The Manner of Christ’s Presence in the Lord’s Supper: Zacharias Ursinus and the Heidelberg Catechism

The proper view of the Lord’s Supper was among the topics heavily debated between those striving to reform the church during the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, this very debate caused fracturing among the different factions of the movement and prevented the Protestants from fully unifying.[1]

The disagreement, most notably between the Lutherans and the Reformed, provides some of the context for the doctrine of the sacraments articulated in the Heidelberg Catechism, particularly when it comes to the manner of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper.

Zacharias Ursinus was acquainted with controversies surrounding the Lord’s Supper early in his academic career. The debate would shape his life in more than one way. This article examines Ursinus’ interactions with the debate between the Lutherans and the Reformed, the development of his own doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, his view of the Supper as seen in the Heidelberg Catechism, and the divide between the Lutheran and Reformed tradition that the Catechism highlights.

“This is My Body”

Initially, the two main views on the Supper forming in the Protestant movement were those of Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli. Their debate found its most notable moment at the Colloquy of Marburg, which was intended to be an attempt at forming “confessional agreement” and then a “corresponding political agreement.”[2]

Both Zwingli and Luther rejected transubstantiation, the view that the elements in the Supper turn into the literal flesh and blood of Christ, but they could not agree on the doctrine that should replace it. Ultimately, this debate boiled down to inability to agree on the interpretation of the phrase “this is My body,” found in Matthew 26:26 and 1 Corinthians 11:24.[3]

Luther was unmoved and refused to compromise on the view that Christ was physically present in the Eucharistic elements. Zwingli and those on his side insisted that Christ’s body was not literally present in the elements but only signified by them.

Those opposed to Luther’s view believed that because Christ has ascended bodily to the Father’s right hand, he cannot be present bodily in the Lord’s Supper. Both sides refused to compromise, solidifying the division between the Protestants. One of most significant points of disagreement was the “nature of Christ’s body,” which made the debate not merely sacramental, but Christological also.[4]

In the second generation of the Reformation, John Calvin would confess a higher view of the Lord’s Supper than Zwingli, while still denying the physical presence of Christ in the Supper.

Calvin disagreed with Luther and maintained that Christ is “not so abased as to be enclosed under any corruptible elements” (Short Treatise on the Holy Supper).

He also criticized both Zwingli and Johannes Oecolampadius, one of the theologians on Zwingli’s side, for they failed to recognize that the elements “are such signs that the reality is joined to them.”[5]

Calvin believed that in the Supper, Christians are made partakers of the “real substance” of Christ’s body in blood, but without Christ being bodily present. The partaking is a spiritual one, Calvin contended, accomplished by the Holy Spirit.[6]

Zacharias Ursinus Enters the Debate

Zacharias Ursinus was no stranger to the polemics surrounding the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. These polemics informed much of his writing on the subject. Zacharias Bär (Ursinus is a Latinization of Bär) was born on July 18, 1534 in Breslau, a city that at the time was part of Austria, to Caspar and Anna Bär.[7]

Ursinus was born into a Lutheran family whose Lutheranism was owed, in part, to Ambrosius Moibanus.[8]As far as discussion of the sacraments goes, it is of note that Moibanus, who was a student of Melanchthon, articulated a position broad enough to include Calvinists. He was criticized for a “Zwinglian” emphasis on “do this in remembrance of me” in his description of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.[9]

Zacharias Ursinus was no stranger to the polemics surrounding the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. These polemics informed much of his writing on the subject. Ursinus completed his studies at the St. Elizabeth Gymnasium at the age of fifteen, and in 1550, he enrolled at the University of Wittenberg, four years after Luther’s death.

Phillip Melanchthon had become the “leading spirit” of the university when Ursinus arrived.[10] Ursinus was among those who was influenced by Phillip Melanchthon, becoming “friend’s and theological allies” with him. He supported his teacher’s beliefs while at the University of Wittenberg.[11] Ursinus wrote, “I am of the opinion that Dr. Phillip teaches what is right, and has been fortunate enough to teach us in a holy and pure way, the real substance of the sacrament.”[12]

After the colloquy in Worms, Ursinus embarked on a sort of “Reformed tour,” traveling to many cities associated with Reformed theologians. He traveled to Strasbourg, which had been influenced by both Martin Bucer and Calvin; Basel, “city of Erasmus and Oecolampadius”; and finally, Geneva.[13]

He was welcomed by Calvin in Geneva and received a gift of books from the French Reformer.[14] Ursinus’ proximity to controversy regarding the Lord’s Supper would only grow.

