The Theology of the Heidelberg Catechism: A Reformation Synthesis

The Theology of the Heidelberg Catechism

COLUMBIA SERIES IN REFORMED THEOLOGY

The Columbia Series in Reformed Theology represents a joint commitment of Columbia Theological Seminary and Westminster John Knox Press to provide theological resources for the church today.

The Reformed tradition has always sought to discern what the living God revealed in Scripture is saying and doing in every new time and situation. Volumes in this series examine significant individuals, events, and issues in the development of this tradition and explore their implications for contemporary Christian faith and life.

This series is addressed to scholars, pastors, and laypersons. The Editorial Board hopes that these volumes will contribute to the continuing reformation of the church.

EDITORIAL BOARD

Martha Moore-Keish, Columbia Theological Seminary

Charles E. Raynal, Columbia Theological Seminary

George Stroup, Columbia Theological Seminary

B. A. Gerrish, University of Chicago

Amy Plantinga Pauw, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Donald K. McKim, retired academic editor, Westminster John Knox Press

†Shirley Guthrie, Columbia Theological Seminary

Columbia Theological Seminary wishes to express its appreciation to the following churches for supporting this joint publishing venture:

Central Presbyterian Church, Atlanta, Georgia

First Presbyterian Church, Franklin, Tennessee

First Presbyterian Church, Nashville, Tennessee

First Presbyterian Church, Quincy, Florida

First Presbyterian Church, Spartanburg, South Carolina

First Presbyterian Church, Tupelo, Mississippi

North Avenue Presbyterian Church, Atlanta, Georgia

Riverside Presbyterian Church, Jacksonville, Florida

Roswell Presbyterian Church, Roswell, Georgia

South Highland Presbyterian Church, Birmingham, Alabama

Spring Hill Presbyterian Church, Mobile, Alabama

St. Simons Island Presbyterian Church, St. Simons Island, Georgia

St. Stephen Presbyterian Church, Fort Worth, Texas

Trinity Presbyterian Church, Atlanta, Georgia

University Presbyterian Church, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

COLUMBIA SERIES IN REFORMED THEOLOGY

The Theology of the Heidelberg Catechism

A Reformation Synthesis

LYLE D. BIERMA

© 2013 Lyle D. Bierma

First edition

Published by Westminster John Knox Press

Louisville, Kentucky

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22—10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Westminster John Knox Press, 100 Witherspoon Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202-1396. Or contact us online at www.wjkbooks.com.

Excerpts in chapter 1 from Lyle Bierma, The History and People behind the Heidelberg Catechism, in A Faith Worth Teaching: The Heidelberg Catechism’s Enduring Heritage (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2013) are reprinted by permission of the publisher. Excerpts in chapter 2 from Lyle D. Bierma, The Origins of the Threefold Structure of the Heidelberg Catechism: Another Look, in Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, by Margit Ernst-Habib, Göttingen, 2013, © Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, are reprinted by permission. Excerpts in chapter 6 from The Doctrine of the Sacraments in the Heidelberg Catechism: Melanchthonian, Calvinist, or Zwinglian? Studies in Reformed Theology and History, New Series, no. 4 (Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1999) are reprinted by permission of the publisher. The 2011 Heidelberg Catechism quotations are taken from the Heidelberg Catechism translation 450th anniversary edition, copyright © 2012 by Faith Alive Christian Resources. Used by permission

Book and cover design by Drew Stevens

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bierma, Lyle D.

The theology of the Heidelberg Catechism: a reformation synthesis / Lyle D. Bierma.—First edition

p. cm. — (Columbia series in Reformed theology)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-664-23854-4 (alk. paper)

1. Heidelberger Katechismus. I. Title.

BX9428.B55 2013

238′.42—dc23

2012047963

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.

Westminster John Knox Press advocates the responsible use of our natural resources. The text paper of this book is made from 30% post-consumer waste.

Most Westminster John Knox Press books are available at special quantity discounts when purchased in bulk by corporations, organizations, and special-interest groups. For more information, please e-mail [email protected].

