An Essential Catechism Resource
The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. George W. Willard. Jenison MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2025. Hardcover, 672 pages.
I bought an earlier edition of this commentary in my first year of seminary, way back in 1996. Since then, it has been a go-to reference on the Heidelberg Catechism. It was written by one of the authors (actually the main author) and therefore it has to be regarded as a definitive interpretation – so my reasoning went. Over the years, I’ve often referred to it when preparing for teaching and preaching the Catechism.
This new edition from the Reformed Free Publishing Association is a welcome sight, especially since the commentary been out of print for a few years. Compared to the earlier P & R reprint of the 1852 American publication, this edition is freshly formatted for easier reading. It contains numerous footnotes indicating original sources. It has corrected the translator’s mistakes. It has translated all foreign language quotations. This edition also includes Scripture and name indexes. If you have the older P & R reprint, it will be well worth your money to buy this improved edition.
For those who’ve never owned it, it’s a great resource, especially if you’re regularly preaching or teaching the Catechism. It’ll be a good addition for church libraries too. But be warned: it wasn’t written as a popular guide to the Catechism. It’s academic and presented in the Protestant scholastic mode. Nevertheless, much of it will still be accessible to most Reformed readers today.
One of the helpful emphases of this commentary is on the historic Reformed distinction between law and gospel. Early on, in the “Prolegomena,” it says, “The doctrine of the church consists of two parts, the law and the gospel, in which we have comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures” (p.4). This is elaborated upon elsewhere; for example in the commentary on Lord’s Day 34 (pp.490-498).
There is only one major issue I have with this new edition. The authorship of this commentary is complex and unresolved. It was not actually written by Zacharias Ursinus. Contrary to some descriptions, it is not a collection of lecture notes taken by his students either. The most we can say is that it is based on student notes, some of which were later edited and compiled by David Pareus (1548-1622). We have no way of telling which parts of this commentary genuinely reflect the thought of Ursinus, though undoubtedly some parts do. Scholars have therefore suggested that we are better off describing the authorship of this commentary as “Quasi-Ursinus,” or perhaps as coming from the Ursinus community of scholars. Though these issues have been long recognized, there is no mention of them in the foreword from the publisher. Readers should be aware that, given this authorial morass, this commentary is not the definitive word on the Heidelberg Catechism that we may once have thought it was. It certainly originates with Ursinus’ lectures on his own Catechism, it may roughly correspond to his thinking, but other influences have likely adulterated the text.[i]
That last point notwithstanding, I’m glad that RFPA pursued this project. The end product is a fine volume, both inside and out.
[i] For more on this see: Boris Wagner-Peterson, “Zacharias Ursinus und “seine” Auslegung des Heidelberger Katechismus,“ in Geschichte und Wirkung des Heidelberger Katechismus. Vorträge der 9. Internationalen Emder Tagung zur Geschichte des reformierten Protestantismus. (ed. Matthias Freudenberg and J. Marius J. Lange Ravenswaay; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft mhB, 2013), 87-109.
Originally published in Clarion 74.07 (May 23, 2025)
