07069.2 - Heidelberg Catechism - 2

§69.2. The Heidelberg Catechism. A.D. 1563 -Part 2.

COMPARISON WITH THE LUTHERN AND WESTMINSTER CATECHISMS. The Heidelberg Catechism stands mediating between Luther’s Small Catechism, which appeared thirty-four years earlier (1529), and the Shorter Westminster Catechism, which was prepared eighty-four years later (1647).

These are the three most popular and useful catechisms that Protestantism has produced, and have still the strongest hold upon the churches they represent. They have the twofold character of catechisms and symbolical books. They are alike evangelical in spirit and aim; they lead directly to Christ as the one and all-sufficient Saviour, and to the Word of God as the only infallible rule of the Christian’s faith and life.

Luther’s Catechism is the most churchly of the three, and adheres to the Catholic tradition in its order and arrangement. It assigns a very prominent place to the Sacraments, treating them in separate chapters, co-ordinate with the Decalogue, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer; while the others incorporate them in the general exposition of the articles of faith. Luther teaches baptismal regeneration and the corporeal presence, and even retains private confession and absolution as a quasi-sacrament. Heidelberg and Westminster are free from all remnants of sacerdotalism and sacramentalism, and teach the Calvinistic theory of the sacraments, which rises, however, much higher than the Zwinglian. On the other hand, the Lutheran and the Heidelberg Catechisms differ from the Westminster in the following points: 1. They retain the Apostles’ Creed as the basis of doctrinal exposition; while the Westminster Catechism puts it in an appendix, and substitutes a new logical scheme of doctrine for the old historical order of the Creed. 2. They are subjective, and address the catechumen as a Church member, who answers from his real or prospective personal experience; while the Westminster Catechism is objective and impersonal, and states the answer in an abstract proposition. 3. They use the warm and direct language of life, the Westminster the scholastic language of dogma; hence the former two are less definite but more expansive and suggestive than the Presbyterian formulary, which, on the other hand, far surpasses them in brevity, terseness, and accuracy of definition.

Upon the whole we prefer the catechetical style and method of the creative Reformation period, because it is more Biblical and fresh, to that of the seventeenth century-the age of scholastic orthodoxy-although we freely concede the relative progress and peculiar excellences of the Westminster standard. [SeeNote #1022] The Heidelberg Catechism differs from that of Luther-1. By its fullness and thoroughness, and hence it is better adapted to a maturer age; while that of Luther has the advantage of brevity and childlike simplicity, and adaptation to early youth. The one has one hundred and twenty-nine, the other only forty questions and answers, and of these only three are devoted to the exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, while the Sacraments receive disproportionate attention. 2. The Heidelberg Catechism gives the words of the Decalogue in full, according to the twentieth chapter of Exodus, and follows the old Jewish and Greek division, which is adopted by the best commentators; while Luther presents merely an abridgment, [SeeNote #1023] and follows the Roman division by omitting the second commandment and splitting the tenth into two. [SeeNote #1024] 3. The former gives a summary of the law, through which comes the knowledge of sin, in the first part (Ques. 3 and 4), but explains the Decalogue in the third division, viewing it in its Christian aspect as a permanent rule of life; while Luther regards the law in its Jewish or pedagogic aspect, as a schoolmaster leading men to Christ, and hence he puts it as the first head before the Creed. Ursinus correctly says: ’The Decalogue belongs to the first part so far as it is a mirror of our sin and misery, but also to the third part as being the rule of our new obedience and Christian life.’ [SeeNote #1025] 4. In the rendering of the Creed, besides minor verbal differences, the Heidelberg Catechism retains ’the holy catholic Church,’ with the addition of ’Christian’ (eine heilige allgemeine christliche Kirche ); while Luther’s omits ’catholic,’ and substitutes for it ’Christian.’ [SeeNote #1026] 5. In the Lord’s Prayer the Heidelberg Catechism uses the modern form ’Our Father’ (Unser Vater ), while Luther in his Catechism (though not in his translation of Matthew 6:9 and Luke 11:2) adheres to the Latin and old German form of ’Father our’ (Vater unser ), a difference tenaciously maintained by German Lutherans. The former divides the Prayer into six petitions (with the Greek commentators), and renders ek ponçrou’from the evil one’ (vom Bösen, i.e., from the devil); while Luther (with Augustine) numbers seven petitions, and translates (herein agreeing with the English version) ’from evil’ (vom Uebel ). The difference between the Heidelberg and Westminster Catechisms is chiefly one of nationality. Where the choice is between the two, the former will be used in preference by Germans, the other by Scotch and English Presbyterians. The Westminster Shorter Catechism has the advantage of greater condensation and precision. It is not impossible to make a better one than either by blending the excellences of both. They represent also two types of piety: the one is more emotional and hearty, the other more scholastic and intellectual. This appears at once in the first question. The Heidelberg Catechism asks: ’What is thy only comfort in life and in death?’ The Westminster: ’What is the chief end of man?’ The one goes at once into the heart of evangelical piety-the mystical union of the believer with Christ; the other goes back to the creation and the glory of God; but both teach the same God and Christ, and the same way of salvation, whereby God is glorified, and man is raised to everlasting felicity in his enjoyment.