Return to Breslau

Ursinus took up his post at St. Elizabeth’s Gymnasium with an inaugural lecture entitled “An Exhortation to the Study of Christian Doctrine.”[15] Ursinus’ enthusiasm about Melanchthon’s catechism and his association with more than a few prominent Reformed theologians roused the suspicion of Gnesio-Lutherans in Breslau. Though Breslau was mostly Melanchthonian, there were several Gnesio-Lutheran ministers who accused him of being a “Sacramentarian” and not a “genuine Lutheran.”[16]

In 1559, in response to the charges of the Gnesio-Lutherans, Ursinus sought to defend his views. He wrote his Theses complectentes breviter et perspicue summam verae doctrinae de Sacramentis (Theses briefly and clearly summarizing the true doctrine of the sacraments).[17] Melanchthon praised Ursinus’ Theses, saying that he had been well-acquainted with Ursinus’ work, but had never seen “anything so brilliant as in this work.”[18]

Ursinus’ Catechesis Major and Minor

Outside of the composition of the Heidelberg Catechism, Ursinus wrote two catechisms of his own. These were the Catechesis Major (or Summa Theologiae) and the Catechesis Minor. Question 274 of the Catechesis Major calls the sacraments “signs of the covenant” and ceremonies instituted by God, which represent the grace which is promised in the gospel.[19]

The Catechesis Minor, in question 54, uses the same language of “ceremonies instituted by God.” It describes them as a “pledge” and “reminder” of the grace the gospel promises.[20] These catechisms offer insight into Ursinus’ thought during the Heidelberg Catechism’s composition.

Question 295 of the Major states that when Christians partake of the Supper, Christ “most certainly communicates his body and blood for eternal life.” Question 298 says, “as bread and wine sustain bodily life, so also the body and blood of Christ, which we eat and drink, nourishes us for eternal life.”[21]

Ursinus did not have a Zwinglian view of the supper, for he confessed a joining of the sign and thing signified in the sacraments, not merely a “commemorative visual analog.”[22]

Question 299 of the Major and 65 of the Minor ask: “What does it mean to eat the body of Christ and to drink his blood?” The Minor says that “it means to receive from God by true faith in Christ the remission of sins and righteousness” because of Christ’s death. It describes eating Christ’s body and blood as meaning to be “united to Christ as our head through the Holy Spirit,” who dwells in Christ’s body, “which is and remains in heaven.”

This is an undeniable, clear rejection of the ubiquity of Christ’s body. Eating Christ’s body, according to question 300 of the Major, is also a “communion of the person and substance of Christ himself.” His body is joined to the one that partakes “in such a way, that we are one with him.”

This communion and joining is by the bond of the Holy Spirit. The body of Christ and the bodies of believers are “separated by a very great distance” (Larger Catechism 301). Question 68 of the Minor denies that the elements are changed into the “real body and blood” of Christ because he has “one true human body” which is at God’s right hand, not to be on earth until He returns to judge the living and the dead (Smaller Catechism 68).

Ursinus’ theology demonstrates a Reformed, Calvinistic understanding. This is especially true on the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.[23]

The Heidelberg Catechism’s Treatment of the Lord’s Supper

The Heidelberg Catechism was not born in a neutral environment. Strife surrounding different views of the Lord’s Supper was not unique to only the places that Ursinus had been. Ursinus arrived in Heidelberg in 1561, and by the fall of 1562, the Heidelberg Catechism (Heidelberger Katechismus in German) was nearly complete.[24]

It would be accepted by the Synod of the Palatinate and published in 1563.[25] The sacraments are first dealt with in the Heidelberg Catechism in question 66 and 67. They describe the sacraments as being “signs and seals” which were “instituted by God,” in similar and slightly more explicit language than that of Ursinus’ other catechisms, though all three affirm the efficacy of the sacraments (Heidelberg Catechism 66, 67).

Question 75 of the Heidelberg Catechism is the first directly addressing the Lord’s Supper. It parallels the language of the Catechesis Minor in that the Supper’s function is to “remind and assure” believers that they share in Christ’s death and in His benefits (Heidelberg Catechism 75; Smaller Catechism, Q64).

