parts of our imagination. They guide our attention to other dimensions of salvation than the juridical language does: victory over our enemies (death and devil), restoration of our liberty, healing of a diseased world, to mention some examples. 2. In the gospel presentation of the Heidelberg Catechism, our union with Christ and our participation in Christ do play a role. By faith we are grafted into Christ. We become partakers of his person and his benefits. The Holy Spirit renews us in accordance with Christ’s image. In the Lord’s Supper, we are assured that we are united to Christ’s body. However, the concept of unio mystica and participation is developed further in reaction

Gospel Presentation and the Structure of the Heidelberg Catechism

275

to the late medieval concept of participation and to the church’s pretense that it is a necessary mediating institution, which shares in Christ’s mediating office and distributes salvation to its members. If participation in Christ is understood as participation in his justification and his saving work of satisfaction, participation becomes an ambiguous concept that can be read in two directions, as was shown. The Reformation tried to eliminate this ambiguity, turning union and participation into a one way concept. The mystical union with Christ is not understood as the final goal of a mystical way, but as the starting point of the dynamics of salvation. By union with Christ, we participate in him and in his benefits. The substitution of Christ is emphasised and our incapacity to contribute to our salvation. The mediating role of the church is minimised, emphasising that it is the Holy Spirit who uses the proclamation of the gospel and the sacraments. The image of washing is favoured to understand baptism whereas the participation in Christ’s burial and death is not mentioned in relation to baptism (HC 69 – 74). Van ’t Spijker’s reading of the Catechism shows that the union with Christ is present in the Catechism (2005a). However, the fact that others, such as Latzel analysing the theological structures of the Catechism (2004), Fesko writing on Jesus Christ in the Catechism (2013), or Beck on salvation (2013) hardly mention this union with Christ, shows that its importance is not as evident as Van ’t Spijker claims. Furthermore, this concept of participation has its limitations. The Pauline notion that we participate in the story of Jesus Christ, sharing in his death and burial through baptism and mortification, in his justification by his resurrection, in his suffering, is minimised or absent. Most explicitly, such participation is conceptualised as a participation in Christ’s anointing as prophet, priest and king (HC 32). As priests, we present ourselves as living sacrifices of thankfulness. Our activity as priest is carefully differentiated from a sacrifice of atonement. We cannot suffer for the benefits of others as Paul did, filling up in his flesh what is lacking in Christ’s sufferings (Col 1:24). The Catechism does not mention a role for the church and its members as a sharing in Christ’s office, praying for other people in the name of Jesus. Further, we do find a participation in Christ’s sacrifice and death in HC 43. Here passive formulations are chosen, and again our activity in offering ourselves is phrased as a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Our sharing in Christ’s sufferings is not mentioned, and again no suffering for the benefit of others is mentioned. In comparison, we find a participation in Christ’s resurrection in HC 45. Christ’s substitution is emphasised first: by his death, he had purchased righteousness for us. The resurrection of Christ as the vindication of a victim of injustice cannot be understood as a source of hope for those suffering from severe injustice. The Pauline idea that we in our justification share in the