HISTORY OF THE CATECHISM.

1. The Heidelberg Catechism was greeted with great joy, and was at once introduced into the churches and schools of the Lower Palatinate; while the Upper Palatinate, under the governorship of Louis (the eldest son of Frederick III.) remained strictly Lutheran.

But, like every good book, it had to pass through a trial of probation and a fire of martyrdom. Even before it was printed an anonymous writer attacked the Heidelberg Synod which, in December, 1562, had adopted the Catechism in manuscript, together with sundry measures of reform. [SeeNote #1027] After its publication it was violently assailed by strict Lutherans for its alleged Zwinglian and Calvinistic heresies, and by Jesuits on account of the condemnation of the idolatry of the mass in the eightieth question. The first opponents were Lutheran princes (Margrave Charles II. of Baden, Duke Christopher of Würtemberg, the Palatine of Zweibrücken), and Lutheran divines, such as Heshusius, Flacius, Brentius, and Andreæ. [SeeNote #1028] Ursinus wrote an able apology of his Catechism, which is embodied in several older editions since 1584. A theological colloquy was held at Maulbronn in April, 1564, where the theological leaders of the Lutheran Duchy of Würtemberg and the Reformed Palatinate, in the presence of their princes, debated for six days in vain on the eucharist and the ubiquity of Christ’s body. Both parties were confirmed in their opinions, though the Reformed had the best of the argument. [SeeNote #1029]

Frederick III., notwithstanding his appeal to Melanchthon and the Altered Augsburg Confession, was openly charged with apostasy from the Lutheran faith, and seriously threatened with exclusion from the peace of the empire. Even the liberal Emperor Maximilian II. wrote him a letter of remonstrance. His fate was to be decided at the Diet of Augsburg, 1566. At this critical juncture the pious Elector boldly defended his Catechism, which, he said, was all taken from the Bible, and so well fortified with marginal proof-texts that it could not be overthrown. He declared himself willing to yield to God’s truth, if any one could show him any thing better from the Scripture, which was at hand for the purpose. Altogether he made, at the risk of his crown and his life, such a noble and heroic confession as reminds us of Luther’s stand at the Diet of Worms. Even his Lutheran opponents were filled with admiration and praise, and left him thereafter in quiet possession of his faith. ’Why do ye persecute this man?’ said the Margrave of Baden; ’he has more piety than the whole of us.’ The Elector Augustus of Saxony gave similar testimony on this memorable occasion. [SeeNote #1030]

Thus the Catechism had gained a sort of legal existence in the German empire, although it was not till after the Thirty-Years’ War, in the Treaty of Westphalia, that the Reformed Church, as distinct from the Lutheran, was formally recognized in Germany.

After the death of Frederick it had to pass through another persecution in the home of its birth. His successor, Louis VI. (1576-1583), exiled its authors, and replaced it by Luther’s Catechism and the Formula of Concord. But under the regency of Frederick’s second son, Prince John Casimir, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Reformed Church were restored to their former honor, and continued to flourish till the outbreak of the Thirty-Years’ War. This war brought terrible devastation and untold misery upon Heidelberg and the Palatinate, which were laid waste by the merciless Tilly (1622). Then followed the repeated invasions of Turenne, Melac, and Marshal de Lorges, under Louis XIV. The Palatinate fell even into the hands of Roman Catholic rulers (1685), and never again rose to its former glory. Thousands of Protestants emigrated to America, and planted the Catechism in Pennsylvania, so that what it lost in the old world it gained in the new. The indifferentism and rationalism of the eighteenth century allowed all creeds to go into disuse and neglect. In the nineteenth century faith revived, and with it respect for the Heidelberg Catechism; but, owing to the introduction of the union of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches in the Grand Duchy of Baden, to which Heidelberg now belongs, it was merged into a new catechism compiled from it and from that of Luther. [SeeNote #1031]