The Heidelberg Catechism clearly communicates that the Supper is a “communion” or “participation” in Christ’s body and blood, as the Major and Minor do. It lacks an explanation as to how this occurs, unlike the other catechisms. They explain that the Holy Spirit is the one who makes the communion in Christ’s body and union with Him possible, though Christ is in heaven and believers are on earth (Heidelberg Catechism 79; Larger Catechism 300-1; Smaller Catechism 65). The catechism does deny that the elements of the Supper are changed into the real body of blood of Christ.

It does not have a clear statement against the ubiquity of Christ’s body like the Catechesis Minor does (Heidelberg Catechism 79; Smaller Catechism 68). The language in the Heidelberg Catechism on the Lord’s Supper does not seem to represent any particular major party within Protestantism. It seems to provide the common ground that Melanchthon had advised before his death.[26]

Ursinus and the Catechism against the Gnesio-Lutherans

Despite its apparent irenic attitude in the questions pertaining to the Lord’s Supper, it is not true that the Heidelberg Catechism is totally silent when it comes to dialogue with the Gnesio-Lutherans. Questions 46-50 deal with the clause from the Apostles’ Creed, “he ascended into heaven.” Questions 46-48 plainly deny the ubiquity of Christ’s body.

Question 46 states that Christ will be in heaven “until he comes again to judge the living and the dead.” It echoes question 68 of the Catechesis Minor (Heidelberg Catechism 46). Question 47 expresses the extra Calvinisticum, saying that in His human nature, Christ is not present on earth, but is present in His divinity (Heidelberg Catechism 47).

Question 48 is the very same inquiry as question 94 of the Major and question 35 of the Minor. It is quite pointed in its answer. It denies the ubiquity of Christ’s body and says that Christ’s divinity is “beyond the bounds of the humanity he has taken on,” which is as clear as an articulation of the extra Calvinisticum could be.[27]

Ursinus’ lectures on the Heidelberg Catechism also contribute to understanding how the primary author viewed the catechism. In his commentary on question 46, Christ’s ascension is described as a “visible, local and real translation” of his body from earth into heaven.[28] Ursinus echoed the words of the Catechesis Minor, saying Christ “is, and remains” in heaven.[29]

In response to the Ubiquitarians, which described the Gnesio-Lutherans, he stated that Christ’s “human nature is finite.” This is evidenced by the fact that his body was visibly translated from one location to another in the ascension. Since His divine nature is infinite, it was omnipresent prior to the Incarnation and continues to be so after the Incarnation.[30]

In his commentary on question 76, “What does it mean to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink his poured-out blood?” he wrote that it is “plain” that both transubstantiation and a “corporal presence of Christ” cannot be “established from the language which is employed in reference to the Supper, which promises an eating of Christ’s body.”[31]

Ursinus stated also that question 78 is a rejection of the “consubstantiation defended by the Ubiquitarians.” He called the “figment of a corporal presence” in the elements “wholly repugnant to the formal character of the supper.”[32]

Conclusion

Ursinus died on March 6, 1583, twenty years after the Heidelberg Catechism was accepted at the 1563 Synod of the Palatinate.

Though Ursinus was born and baptized a Lutheran, he died Reformed.

The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper articulated in the Catechesis Major and Minor certainly is Reformed, and he saw the Heidelberg Catechism’s expression of the doctrine to be Reformed as well.

Perhaps there is a sense in which the Heidelberg Catechism does indeed “owe its power to the moderation with which is stated doctrine.”[33] But while the Heidelberg Catechism unmistakably states things more moderately than Ursinus’ other writings do, that does not mean it says nothing at all. Indeed, it says far more than that.

From the inclusion of the extra Calvinisticum (or extra humanum) in question 48 to Ursinus’ interpretation of both Christological and sacramental questions as existing in contrast to the Gnesio-Lutherans, there is significant evidence that the Heidelberg Catechism was in conversation with the differing Reformed-Lutheran doctrines of the Lord’s Supper.

Ursinus, for his part, saw the catechism as expressing a distinctly Reformed view on the Supper, and there is no doubt that he himself held to such a view. Though the Heidelberg Catechism does indeed exhibit a milder attitude than Ursinus’ other writings, it is undeniable that the document distinguishes between the Lutherans and the Reformed on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

Footnotes