276

Hans Burger

vindication of Christ (Rom 4:25) is left out. With regard to our new life, the power of Christ that raises us is stressed. Other elements in the New Testament are neglected as well. We, as God’s children, do not share in Christ’s identity as God’s son. God became our Father not in Christo but propter Christum (HC 120), an expression that emphasises the work of Christ done for us. We do not share in Christ’s mission. The mediating role of the loving communion of the saints, evoking a sense of the loving presence of God (John 17:21), is left out. Finally, it is important to notice that the concept of ‘benefits of Christ’ is not a Biblical concept, but a concept developed by the Reformation to validate the exclusive character of its concept of participation. The concepts of ‘benefits of Christ’ makes it possible to say that we do not participate in the work of Christ by which he purchased the benefits of salvation, but only in those benefits already purchased by Christ. Participation in the benefits of Christ, however, differs from participation in the identity and history of Jesus Christ. In conclusion, the concept of participation in Christ of the Heidelberg Catechism is too limited, although we can sympathise with the Reformation developing this concept of participation for good reasons. 3. In reaction to the sacrament of penance, the Reformation retold the gospel by replotting it. In this replotted story, some elements of the Biblical story return while others disappear. Our being created good is mentioned as the positive background in the section on our misery, where the focus is on our sin and resulting incapacity to obey God’s commandments. Creation returns within the framework of salvation and faith as part of the explanation of the apostolic creed. However, the people of Israel and their expectation of the eschatological Kingdom of God on a new earth are not included in the important elements of this retold story. The mission of the people of Israel and the mission of the church as God’s holy priesthood to testify of God’s majesty by declaring his praises both disappear. Instead of collective and missionary motifs, the primary focus is on the individual person: with regards to the sacrament of penance, everyone is ultimately an individual before God. The new life is conceptualised according to the Old Testament framework of the ten commandments of the law, and not according to the imitation of Christ or the fruits of the Spirit. In its doctrine of God, God’s righteousness takes priority over God’s mercy. I would suggest that in the Bible firstly, God’s righteousness is understood to be broader than punishing righteousness, and moreover secondly, that the order of righteousness and mercy is reversed. God is merciful again and again. This evokes the question whether God is permissive, or whether punishing sinners brings no solution at all. This is certainly not the case. God shows that he is merciful and saving, but righteous as well. This changes our image of God. He is not a punishing God who is merciful as well; He is a loving God, who is righteous as well. 4. In short, the plot of the Heidelberg Catechism is summarised as misery, deliverance, gratitude. These three words have a simplicity that makes it easy

Gospel Presentation and the Structure of the Heidelberg Catechism

277

to remember them, whereas the real theological structure of the Catechism is far more difficult to reproduce. Consequently, the short summary of the structure leaves its mark. It leads to superficial readings of the Catechism that have spiritual consequences. In the Netherlands, these consequences become visible in different church environments. Firstly, in the pietistic reading you need to have experienced your misery deeply before you can believe that you are delivered or can be thankful to God. Secondly, a ‘helpless–but–guilty’reading is possible (cf. Schilder : 1987). If the misery is emphasised as our total incapacity to do any good, if moreover the emphasis is on what Christ did in the past, and if the gratitude is understood as the obligation to obey the law but the work of the Holy Spirit is forgotten, then the effect is a feeling of helpless guilt: I need to be different but I cannot; I can only receive forgiveness. Thirdly, the same understanding might lead to a ‘cheap grace’-reading: we are not able to do any good although we are obligated to, but God knows and he will forgive. Fourthly, a ‘do–ut–des’-reading can be found. If God saves me from my misery, in return I have to be thankful. This is again a reading with Pelagian tendencies: God is first active to deliver me, but after God I need to do my utmost to be thankful. These four readings only stay true to the short summary of the structure of the Heidelberg Catechism, not to its real structure and its content. However, it is important to see that they limit the significance of Christ to his work in the past; the mystical union with Christ, the participation in Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit are forgotten, whereas the juridical and individual setting has survived. The history of the Dutch reformed churches evidence that these four readings belong to the Wirkungsgeschichte of the Heidelberg Catechism. Inaccurate readings of the Catechism do affect spirituality.

5. Conclusion The chosen order of the Heidelberg Catechism affects our spirituality. The Heidelberg Catechism gives a wonderful answer to the spiritual problems of a late medieval tradition wrestling with problems caused by the prominence of the sacrament of penance. Its central theological argument evidences this. To 16th century Christians, the Heidelberg Catechism is a contextually sensitive presentation of the gospel. We are saved by Christ alone. It fosters, however, a spirituality that focuses on juridical and individual issues. In the 21st century it is important to see the limitations of the Catechism, especially in churches that were theologically heavily influenced by it. It is only partly helpful in understanding the communion with and participation in Christ which is spiritually so important. Its replotting of the story of the Bible might lead to a neglect of notions such as the kingdom of God and the mission of the church. Finally, it does not do enough to prevent an

278

Hans Burger

image of God that gives God’s punishment too prominent a place. We need other presentations of the gospel to explain its significance. The gospel is richer than we can see in the perspective of the Heidelberg Catechism.