2. The history of the Palatinate Catechism extends far beyond the land of its birth. It took deeper root and acquired greater influence in other countries. Soon after its appearance it commended itself by its intrinsic excellences to all Reformed Churches of the German tongue. It was introduced in East Friesland, Jülich (Juliers), Cleve (Cleves), Berg, the Wupperthal, Bremen, Hesse Cassel, Anhalt, Brandenburg, East and West Prussia, the free imperial cities, in Hungary, Poland, and in several cantons of Switzerland, as St. Gall, Schaffhausen, and Berne. [SeeNote #1032] In the royal house of Prussia it is still used in the instruction of the princes, even after the introduction of the union of the two confessions. [SeeNote #1033]

It was surrounded with a large number of learned works which fill an important place in the history of Reformed theology. Eminent professors made it the basis of lectures in the University. In no country was the Catechism more honored than in Holland and her distant colonies in Asia and Africa. It soon replaced the catechisms of Calvin and Lasky. The synods of Wesel, 1568, of Emden, 1571, and of Dort, 1574, recommended and enjoined its use; and ministers were required to explain it to the people in fifty-two lessons throughout the year in the afternoon service of the Lord’s day. In the beginning of the sixteenth century the Arminians called for a revision of it, to remove certain features to which they objected. But the famous General Synod of Dort, after a careful examination, opposed any change, and, in its 148th Session, May 1, 1619, it unanimously delivered the judgment that the Heidelberg Catechism ’formed altogether a most accurate compend of the orthodox Christian faith; being, with singular skill, not only adapted to the understanding of the young, but suited also for the advantageous instruction of older persons; so that it could continue to be taught with great edification in the Belgic churches, and ought by all means to be retained.’ This judgment was agreed to by all the foreign delegates from Germany, Switzerland, and England, and has thus an œcumenical significance for the Reformed communion. The Heidelberg Catechism was also clothed with symbolical authority in Scotland, and was repeatedly printed ’by public authority,’ even after the Westminster standards had come into use. It seems to have there practically superseded Calvin’s Catechism, but it was in turn superseded by Craig’s Catechism, and Craig’s by that of the Westminster Assembly.

3. From Holland the Heidelberg Catechism crossed the Atlantic to Manhattan Island (1609), with the discoverer of the Hudson River, and was the first Protestant catechism planted on American soil. A hundred years later, German emigrants, driven from the Palatinate by Romish persecution and tyranny, carried it to Pennsylvania and other colonies. It has remained ever since the honored symbol of the Dutch and German Reformed Churches in America, and will continue to be used as long as they retain their separate denominational existence, or even if they should unite with the larger Presbyterian body.

One of the first acts of the reunited Presbyterian Church in the United States, at the session of the General Assembly in Philadelphia, May, 1870, was the formal sanction of the use of the Heidelberg Catechism in any congregation which may desire it. [SeeNote #1034]

4. In the year 1863, three centuries after its first publication, the Heidelberg Catechism witnessed its greatest triumph, not only in Germany and Holland, but still more in a land which the authors never saw, and in a language the sound of which they probably never heard. The Reformation was similarly honored in 1817, and the Augsburg Confession in 1830, but no other catechism. In Germany the tercentenary celebration of the Heidelberg Catechism was left to individual pastors and congregations, and called forth some valuable publications. [SeeNote #1035] The German Reformed Church in the United States took it up as a body, and gave it a wider scope. She made the three-hundredth anniversary of her confession the occasion for a general revival of theological and religious life, the publication of a triglot edition of the Catechism, the endowment of a tercentenary professorship in her seminary, and the collection of large sums of money for churches, missions, and other benevolent objects. All these ends were accomplished. The celebration culminated in a general convention of ministers and laymen in Philadelphia, which lasted a whole week, January 17-23, 1863, in the midst of the raging storm of the civil war. About twenty interesting and instructive essays on the Catechism and connected topics, which had been specially prepared for the occasion by eminent German, Dutch, and American divines, were read in two churches before crowded and attentive assemblies. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Frederick III., Ursinus, and Olevianus were called from their graves to reproduce before an American audience the ideas, trials, and triumphs of the creative and heroic age of the Reformation. Altogether the year 1863 marks an epoch in the history of the Heidelberg Catechism and of the German Reformed Church in America. [SeeNote #1036] OPINIONS ON THE CATECHISM.

We close this chapter with a selection from the many warm commendations which the Heidelberg Catechism has received from distinguished divines of different countries.

Henry Bullinger, the friend and successor of Zwingli, himself the author of a catechism (1559) and of the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), wrote to a friend:

’The order of the book is clear; the matter true, good, and beautiful; the whole is luminous, fruitful, and godly; it comprehends many and great truths in a small compass. I believe that no better catechism has ever been issued.’[SeeNote #1037] The Hessian divines quoted by David Pareus:

’There is no catechism more thorough, more perfect, and better adapted to the capacity of adults as well as the young.’ The English delegates to the Synod of Dort, George Carleton (Bishop of Llandaff), John Davenant (afterwards Bishop of Salisbury), Archdeacon Samuel Ward, Dr. Thomas Goade, and Walter Balcanqual, said:

’That neither their own nor the French Church had a catechism so suitable and excellent; that those who had compiled it were therein remarkably endowed and assisted by the Spirit of God; that in several of their works they had excelled other theologians, but that in the composition of this Catechism they had outdone themselves.’[SeeNote #1038] The favorable judgment of the Synod of Dort itself has already been quoted.

Dr. Ullmann (d. 1865), formerly Professor at Heidelberg, and one of the best Church historians of the nineteenth century: [SeeNote #1039]

’The Heidelberg Catechism, more systematically executed than Luther’s, unfolds upon the fundamental thoughts of sin, redemption, and thankfulness, the Reformed doctrine, yet without touching upon predestination, with rare pithiness and clearness, and obtained through these excellences not only speedy and most extended recognition in the Reformed Churches, but is to-day still regarded by all parties as one of the most masterly productions in this department.’

Dr. Aug. Ebrard, one of the ablest and most prolific German Reformed divines: [SeeNote #1040]

’For wonderful union of dogmatic precision and genial heartiness,[SeeNote #1041] of lucid perspicuity and mysterious depth, the Heidelberg Catechism stands alone in its kind. It is at once a system of theology and a book of devotion; every child can understand it at the first reading, and yet the catechist finds in it the richest material for profound investigation.’

Göbel, the author of an excellent history of Christian life in the Reformed Church: [SeeNote #1042]

’The Heidelberg Catechism may be properly regarded as the flower and fruit of the entire German and French Reformation; it has Lutheran fervor, Melanchthonian clearness, Zwinglian simplicity, and Calvinistic fire blended in one, and therefore-notwithstanding many defects and angles-it has been (together with the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540), and remains to this day, the only common confession and doctrinal standard of the entire German Reformed Church from the Palatinate to the Netherlands, and to Brandenburg and Prussia.’

Sudhoff, formerly a Roman Catholic priest, then pastor of the German Reformed Church at Frankfort-on-the-Main: [SeeNote #1043]

’A peculiar power and unction pervades the whole work, which can not easily be mistaken by any one. The book, therefore, speaks with peculiar freshness and animation directly to the soul, because it appears as a confident, joyous confession of the Christian heart assured of salvation. It is addressed to the heart and will as much as to the head. Keen and popular unfolding of ideas is here most beautifully united with the deep feeling of piety, as well as with the earnest spirit of revival and joyous believing confidence. And who that have read this Catechism but once can mistake how indissolubly united with these great excellences is the powerful, dignified, and yet so simple style! What a true-hearted, intelligible, simple, and yet lofty eloquence speaks to us even from the smallest questions!’

Dr. K. B. Hundeshagen, Professor of Theology at Heidelberg, afterwards in Bonn (d. 1873), calls the Heidelberg Catechism a ’witness of Reformed loyalty to the Word of God, of Reformed purity and firmness of faith, of Reformed moderation and sobriety,’ and a work ’of eternal youth and never-ceasing value.’ [SeeNote #1044] Dr. Plitt, formerly Pastor in Heidelberg, then Professor of Theology in Bonn: [SeeNote #1045]

’The Heidelberg Catechism still lives; it has not died in three hundred years. It lives in the hearts of Christians. How many catechisms have since then disappeared, how many in the last thirty or forty years, and have been so long sunk in the "sea of oblivion," that one scarcely knows their titles. The Heidelberg Catechism has survived its tercentenary jubilee, and will, God willing, see several such jubilees. It will not die; it will live as long as there is an Evangelical Church.’

Dr. Henry Harbaugh, late Professor of Theology at Mercersburg (d. 1867), a gifted poet and the author of several popular religious works: [SeeNote #1046]

’It is worthy of profound consideration, that the Heidelberg Catechism, which has always ruled the heart, spirit, and body of the Reformed side of the Reformation, has no prototype in any of the Reformers. Zwingli and Calvin can say, It is not of me; it has the suavity but not the compromising spirit of Melanchthon. It has nothing of the dashing terror of Luther. What is stranger than all, it is farthest possible removed from the mechanical scholasticism and rigid logic of Ursinus, its principal author. Though it has the warm, practical, sacred, poetical fervor of Olevianus, it has none of his fire and flame. It is greater than Reformers; it is purer and sounder than theologians.’