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

List of Abbreviations

1.Introduction

2.Theme and Structure of the Heidelberg Catechism: Q/A 1–2

Theme of Comfort

Threefold Structure

3.Law and Gospel: Q/A 3–19

4.Providence and Predestination: Q/A 20–28

Faith and the Apostles’ Creed

Providence

Predestination

5.Christ and the Holy Spirit: Q/A 29–64

The Work and Person of Christ

The Work of the Holy Spirit

6.The Sacraments: Q/A 65–85

The Debate

Lutheran Elements

Reformed Elements

7.Covenant: Q/A 65–85

The Place of Covenant in Ursinus’s Works

Covenant in the Heidelberg Catechism

Conclusion

8.Good Works and Gratitude: Q/A 86–129

Good Works, Gratitude, and the Law

Good Works, Gratitude, and Prayer

9.Ecumenical Reflections on the Heidelberg Catechism

The Heidelberg Catechism’s Ecumenical Limitations

The Heidelberg Catechism’s Ecumenical Spirit

The Heidelberg Catechism’s Ecumenical Potential

Appendix: CRC-RCA-PC(USA) Translation of the Heidelberg Catechism (2011)

Notes

Bibliography

Index

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For their roles in this project, I would like to express my profound gratitude to the following: the administration and Board of Trustees of Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for a sabbatical in the spring and summer of 2009 to begin work on this book; the Editorial Board of the Colombia Series in Reformed Theology, whose feedback in the early stages of the writing process proved invaluable; Donald McKim and Julie Tonini, editors at Westminster John Knox Press who were most gracious in their encouragement and support along the way; Erika Lundbom, the copy editor, who provided a sharp eye and many helpful suggestions; Todd Rester, PhD student at Calvin Seminary, who prepared the index; and especially the hundreds of college and seminary students whom I have had the privilege of teaching courses in creeds and confessions over the past thirty-three years and from whom I have learned so much. It is to these students that this volume is dedicated.

Lyle D. Bierma

Calvin Theological Seminary

Grand Rapids, Michigan

ABBREVIATIONS

1

INTRODUCTION

During the 400th anniversary year of the Heidelberg Catechism in 1963, The Christian Century ran an editorial overflowing with praise for this age-old manual of Christian doctrine. The catechism was the most attractive, ‘the most sweet-spirited’ of the confessions of faith that came out of the Protestant Reformation. More than that, it survived as the most ecumenical of the Protestant confessions, since, according to the editorialist, it was written to mediate the views of Lutherans and Reformed at a time when Germany was being torn apart by theological controversy. As such, the HC might still be the confession of faith which can serve as the doctrinal basis for denominational reunion, but at the very least it deserved the careful study of all ecumenical-minded Protestants.¹

The Christian Century was not the only voice in the early 1960s to portray the HC as a kind of ecumenical statement of faith. James I. McCord, then president of Princeton Theological Seminary, also wrote on the occasion of the HC’s quatercentenary that the catechism could be considered the most ecumenical confession of the Reformation period, in part because it is remarkably free from dogmatic definition and, except for the mooted question 80, is singularly nonsectarian in character.² Columbia Theological Seminary professor Shirley Guthrie saw the HC as ‘ecumenical’ in the best sense of the word because "it generally is not a polemic against anything or anyone but simply a positive statement of what Christians (not just ‘Calvinists’) believe.³ For the Dutch scholar Arie Lekkerkerker, a certain ecumenical intent behind the production of the HC was due to Heidelberg’s location on the theological fault line between Lutheran and Reformed Protestantism.⁴ And according to New Brunswick Seminary president Howard Hageman some years later, Zacharias Ursinus, the main author of the HC, demonstrated an ability to capture the central thrusts of Reformation theology that united several Protestant traditions and to avoid many of the theological eccentricities that divided them.⁵ All of these statements echoed Karl Barth’s claim already in the late 1940s that the Heidelberg Catechism is a document which expresses a general evangelical comprehension. Apart from the HC’s stance on the omnipresence of the ascended Christ, the relationship between physical and spiritual washing in baptism, and the nature of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper, there are no exclusively Reformed doctrines in the catechism, and a reasonable Lutheran should also be able to stand on this ground."⁶