Bibliography Angenendt, Arnold (1997), Geschichte der Religiosität im Mittelalter, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Beck, Andreas J. (2013), Het heil volgens de Heidelbergse Catechismus, in Arnold Huijgen e.a. (ed.), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok, 269 – 281. Dinzelbacher, Peter (2001), Das erzwungene Individuum. Sündenbewustsein und Pflichtbeichte, in: Richard von Dülmen (ed.), Entdeckung des Ich. Die Geschichte der Individualisierung vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 41 – 60. Fesko, John V. (2013), Jezus Christus volgens de Heidelbergse Catechismus, in: Arnold Huijgen e.a. (ed.), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok, 229 – 238. Goeters, J.F. Gerhard (1989), Die Lehre von der Rechtfertigung in den reformierten Bekenntnisschriften, besonders im Heidelberger Katechismus, und ihr Verhältnis zum Konzil von Trient, in: Karl Lehman (ed.) Lehrverurteilungen—Kirchentrennend? II Materialien zu den Lehrverurteilungen und zur Theologie der Rechtfertigung, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 224 – 229. Haak, Cornelis J. (1998), De klok van nieuw leven: gemeente en evangelisatie: een methodiek, Kampen: Voorhoeve. Huijgen, Arnold e.a. (ed.) (2013), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok. Kolmer, Lothar (1996), Mittelalter, in: Winfried Becker/Günter Christ/Andreas Gestrich/Lothar Kolmer, Die Kirchen in der Deutschen Geschichte (Kro¨ ners Taschenausgabe, Bd 439), Stuttgart: Kröner, 1 – 196. Kruidhof, Jacob (2013), Op goed gezag: het koninkrijk van God als samenhang van de Heidelbergse Catechismus, Franeker : Van Wijnen. Latzel, Thorsten (2004), Theologische Grundzu¨ ge des Heidelberger Katechismus: eine fundamentaltheologische Untersuchung seines Ansatzes zur Glaubenskommunikation (Marburger Theologische Studien 83), Marburg: N.G. Elwert Verlag. Oberman, Heiko A. (1965), Der Herbst der Mittelalterlichen Theologie (Spätscholastik und Reformation 1), Zürich: EVZ-Verlag. Ohlig, Karl-Heinz (2001), Christentum—Individuum—Kirche, in: Richard von Dülmen (Hrsg.), Entdeckung des Ich. Die Geschichte der Individualisierung vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 11 – 40.

Gospel Presentation and the Structure of the Heidelberg Catechism

279

Pelikan, Jaroslav (1975), The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100 – 600) (The Christian Tradion: A History of the Development of Doctrine 1), Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. – (1978), The Growth of Medieval Theology (600 – 1300) (The Christian Tradion: A History of the Development of Doctrine 3), Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. – (1984), The Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300 – 1700) (The Christian Tradion: A History of the Development of Doctrine 4), Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Reeling Brouwer, Rinse (2009), Grondvormen van theologische systematiek, Vught: Skandalon. Schilder, Aleid (1987), Hulpeloos maar schuldig: het verband tussen een gereformeerde paradox en depressie, Kampen: Kok. Speelman, Herman A. (2010): Biechten bij Calvijn: over het geheim van heilig communiceren, Heerenveen: Groen. Spijker, Willem van ’t (2005a), De theologie van de Heidelbergse Catechismus, in: W. van ’t Spijker e.a., Het troostboek van de kerk: over de Heidelbergse Catechismus, Houten, Den Hertog, 108 – 150. – (2005b), De actualiteit van de Heidelbergse Catechismus, in: W. van ’t Spijker e.a., Het troostboek van de kerk: over de Heidelbergse Catechismus, Houten, Den Hertog, 270 – 293. Taylor, Charles (2007), A Secular Age, Cambridge MA/London UK: 2007. Ulrichs, Hans-Georg (2013), Kritiek op de Heidelbergse Catechismus, in: Arnold Huijgen e.a. (ed.), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok, 147 – 158. Vorgrimler, Herbert (1978), Busse und Krankensalbung, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte Bd. 4 Fasz. 3, Freiburg: Herder. Weinrich, Michael (2013) Thema’s waar de Heidelbergse Catechismus over zwijgt, in: Arnold Huijgen e.a. (ed.), Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, Utrecht: Kok, 313 – 324.