Dr. J. W. Nevin, successively Professor of Theology in the Presbyterian Seminary at Alleghany, in the German Reformed Seminary at Mercersburg, and President of Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pa.: [SeeNote #1047]

’In every view, we may say, the Catechism of the Palatinate, now three hundred years old, is a book entitled, in no common degree, to admiration and praise. It comes before us as the ripe product of the proper confessional life of the Reformed Church, in the full bloom of its historical development, as this was reached at the time when the work made its appearance. Its wide-spread and long-continued popularity proclaims its universal significance and worth. It must have been admirably adapted to the wants of the Church at large, as well as admirably true to the inmost sense of its general life, to come in this way into such vast credit. Among all Protestant symbols, whether of earlier or later date, there is no other in which we find the like union of excellent qualities combined and wrought together in the same happy manner. It is at once a creed, a catechism, and a confession; and all this in such a manner, at the same time, as to be often a very liturgy also, instinct with the full spirit of worship and devotion. It is both simple and profound; a fit manual of instruction for the young, and yet a whole system of divinity for the old; a text-book, suited alike for the use of the pulpit and the family, the theological seminary, and the common school. It is pervaded by a scientific spirit, beyond what is common in formularies of this sort; but its science is always earnestly and solemnly practical. In its whole constitution, as we have seen, it is more a great deal than doctrine merely, or a form of sound words for the understanding. It is doctrine apprehended and represented continually in the form of life. It is for the heart every where full as much as for the head. Among its characteristic perfections deserves to be noted always, with particular praise, its catholic spirit, and the rich mystical element that pervades so largely its whole composition. . . . Simple, beautiful, and clear in its logical construction, the symbol moves throughout also in the element of fresh religious feeling. It is full of sensibility and faith and joyous childlike trust. Its utterances rise at times to a sort of heavenly pathos, and breathe forth almost lyrical strains of devotion.’

Dr. Hagenbach, the well-known historian (d. at Basle, 1874): [SeeNote #1048]

’The Heidelberg Catechism was greeted not only in the Palatinate but in all Reformed churches as the correct expression of the Reformed faith, and attained the authority of a genuine symbolical standard. It was translated into nearly all languages, and has continued to be the basis of religious instruction to this day. . . . Its tone, notwithstanding the scholastic and dogmatizing or (as Ullmann says) constructive tendency, is truly popular and childlike.’

Then he quotes several questions as models of the catechetical style.

Dr. Dalton, of St. Petersburg: [SeeNote #1049]

’The Heidelberg Catechism exhibits the harmonious union of the Calvinistic and the Melanchthonian spirit. It is the ripe fruit of the whole Reformation and the true heir of the treasures gathered, not in ten years, but during that entire period. It is thoroughly Biblical, and represents its particular denominational type with great wisdom and moderation. We feel from beginning to end in the clear and expressive word the warm and sound pulse of a heart that was baptized by the fire and Spirit from above, and knows what it believes.’

It is gratifying that the Lutheran hostility of former days has given way to a sincere appreciation. Drs. Guericke and Kurtz, two prominent champions of Lutheran orthodoxy in the nineteenth century, in almost the same words praise the Heidelberg Catechism for ’its signal wisdom in teaching, its Christian fervor, theological ability, and mediating moderation.’ [SeeNote #1050] Dr. Julius Stahl, an eminent jurist and the ablest apologist of modern Lutheranism within the Prussian Union, derived the religious revival of the Lutheran Church in his native Bavaria and his own conversion chiefly from the late venerable Reformed pastor and professor, Dr. J. Chr. G. L. Krafft, in Erlangen (died 1845). ’The man,’ he said, before the General Synod at Berlin, 1846, ’who built up the Church in my fatherland, the most apostolic man I ever met in my life, Pastor Krafft, was a strict adherent of the Reformed creed. Whether he carried the Heidelberg Catechism in his pocket I know not, but this I know, that he caused throughout the whole land a spring to bloom whose fruits will ripen for eternity.’ [SeeNote #1051]

Note #1004

Responsio Ph. Mel. ad quæstionem de controversia Heidelbergensi (Nov. 1, 1559), in Corp. Reform. Vol. IX. pp. 960 sqq. It is the last public utterance of Melanchthon on the eucharistic question, and agrees substantially with the doctrine of Calvin, as it was afterwards expressed in the Heidelberg Catechism.