As the 400th anniversary of the HC came and went, however, so did most of the discussion about its ecumenical nature and potential. Now that we have reached the 450th anniversary, it is worth asking why so few ecumenically minded people during the last fifty years have given the catechism the careful study that The Christian Century had called for and whether such study would still be of any ecumenical value today. A major barrier to viewing the HC as a kind of ecumenical document is that for most of its history it has been identified almost exclusively with the Reformed branch of Protestantism. Within sixty years of its publication, the German text had been translated, often multiple times, into Latin, Dutch, English, Hungarian, French, Greek, Romansch, Czech, and Spanish for use by Reformed congregations in the regions of Europe where those languages were read or spoken.⁷ At the Reformed Synod of Dort in the Netherlands in 1618–19, not only the Dutch delegates but also the foreign representatives from England, Scotland, Switzerland, and various parts of Germany declared their approval of the HC as a Reformed confession.⁸ In the centuries that followed, the catechism traveled with Reformed emigrants and missionaries to every corner of the globe, and today it is one of the most widely used and deeply loved statements of the Christian faith in global Reformed Protestantism. In North America alone, there are at least twelve denominations with European Reformed or Presbyterian roots that still recognize the HC as one of their confessional documents: the Canadian and American Reformed Churches, Christian Reformed Church in North America, Free Reformed Churches of North America, Heritage Reformed Congregations, Hungarian Reformed Church in America, Netherlands Reformed Congregations, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Protestant Reformed Churches in America, Reformed Church in America, Reformed Church in the United States, United Church of Christ (one of whose four feeder streams was the former German Reformed Church), and the United Reformed Churches in North America. In the words of John W. Nevin, the HC "became the Catechism emphatically of the Reformed Church, the counterpart in full of Luther’s Catechism."⁹

This Reformed ecclesiastical identity of the HC has been buttressed over the past 150 years by a body of scholarship that finds in the catechism a distinctly Reformed theological character as well.¹⁰ Leading the way was Karl Sudhoff who, in his magisterial biography of Caspar Olevianus and Zacharias Ursinus in the mid-nineteenth century, concluded that the HC was in full accord with other Reformed confessions not only in its view of the sacraments but also in all other points of doctrine, including perseverance of the saints and predestination.¹¹ During the 350th anniversary year of the HC (1913), A. E. Dahlmann described the HC as a clear, definite and popular statement of Reformed doctrine over against Lutheranism,¹² and a year later August Lang put it even more pointedly: In its characteristic features, the Heidelberg Catechism is not Lutheran, nor Melanchthonian, nor Zwinglian, nor Bullingerian, nor Bucerian, but Calvinistic.¹³ Friedrich Winter, in a comparative study of the Augsburg Confession and the HC in 1954, determined that the HC was by and large a product of Calvinian theology,¹⁴ and Gustav Benrath concurred on the 400th anniversary of the HC that the Heidelberg Catechism is and remains Calvinian.¹⁵ A couple of years later, Fred Klooster asserted before the Evangelical Theological Society that, contrary to the 1963 editorial in The Christian Century, the doctrinal heritage of the HC is not multifaceted but "a distinctly Reformed Protestantism … rather than Lutheran, Melanchthonian or Zwinglian.¹⁶ More recently, Klooster has maintained in a comprehensive commentary on the HC that in its general disposition and many of its features the catechism is thoroughly Calvinistic."¹⁷

Others, too, have claimed that the HC is Reformed in its theology but that it had its roots in the Zurich rather than the Genevan reformation. The first to advance this thesis was the Dutch scholar Maurits Gooszen, who in two major works in the 1890s maintained that the HC reflected the original Reformed Protestantism of northern Switzerland, particularly the spirit of Heinrich Bullinger, whose soteriological-biblical approach to theology was markedly different from the more intellectual-speculative method of John Calvin.¹⁸ Among the relatively few who have followed this line of argument is G. P. Hartvelt, who detected a major influence on the HC not only from Bullinger himself but from two of his kindred spirits in Heidelberg, university theologian Petrus Boqinus and court physician Thomas Erastus.¹⁹ Joachim Staedtke and Walter Hollweg have also argued for the strong, though not exclusive, influence of Bullinger on the HC.²⁰

Nevertheless, despite the long-standing use of the HC in Reformed and Presbyterian circles and the scholarly claims for its Reformed, even Calvinist, theology, there are at least three things that point us back in the direction of the ecumenical interpretation of the HC that people were suggesting fifty years ago: (1) another line of research that is often overshadowed by the scholarship that we have recounted above; (2) the historical context out of which the HC arose; and (3) the text of the catechism itself.

First of all, there is another body of scholarship from the past century and a half that considers the HC not distinctively Reformed at all but rather a combination of elements from the Reformed and Lutheran (often Melanchthonian) traditions. One of the first to suggest this was Johannes Ebrard, who in a history of the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper in 1846 described the Palatinate reformation in general and the eucharistic teaching of the HC in particular as Melanchthonian-Calvinian.²¹ The very next year, the American Mercersburg theologian John W. Nevin characterized the HC as German Calvinistic, or Semi-lutheran we may say, in its theological constitution and spirit.²² The spirit he had in mind here was likely that of Melanchthon, as he indicated in a rhapsodic description of the HC four years later:

The Catechism is no cold workmanship merely of the rationalizing intellect. It is full of feeling and faith. … A rich vein of mysticism runs every-where through its doctrinal statements. A strain of heavenly music seems to flow around us at all times, while we listen to its voice. It is moderate, gentle, soft, in one word, Melanchthonian, in its whole cadence.²³

Another Mercersburg theologian of the time, Philip Schaff, used similar language: Here the mind of Melanchthon and the mind of Calvin joined hands and the Heidelberg Catechism bears the clear marks of both. It unites Melanchthonian mildness and fervor with Calvinian power and depth.²⁴ Nearly a century later, yet another theologian in the Mercersburg tradition, Bard Thompson, not only revived the Ebrardian term Melanchthonian-Calvinian (though now in reverse order as Calvino-Melanchthonian) to describe the HC but claimed that the Heidelberg Catechism marks the complete development of a synthesis of Melanchthonian and Calvinist doctrine.²⁵ J. F. G. Goeters, too, identified the catechism, broadly speaking, as the amalgamation (Verschmelzung) of Melanchthonianism and Calvinism into a third theological type that he termed German Reformed.²⁶ And most recently, Eberhard Busch has put it this way:

The Philippistic and the Calvinist directions coincided in the will to resist the splitting of the Protestant church into two confessions, despite existing differences in their understandings. The writers of the catechism were imbued with this desire of their teacher [Melanchthon]. One could easily call their text a union confession, formulated in view of the confessional age already approaching, as an attempt to work against Protestant division.²⁷

Others broadened the synthesis beyond Melanchthonianism and Calvinism. Max Göbel’s famous encomium to the HC in the nineteenth century suggested four sources: The Heidelberg Catechism blended Lutheran intimacy, Melanchthonian clarity, Zwinglian simplicity, and Calvinian fieriness all into one.²⁸ In addressing the question whether the HC was primarily Melanchthonian (Heppe), Bullingerian (Gooszen) or Calvinian (Lang), Staedtke concluded that, to a certain degree, all three were true. The HC was an eclectic composition, shaped by influences from several sides.²⁹ Neuser, like Göbel, detected the imprint of four fathers of the document—Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and Zwingli and his followers—with Calvin’s influence by far the strongest.³⁰ For Jan Rohls, the text of the HC represented an integration of very diverse doctrines³¹ from Melanchthon, Calvin, and the Zwinglian tradition; Ulrich Hutter likewise saw the author of the HC staking out middle ground between Wittenberg, Zurich, and Geneva.³² More recently, Willem Verboom concluded in a comprehensive study of the theology of the HC that the catechism reflects a combination of some of the characteristic views of several major reformers, such as Melanchthon (on law), Bullinger (on covenant), and Calvin (on creation).³³

Even some of those who have argued in the strongest terms for the Calvinist nature of the catechism have been willing to concede at least some Lutheran influence on the text. Lang, for example, found convergences with the Lutheran reformation primarily in the HC’s structural contrast between law and gospel in parts 1 and 2 and in the christocentric orientation of the catechism, according to which the believer’s only comfort lies not in the knowledge of God or the covenant of God but in the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross.³⁴ Winter could locate only a few places where the HC differed from Calvin, but he granted that the HC was not wholly untouched by Lutheran influences, including the way it treats the relationship between faith, the Holy Spirit, sacrament, and Word.³⁵ Benrath likewise saw the catechism moving at least a short distance away from Calvin and toward Lutheran theology.³⁶

A second factor that points toward a more ecumenical reading of the HC is the historical background and context of the catechism, which in turn may help to shed light on the third factor, the text of the HC itself. The three narratives of the Palatinate reformation as a whole, the religious development of Elector Frederick III, and the theological pilgrimage of Zacharias Ursinus, the primary author of the HC, indicate a pattern that could serve as a guideline for determining the theological pedigree of the catechism itself.

The Palatinate was one of the more prominent states of the Holy Roman Empire in the sixteenth century.³⁷ It was actually divided into two sub-territories, the Lower Palatinate in the Rhineland, with Heidelberg as its capital, and the Upper Palatinate in northern Bavaria. Both were under the rule of the Count Palatine, who also served as one of the seven electors responsible for the selection of the Holy Roman Emperor. Like several other parts of the German empire, the Palatinate changed its state religion from Catholicism to Protestantism during the sixteenth century, but the reformation there underwent the longest incubation phase of any major German territory.³⁸ Lutheran and South German Reformed influences had seeped into the region during the reign of Elector Louis V (reigned 1508–44), but it was not until 1546, nearly thirty years after Luther’s Ninety-five Theses, that the Palatinate officially became Protestant under the leadership of Louis’s brother, Elector Frederick II (reigned 1544–56). The reformation in the German empire suffered a major setback when a league of Protestant princes was defeated by the emperor in 1547 and many Catholic practices were reinstated in their territories under the Augsburg Interim (1548). With the Peace of Augsburg (1555), however, Protestantism was again fully legalized in the empire, at least in those states whose rulers were willing to enforce adherence to the Lutheranism of Melanchthon’s AC. When Louis’s and Frederick’s nephew Otto Henry (reigned 1556–59) came to the throne, therefore, the Palatinate was poised to enter a significant new phase of reform.

Looming large over this next phase of reform was the figure of Philip Melanchthon, himself a native of the Lower Palatinate.³⁹ Born in the little town of Bretten in 1497, he pursued his education in Bretten, Pforzheim, and Heidelberg—all in the Lower Palatinate—and was awarded a bachelor’s degree from Heidelberg University at the age of fourteen before transferring to the university in Tübingen. When the reformer returned to Heidelberg on a visit in 1524, he was honored by the university faculty with a silver goblet in recognition of his many achievements. The next year both Elector Louis V and the peasants of the Palatinate asked him to arbitrate in the peasant uprisings in the area, a service he willingly performed but with little success.

Following Luther’s death in 1546, German Lutheranism experienced a bifurcation into two major theological parties: the Gnesio-Lutherans, who vigorously defended what they claimed to be the pure doctrine of Luther, and the Philippists or Melanchthonians, who with their leader had been willing to make concessions to Catholicism during the Interim and to modify some of Luther’s teachings. Elector Otto Henry’s sympathies clearly lay with the Philippist party, and his reforms in the Palatinate bore that stamp. In 1556 he introduced a new Lutheran church order that not only designated Melanchthon’s AC as the doctrinal standard for the Palatinate but also included excerpts from Melanchthon’s Examen ordinandorum (German, 1552; Latin, 1554), a catechism-like text for use in preparing ministerial candidates for ordination.⁴⁰ As far back as the rule of Louis V, the Palatine electors had been soliciting advice from Melanchthon, but Otto Henry went a step further and invited Melanchthon to join the faculty of Heidelberg University and assist with the reform of the Palatinate at close quarters. Melanchthon turned down the offer. He did, however, continue as a long-distance advisor, convincing Otto Henry in 1557, for example, to appoint his (Melanchthon’s) former student Tilemann Heshusius as head of the theological faculty in Heidelberg, and assisting with the reorganization of the university a year later.⁴¹

Although Otto Henry’s reform of the Palatinate was shaped to a large extent by the authority of Philip Melanchthon and his moderate form of Lutheranism, the elector did not hesitate to invite to his territory leaders from a variety of Protestant backgrounds, including Reformed.⁴² It is not clear whether his motive was to build a nucleus of Protestant unity in the Palatinate or only to fill political, educational, and ecclesiastical vacancies with people of excellent reputation, regardless of their theological persuasion.⁴³ It is also possible that he was simply not a fine connoisseur of theological subtlety.⁴⁴ In any case, among those he appointed to important posts during his short reign were not only fellow Philippists like Michael Diller, who became an influential member of the Palatinate consistory, but also the Strasbourg Lutheran pastor Johannes Marbach and the Gnesio-Lutheran professor Tilemann Heshusius, who ended up as head of the theological faculty and chief superintendant of the Palatine church. What is even more striking, however, is that he employed Stephan Zirler (or Cirler) and Thomas Erastus, both sympathetic to the Zurich reformation, as his private secretary and personal physician, respectively; Christoph Ehem and François Baudouin, both with Calvinist leanings, as professors of law at the university; and Petrus Boquinus, who has been variously described as a Calvinist and a Bullingerian,⁴⁵ as professor of New Testament.

When Otto Henry died after just three years on the throne, therefore, most of the major Protestant parties of the day already had a foothold in the Palatinate—Gnesio-Lutherans, Philippists, Zwinglians (perhaps better termed late Zwinglians or Bullingerians), and Calvinists. The task of bringing them together was left to Elector Frederick III (reigned 1559–76), who, like his predecessor, began his reign as a convinced Philippist. Frederick had been born and raised a Roman Catholic but was converted to the Lutheran faith by his first wife, Maria, during the early years of their marriage. Even before becoming elector of the Palatinate, however, he found himself moving away from the Gnesio-Lutheranism of his wife and sonin-law, Duke John Frederick of Saxony, and toward the more moderate expression of Lutheranism represented by Melanchthon. As governor of the Upper Palatinate (1556–59) and duke of Palatinate-Simmern (1557–59), Frederick introduced Otto Henry’s church order and other Melanchthonian reforms into these ancillary territories. He also become a supporter of Melanchthon’s so-called altered version of the AC (1540) and was one of the signatories to the Frankfurt Recess, a statement of Protestant confessional unity drawn up by Melanchthon in 1558.⁴⁶

When Frederick III arrived in Heidelberg in 1559, he soon became embroiled in an acrimonious debate over the Lord’s Supper. The principal antagonists were Gnesio-Lutheran Tilemann Heshusius, general superintendent of the Palatinate churches, and the Calvinist William Klebitz, a student at the university and deacon at the Holy Spirit Church in Heidelberg. Heshusius vociferously defended a doctrine of the oral manducation of the body of Christ in the sacrament and attacked anything less as Zwinglian. Frederick intervened to try to restore the peace and ultimately dismissed both men from Heidelberg, but his disillusionment with Heshusius’s brand of Lutheranism had deepened. In the aftermath of the controversy, he sought Melanchthon’s judgment on how he had handled the dispute, and Melanchthon replied in a Responsio with a strong endorsement of Frederick’s actions. The Wittenberg reformer also suggested that Christians not try to penetrate the mystery of the union between sign and signified in the Lord’s Supper but simply embrace the Pauline affirmation in 1 Corinthians 10:16 that the bread of the Supper is a koinonia (participation, fellowship, communion) with the body of Christ. Frederick considered Melanchthon’s response important enough to have it published a year later in both its original Latin and a German translation.⁴⁷

Upon Melanchthon’s death in early 1560, Frederick III found himself looking more and more to the Zurich and Genevan reformations for inspiration, advice, and personnel. It may be going too far to say that he became a convert to Calvinism,⁴⁸ but he personally experienced and then engineered in the Palatinate what Gunnoe has called a shift from a Philippist/Gnesio-Lutheran theological axis to a Philippist-Reformed theological axis.⁴⁹ During a formal disputation on the Lord’s Supper between Gnesio-Lutheran and Reformed theologians in Heidelberg in June 1560, Frederick seems to have become increasingly attracted to the Reformed position. And in early 1561 he was instrumental in getting the German Protestant princes at the Naumburg Conference to agree to Melanchthon’s Variata (altered) version of the AC as an