Maarten J. Kater

Permanent Education Lessons from the “je lenger je mehr”-passages in the Heidelberg Catechism

There are people who hold to the opinion that the Heidelberg Catechism puts real spiritual life in a straitjacket. According to them, Reformed Christians have their thoughts tied. The doctrine of the HC is seen by them as an oppressing and suppressing factor to the spiritual life. On the contrary, I argue that the threefold ‘know-how’, referred to as the structure within the HC, teaches what real spirituality is about. It emphasizes the opposite in that it instructs the reader about spiritual life. Every scholar may be considered a perpetual pupil though the course of his life, for else he may not be counted in the spiritual sense a scholar at all.

1. Threefold ‘Know-How’ Let us commence by way of the second Q & A of the HC in order to discover that one can speak of an ongoing instruction in the life of a true Christian: Q. What do you need to know in order to live and die in the joy of this comfort? A. First, how great my sins and misery are; second, how I am set free from all my sins and misery ; third, how I am to thank God for such deliverance.

How it is possible to have the ample knowledge of the greatness of the depth of our sin and our misery? Can one ever imagine that he will have the true sense of the love of God and his amazing grace (Eph. 3:18 f)? And, do we really know ‘how to be thankful to God for such a deliverance’? Not while we dwell on earth. In this contribution I will consider one of the striking aspects of the spirituality of the Heidelberger Catechism. It concerns one of its main principles, or key features, namely the so-called lifelong learning. I call it one of its principles indeed, because this is not an aspect fit to be placed is a footnote. On the contrary, this is the way the authors of the HC have proposed congregational instruction, instruction for home and personal life as well as didachh (a word related to ‘discipleship’). Thus, the ecclesia reformata is not only the church under the condition of semper reformandae. The church will never be reformed without semper docendae. And for this reason we need the Spirit of teachableness (docilitas; cf. Neuser : 1987, 57 – 77). The purpose of the HC is not just getting acquainted with some theoretical

Permanent Education

281

knowledge. No, learning by heart—and how important it is—has always be seen as a link to experiential learning. With this I mean a practical learning by experiencing the truth and the beauty of God’s own words and His Word, Jesus Christ by His Holy Spirit. Therefore, the practical aspect of knowledge is included for the instruction of children, the younger people of the congregation, as well as for the adults. Lifelong learning as an “Einübung im Christentum” (Sören Kierkegaard). The expression “je lenger je mehr” (magis magisque) beautifully illustrates this practical aspect of the HC and is being referred seven times in the HC. A short exposition of these passages will be given, a brief tour of the HC, if you like. I shall highlight some words and interactions within the text of the answers referred to later and the relation between these various answers. I claim that one can place these seven passages under three headings, namely : sin, Christ and faith.

2. Ongoing Instruction—Sin First of all we deal with HC 70//HC 89//HC 115. These answers dwell on three themes: sin and dying, sin and denying, and sin and deepening. 2.1 Sin and dying Q. 70 What does it mean to be washed with Christ’s blood and Spirit? A. To be washed with Christ’s blood means that God, by grace, has forgiven our sins because of Christ’s blood poured out for us in his sacrifice on the cross. To be washed with Christ’s Spirit means that the Holy Spirit has renewed us and sanctified us to be members of Christ, so that more and more we become dead to sin and live holy and blameless lives.

There is the relationship between the “more and more” and the “once for all,” as Romans 6:1 – 14 teaches us. In itself it sounds very strange; for how does one become more and more? In natural life this is impossible, because there is nothing between being dead and alive. In our spiritual life the “more and more” must seen as the ongoing process in which the Christian becomes “more and more” what he already is, in Christ, that is’. One cannot be more or less dead or in Christ. In this life, however, the Christian is living more or less from this source ‘in Christ’. 2.2 Sin and denying Q. 89 What is the dying-away of the old self ? A. To be genuinely sorry for sin and more and more to hate and run away from it.