Note #1005 On the door of his study he inscribed the warning, ’Amice, quisquis huc venis, aut agita paucis, aut abi, aut me laborantem adjuva. ’

Note #1006 See the original title in the literature above.

Note #1007 By the discovery of the copy of the first ed., 1864, the origin of the eightieth question was satisfactorily decided. A second copy of the original ed. is in the Imperial Library of Vienna. The Brit. Museum contains a copy of the Engl. trans. by "William Turner, Doctor of Physick, Imprinted at London, by Richard Jones, 1572.".

Note #1008 This division was first introduced in the Latin edition of 1566, perhaps earlier. Van Alpen, Niemeyer, and others are wrong in dating it from the German edition of 1573 or 1575.

Note #1009

Dœdes gives a fac-simile of the title-page of the Latin edition of 1563, from a copy in the University Library at Utrecht. It is nearly the same as the title of the edition of 1566, given in the literature above.

Note #1010

Niemeyer (pp. 428 sqq.) reproduces the edition of 1584, which agrees with the ed. princeps of 1563 (as far as I can judge from the few fac-simile pages given by Dœdes), and with the text in the Oxford Sylloge, while that in the Græco-Latin edition of Sylburg slightly differs. Dr. Louis H. Steiner, of Frederick City, Md., published an elegant and accurate edition under the title’Catechesis Religionis Christianæ seu Catechismus Heidelbergensis. Baltimore, 1862.’ He gives the variations of three Latin editions: of Cambridge, 1585; of Geneva, 1609 (formerly in the possession of Chevalier Bunsen); and the Oxford Sylloge, 1804.

Note #1011 On the Dutch translations, see especially the learned work of Professor Dœdes, of Utrecht, pp. 74-128, with fac-similes at the end of the volume.

Note #1012

I have before me a Græco-Latin edition of the Catechism katçchçseis tçs chrispanikçs thrçskeias,by Sylburg, and of the Belgic Confession by Jac. Revius, printed at Utrecht, 1660. Earlier editions I see noticed in catalogues.

Note #1013

Niemeyer (Proleg. p. lxii.) mentions a Polish translation by Prasmovius, a Hungarian by Scarasius, an Arabic by Chelius, a Singalese by Konyer, besides French, Italian, Spanish, English, Bohemian, modern Greek, and Hebrew versions. Dœdes (p. 41) adds a Persian and a Malayan translation. There are no doubt many other versions.

Note #1014 An English edition, without the name of the translator, appeared A.D. 1591 at Edinburgh, ’by publick Authority, for the Use of Scotland,’ and also repeatedly in connection with the ’Psalm-Book and the Book of Common Order.’ It is embodied in Dunlop’s Collection of Confessions of Faith, etc., of publick authority in the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1719-1722), Vol. II. pp. 273-361, and reproduced by Dr. Horatius Bonar in his Catechisms of the Scottish Reformation (London, 1866), pp. 112-170. Dr. Bonar says (p. 171): ’There are several translations of the Heidelberg or Palatine Catechism; and our Church [the Church of Scotland] seems not to have kept to one. In the edition of the Book of Common Order before us (1615), the Catechism is given alone; in that which Dunlop has followed, it has the "Arguments" and "Uses" of Bastingius.’ Another translation by Bishop Henry Parry, of Worcester (d. 1616), appeared (together with the commentary of Ursinus) at Oxford, 1509 and 1601. It was often republished-at Edinburgh, 1615 (with sundry variations, see Bonar, p. 172), again in London, 1633, 1645, 1728, 1851, and quite recently (from the Oxford edition of 1601, with the variations of the edition of 1728) by Dr. Gerhart and Dr. Louis Steiner in the ’Mercersburg Review’ for 1861, pp. 74 sqq. The one now in use in the Dutch and German Reformed Churches in America, is traced (by the late Dr. De Witt of New York) to Dr. Laidlie, originally from Scotland, minister at Flushing, Long Island, and was adopted, 1771, by the Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church. These three English translations seem to be only different recensions of one translation compared with the Latin text.

Note #1015 See the tercentenary triglot edition of 1863, noticed in the literature above.

Note #1016 So also the Oxford Sylloge. The ed. Græco-Latina of Sylburg reads instead:plenissima solutione facta.

Note #1017

Al. edd. illa.

Note #1018

Al.Alterum.

Note #1019 The redundant ’wholly’ occurs also in the Edinburgh edition of 1615, which, to judge from the specimens given by Horatius Bonar (in Catechisms of the Scottish Reformation, p. 172), is a reprint of Parry’s translation with a few variations.

