THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
'Christiana (1696) for advanced students, and Medulla medulla theologice Christiana (1697).
(A. ScmvEiZERf.)
Bibliography: His autobiography, Historia vitce J. H. Heideggeri, appeared Zurich, 1698. Consult: L. Meister, Beruhmte Zilrchvr, 2 vols., Basel, 1782.
HEIDELBERG CATECHISM.
The Work of Several Col- Adverse Criticism (§ 4).
laborators (§ 1). Acceptance of the Cate- Ursinus. Olevianus, Fred- chism (§ 5).
erick III. (§ 2). Doctrinal Character (§6).
Editions (§ 3). Arrangement (§ 7).
The Reformation did not enter the Palatinate
until 1546, and it was only under Frederick III.
that it was actually carried through
i. The (see Frederick III. the Pious). Of-
Work of fended by the anathematizing tend- Several encies of Lutheran zealots, this sover-
Collabo- eign inclined toward the Reformed rators. doctrines. In this spirit he commissioned Caspar Olevianus, professor and preacher in Heidelberg, to draw up a new church order, and conceived the idea of the compilation of a catechism. Owing to the loss of the Palatine archives, the history of the origin of this catechism lacks important documentary evidences. It has been customary to give Olevianus and Zacharias Ursinus the credit of having compiled the book on the initiative of the elector in 1562. But it has been proved that the catechism and the Reformation in the Palatinate were not the work of one or two men, but the result of common efforts. This is evident from Ursinus 's preface to the apology of the Heidelberg Catechism; from a letter of Olevianus to Calvin; from the testimony of Quirinus Reuter, a pupil of Ursinus, in the preface to the works of his teacher; and from the introductions to the first three editions of the catechism, written by the elector himself, in which he states that it originated " with the counsel and assistance of our whole theological faculty, also all superintendents and the principal church councilors." The theological faculty of Heidelberg consisted in 1562 of three men, Boquinus (Pierre Bouquin, q.v.), a Frenchman, who was one of the first advocates of Calvinism in Heidelberg; Emmanuel Tremellius, an Italian, who followed Calvin and Butzer; and Ursinus, a pupil of Melanchthon. The foremost among the superintendents was Olevianus, an admirer of Calvin and friend of Bullinger. Among the church councilors may be mentioned Michael Diller, court preacher, and Thomas Erastus, a physician who represented the German-Swiss tendency. Besides these men and others, the elector himself shared in the work of the catechism.
The older tradition, however, is correct in so far
as the principal share of the work is due to Ursinus
and Olevianus. Ursinus had already
2. Ursinus, prepared two catechisms, the (larger)
Olevianus, Summa theologiw and the Catechesis
Frederick minor, which formed the basis of the III. new work. The larger catechism he
had compiled in 1561 for his academic lectures; it contains his own dogmatic views, but reveals at the same time the authorities from which he learned, Melanchthon without his synergism, Leo Jud, Bullinger, and Calvin, also the influence
of some Netherlandish catechisms such as the Klcync Catechismus of Martin Micron (1552), Korte ondcrsoekinghe des gheloofs (1553), and Catechismus ofte Kinderlehre tho niitte der Joget in Ostfriesslandt (1554), edited by the preachers of Emden. The smaller catechism of Ursinus approaches the Heidelberg Catechism the more closely; it was probably compiled after discussions with the elector and churchmen of the Palatinate. As the elecror had pledged himself to the Augustana by the Frankfort Recess and his action at the Naumburg Convention (qq.v.), he was anxious to preserve peace with the Lutherans as far as possible by dropping some of the Zurich and Calvinistic peculiarities of doctrine especially as regarded the Lord's Supper. It was probably Olevianus who was chiefly responsible for the change of the text of the Catechesis minor into the German wording of the Heidelberg Catechism and for its final redaction. A comparison of the final text of the catechism with the new church order drawn up by him and with his devotional writings reveals a harmony in language, style, and theological bent which can hardly be accidental. The mediating influence of the elector may be recognized in the changes concerning the doctrine of the Lord's Supper and in the suppression of the discussion concerning election.
At the annual synod held in Jan., 1563, the new catechism was accepted by all superintendents. church councilors , and theologians. The 3. Edi- first edition appeared at Heidelberg in tions. Feb., 1563, under the title, Catechismus Oder Christlicher Underricht, ivie der in Kirchen und Schulen der Churfurstlichen Pfatiz getrieben wirdt. A few weeks later a second edition was published, which, beside many minor changes, contained an entirely new question (lxxx.) concerning the difference between the Lord's Supper and the papal mass. In the third edition, which immediately followed, the condemnatory words in regard to the adoration of the host were added. The real author of this eightieth question was Olevianus. The church order published Nov. 15, 1563, contains the fourth edition of the Heidelberg Catechism, which is to be regarded as the textus receptus. It is essentially identical with the third edition, texts of Scripture for different classes and a short summary of the catechism having been added. On the margin, the 129 questions together with the Bible texts have been divided into ten lessons to be read before the main service; the questions alone have been divided into fifty-two Sundays for the purpose of the catechetical afternoon sermons. It is only in later editions that the questions are numbered and the verses stated in Biblical quotations.
Immediately after its appearance the Heidelberg
Catechism encountered violent attacks. Maximilian
II. remonstrated against it (Apr. '-'■>,
4. Adverse 1563) as an infringement of the Peace
Criticism, of Augsburg. On May 4 followed a joint address from the Count Palatine, Wolfgang of Zweibrucken, Duke Christopher of W urttemberg, and Margrave Charles II. of Baden, accompanied with a sharp criticism inscribed Verzcichnis der Mangel, probably composed by