282

Maarten J. Kater

The process of dying just mentioned in HC 70 is connected to denying sin in HC 89. One feature of true repentance is the dying (of the old nature), i. e. “more and more to hate” it. I therefore prefer to translate “hate” as the opposite of “love”. And, as love implies a Yes to something or someone, hating sin implies a No against sin. This is what I mean by denying sin. Thus, this “more and more” passage shows the daily exercise in saying No to sin, because of the Yes to the triune God. 2.3 Sin and deepening Q. 115 Since no one in this life can obey the Ten Commandments perfectly, why does God want them preached so pointedly? A. First, so that the longer we live the more we may come to know our sinfulness and the more eagerly look to Christ for forgiveness of sins and righteousness.

This passage in the HC is about preaching the law of God—the Ten Commandments (Kevan: 1964). We discover not only the aspect of dying for sin, and denying sin, but also a deepening of the knowledge of our misery and sin, i. e. the awareness of our sinful nature. Besides, one can never dive deep enough to reach the bottom of the ocean of sin in the depths of the human heart.

3. Ongoing Instruction—Christ and Christian 3.1 Partaker of Christ HC 76//HC 115. These parts of the HC discuss the process of being increasingly unified with Christ and becoming like Christ, i. e. being in Christ (being a Christian) and becoming in Christ (becoming a Christian) by faith. Q. 76 What does it mean to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink his pouredout blood? A. It means to accept with a believing heart the entire suffering and death of Christ and thereby to receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life. But it means more. Through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us, we are united more and more to Christ’s blessed body. And so, although he is in heaven and we are on earth, we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. And we forever live on and are governed by one Spirit, as the members of our body are by one soul.

This is the very language of love. Augustine’s concept of the Spirit as the vinculum trinitatis as well as the vinculum amoris is very beautiful in the light of John 17:26 for example, “I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be

Permanent Education

283

in them, and I in them.” The language of “more and more” in respect to the union with Christ, underscores that love never reaches any limits. This may be true regarding our love to Him, but it is especially true in the light of the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge (Eph. 3:19; cf. Bierma: 2013, 53 – 70).

3.2 Image of Christ Q. 115 Since no one in this life can obey the Ten Commandments perfectly, why does God want them preached so pointedly? A. (…) Second, so that we may never stop straving, and never stop praying to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, to be renewed more and more after God’s image, until after this life we reach our goal: perfection.

This is the goal of perfection. We, however, never do cross this border. Our pilgrimage here is an ongoing instruction into the “more and more”. To this end God has create us, namely for holiness. “A pious and holy person is never without the struggle against sin, but one who freely soaks in the love of the Father and the grace of the Son and who finds renewal in the strong fellowship of the Spirit” (Kapic: 2012, 46).

4. Ongoing Instruction—Faith The last two passages dealing with the “more and more” in the HC are connected to the practice of the life of faith.

4.1 Strengthening faith Q. 81 Who should come to the Lord’s table? A. Those who are displeased with themselves because of their sins, but who nevertheless trust that their sins are pardoned and that their remaining weakness is covered by the suffering and death of Christ, and who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and to lead a better life (…).

Those who are to come to the table of the Lord have a craving for the food and the drink on the table, because they are hungry and thirsty. However, if one is a healthy believer and has tasted this spiritual food and drink in faith, it results in a greater desire for more of this food and drink. Why? Because he does not have any power in himself. And this circumstance takes us to the second petition in our Lord’s Prayer.

284

Maarten J. Kater

4.2 Obeying faith Q. 123 What does the second petition mean? A. “Your kingdom come” means: Rule us by your Word and Spirit in such a way that more and more we submit to you. Preserve your church and make it grow. Destroy the devil’s work; destroy every force which revolts against you and every conspiracy against your holy Word. Do this until your kingdom fully comes, when you will be all in all.

Exercising faith is exercising a child-like obedience, and an ongoing submission to the Lord. Which student in this school of the Kingdom can say that he has successfully completed this course on these very topics? Our daily prayer is and shall remain “Your kingdom come”.