Note #1020

Dr. Nevan {Tercentenary Edition, Introd. p. 95) says: ’No question in the whole Catechism has been more admired than this, and none surely is more worthy of admiration. Where shall we find, in the same compass, a more beautifully graphic, or a more impressively full and pregnant representation of all that is comprehended for us in the grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? For thousands and tens of thousands, during the past three hundred years, it has been as a whole system of theology in the best sense of the term, their pole-star over the sea of life, and the sheet-anchor of their hope amid the waves of death. But what we quote it for now is simply to show the mind that actuates and rules the Catechism throughout. We have here at once its fundamental conception and the reigning law of its construction; the key-note, we may say, which governs its universal sense, and whose grandly solemn tones continue to make themselves heard through all its utterances from beginning to end.’

Note #1021

Ques. 44 is hardly an exception; for the idea therein expressed is no error per se, but only a false interpretation of the article on Christ’s descent into hell (Hades) in the Apostles’ Creed, which places it, as an actual fact, between death and the resurrection, in accordance with the Scriptures (Luke 23:43; Acts 2:27; Acts 2:31; 1 Peter 3:19; 1 Peter 4:6; Ephesians 4:9-10); while the Catechism, following Calvin and Lasky, understands it figuratively of Christ’s suffering on the cross.

Note #1022

’It may be questioned,’ says Dr. Bonar, of the Free Church of Scotland, ’whether the Church gained any thing by the exchange of the Reformation standards for those of the seventeenth century. The scholastic mold in which the latter are cast has somewhat trenched upon the ease and breadth which mark the former; and the skillful metaphysics employed at Westminster in giving lawyer-like precision to each statement have imparted a local and temporary aspect to the new which did not belong to the more ancient standards. Or, enlarging the remark, we may say that there is something about the theology of the Reformation which renders it less likely to become obsolete than the theology of the covenant. The simpler formulas of the older age are quite as explicit as those of the later; while by the adoption of the Biblical in preference to the scholastic mode of expression they have secured for themselves a buoyancy which will bear them up when the others go down. The old age of that generation is likely to be greener than that of their posterity.’ (Catechisms of the Scottish Reformation, Preface, p. viii.)

Note #1023 For example, the fourth (third) commandment is thus condensed:’Du sollst den Feiertag heiligen ’ (Thou shalt keep holy the rest-day).

Note #1024 Comp. p. 251, note 2.

Note #1025 The Germans express the different aspects of the law by calling it a Sündenspiegel, Sündenriegel, and Lebensregel, a mirror of sin, a bar of sin, and a rule of life.

Note #1026

Hence in Germany the term ’Catholic’ and ’Romanist’ are used synonymously, and the proverb ’Das ist um katholisch zu werden ’ expresses a desperate condition of things. The English Churches have properly retained the term ’catholic’ in its good old sense, instead of allowing Romanists to monopolize it.

Note #1027 This curious document, which throws light upon that Synod hitherto little known, has been recently recovered and published by Wolters in the Studien mud Kritiken for 1867, No. 1, pp. 15 sqq. The Lutheran author, perhaps a dissenting member of the Synod, gives a list of the measures for the introduction of the Catechism and the abolition of various abuses, and accompanies them with bitter marginal comments, such as: ’This is a lie and against God’s Word;’ ’This is the Anabaptist heresy;’ ’To spread Zwinglianism;’ ’Friss Vogel oder stirb ;’ ’Ad spargendam zizaniam ;’ ’Ut citius imbibant venenum ;’ ’Evangelii abrogatio ;’ ’Hispanica inquisitio. ’

Note #1028

See on this Lutheran opposition Wolters, l.c., and in his earlier book, Der Heidelb. Katechismus in seiner Urgestalt (1864), pp. 141-196; Nevin, Introd. to the Tercent. Ed. pp. 42 sqq.; and especially Sudhoff, Olevianus und Ursinus, pp. 140 sqq.

Note #1029 See above, pp. 288 sqq.

Note #1030

Hundeshagen says of Frederick III.: ’He is acknowledged to be the greatest ruler which the evangelical Palatinate ever had, and as to personal piety and loyalty to his faith the shining model of an evangelical prince.’ See his art. on the City and University of Heidelberg, in the Gedenkbuch der 300 jähr. Jubelfeier des Heidelb. Kat. pp. 58, 59.

Note #1031 On the symbolical status of the Evangelical Church in Baden, see two essays of Dr. Hundeshagen, Die Bekenntnissgrundlage der vereinigten evangelischen Kirche im Grossherzogthum Baden (1851), and an address delivered before a Pastoral Conference at Durlach, on the same subject, 1851, republished in his Schriften und Abhandlungen, ed. by Dr. Christlieb, Gotha, 1875, Vol. II. pp. 119 sqq.

Note #1032 The editions used in the Canton Berne have an anti-supralapsarian addition to Question 27: ’Und obwohl die Sünden durch Gottes Fürsehung werden regiert, so ist doch Gott keine Ursache der Sünde; denn das Ziel unterscheidet die Werke. Siehe Exempel an Joseph und seinen Brüdern, an David und Simei, an Christo und den Juden. ’ This addition is found as early as 1697. Noticed by Trechsel in Studien und Kritiken for 1867, p. 574.

Note #1033 So I was informed by the late court chaplain, Dr. Snethlage, of Berlin, who was originally Reformed, and who confirmed several members of the royal family.

Note #1034 A special committee, appointed by the Old School Assembly of 1869, reported to the first reunited Assembly of 1870, after a laudatory description of the Heidelberg Catechism, the following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted: 1. Resolved, That this General Assembly recognizes in the Heidelberg Catechism a valuable Scriptural compendium of Christian doctrine and duty. 2. Resolved, That if any churches desire to employ the Heidelberg Catechism in the instruction of their children, they may do so with the approbation of this Assembly. See the Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America for 1870, p. 120, and the Memorial volume on Presbyterian Reunion (New York, 1870), p. 454.

Note #1035

Among these we mention the articles on the Heidelberg Catechism by Ullmann, Sack, Plitt, Hundeshagen, Wolters, and Trechsel, in the Studien und Kritiken for 1863, 1864, and 1867, the discovery and reprint of the ed. princeps by Wolters (1864), and a collection of excellent sermons by distinguished Reformed pulpit orators, under the title, ’Der einzige Trost im Leben und Sterben ,’ Elberfeld, 1863.

Note #1036

See the Tercentenary Monument (574 pages), and the Gedenkbuch der dreihundert jährigen Jubelfeier des Heidelberger Katechismus (449 pages), both published at Philadelphia. 1863. The German edition gives the correspondence and essays of Drs. Herzog, Ebrard, Ullmann, Hundeshagen, Lange, and Schotel, in the original German, together with a history of the Catechism by the editor. The Anglo-American essays and addresses of Drs. Nevin, Schaff, Gerhart, Harbaugh, Wolff, Bomberger, Porter, De Witt, Kieffer, Theodor and Thomas Appel, Schneck, Russell, Gans, and Bausmann, are found in full in the English edition.

Note #1037

’Arbitror meliorem Catechismum non editum esse. Deo sit gloria qui largiatur successum ’ (1563). See Ursinus, Apol. Catech. in the Præfatio.

Note #1038 This judgment is quoted on the title-page of the later editions of Bishop Parry’s translation, London ed. 1728; reprinted, London, 1851.

Note #1039 In Piper’s Evang. Kalenderfor 1862, p. 191. Comp. also his art. in the Studien und Kritiken for 1863, and in the Gedenkbuch, etc.

Note #1040 Das Dogma 5. heil. Abendmahl,Vol. II. p. 604.

Note #1041 Or, fullness of soul (gemüthliche Innigkeit ).

Note #1042 Geschichte des christl. Lebens,Vol. 1. p. 392.

Note #1043 Theol. Handbuch zur Auslegung des Heid. Kat.p. 493.

Note #1044

See his instructive review of Sudhoff’s Handbuch, in the Studien und Kritiken for 1864, pp. 153-180. It is gratifying to me that this distinguished divine fully indorses, on p. 169, the view which I had previously given of the theology of the Heidelberg Catechism and its relation to Calvinism in opposition to Sudhoff on the one hand and Heppe on the other.

Note #1045 In the Studien und Kritiken for 1863, p. 25.

Note #1046 In the Mercersburg Review for 1857, p. 102.

Note #1047 Tercentenary Edition, Introd. pp. 120-122.

Note #1048 Kirchengeschichte, Leipz. 1870 (3d edition), Vol. IV. p. 312.

Note #1049 Immanuel. Der Heidelb. Kat.,etc., 1870, p. 15.

Note #1050

Guericke, Kirchengeschichte, Vol. III. p. 610 (7th edition), and his Symbolik. Kurtz, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, p. 508 (5th edition).

Note #1051 See art. Krafft, by Goebel, in Herzog’s Encykl. Vol. VIII. p. 37.