5. Some Concluding Remarks Concerning the “more and more” as the practice of the Christian lifelong learning I want to conclude with some considerations: 1. It is connected to the phrase “by the Holy Spirit” and is followed by a longing for this Spirit’s work in the lifelong regeneration (conversion, renewal). The Holy Spirit is the eschatological Spirit in that he is experienced as the firstfruits or downpayment (arraboon) and the “seal” (sfragh) of the believer’s life in Christ. Reflections on this aspect of the Spirit’s work has been the impetus for using the famous scheme of the already and not yet (Thiselton: 2007, 297). 2. The sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper illustrate and stimulate this ongoing process (as expressed in the “more and more” passages) in the life of the believer (holiness). 3. A true Christian must never be satisfied with himself in exercising faith. ‘For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.’(1 Cor. 13:12). 4. A lifelong learning must be seen as a lifelong loving of God and longing for God, because the Christian belongs to God in Christ by the Spirit of life and love. “So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13). 5. The afternoon or evening service on Sunday, therefore, must dedicated to the Christian doctrina as the way of life for the pilgrim’s progress during the week. 6. The HC reflects the Biblical teaching on the Christian life. In the passages of the “more and more” the echo of what Paul teaches resonates in his letter to the Philippians (1:9ff; 3:12ff) for example.

Permanent Education

285

Bibliography Bierma, Lyle C. (2013), The Theology of the Heidelberger Catechism: A Reformation Synthesis, Louisville: Westminster John Know Press. Kapic, Kelly M. (2012), A Little Book for New Theologians, Downers Grove: IVP Academic. Kevan, Ernest F. (1964/1999), The Grace of Law. A Study in Puritan Theology, Morgan: Soli Deo Gloria Productions. Neuser, Wilhelm H. (1987), Calvin’s Conversion to Teachableness, in: Klerk, Peter de (ed.), Calvin and Christian Ethics, Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society. Thiselton, Anthony C. (2007), The Hermeneutics of Doctrine, Grand Rapids/ Cambridge: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

About the authors

Dr. Arie Baars is Professor Emeritus of Practical Theology at the Theological University Apeldoorn, The Netherlands. Dr. Henk van den Belt is professor of Reformed Theology at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Dr. Lyle D. Bierma is Professor of Systematic Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. Dr. Erik A. de Boer is Associate Professor of Ecclesiology at the Theological University Kampen, The Netherlands; Extraordinary Professor for the History of the Reformation at VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Affiliate Professor of Patristics at Jonathan Edwards Centre Africa, Free State University Bloemfontein. Dr. Hans Burger is Postdoctoral Researcher in Systematic Theology at the Theological University Kampen, the Netherlands. Dr. Dr. h.c. Eberhard Busch is Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany. Kyle J. Dieleman is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Iowa, United States. Dr. Frank Ewerszumrode is a Dominican friar and teaching assistant of dogmatics and ecumenical theology at the Faculty for Catholic Theology of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Germany. Dr. Riemer A. Faber is Associate Professor of Classical Studies at the University of Waterloo (Canada), and Director of the Waterloo Institute for Hellenistic Studies. Dr. Gerard den Hertog is Professor of Systematic Theology at the Theological University Apeldoorn, The Netherlands.

About the authors

287

Dr. Arnold Huijgen is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at the Theological University Apeldoorn, the Netherlands. Dr. Maarten J. Kater is Associate Professor of Practical Theology at the Theological University Apeldoorn, The Netherlands. Dr. Christian Link is Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at the RuhrUniversität Bochum, Germany. Dr. Wim H.Th. Moehn is minister of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, Hilversum. Dr. Andreas Mühling is Professor of History at the University of Trier, Germany. Dr. T. Theo J. Pleizier is a pastor in the Protestant Church in the Netherlands and researcher in practical theology at the Protestant Theological University, The Netherlands. Dr. Frank van der Pol is Professor of Church History at the Theological University Kampen, The Netherlands. Pieter Veerman is a pastor in the Protestant Church in the Netherlands and a Ph.D. candidate at the Protestant Theological University, The Netherlands. Dr. Dolf te Velde is Postdoctoral Researcher in Systematic Theology at the Theological University Kampen, the Netherlands. Dr. Wim Verboom is Professor Emeritus for the History of Reformed Protestism at the University Leiden, The Netherlands. Dr. Willem van Vlastuin is Professor of Theology and Spirituality of Reformed Protestantism, Dean of the Hersteld Hervormd Seminary and Director of the Jonathan Edwards Centre Benelux at VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Research Associate at UFS Bloemfontein, South-Africa. Kees de Wildt is a Ph.D. candidate at VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands.