Wow! Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (of which he was the principle author) has got to be one of the best kept secrets of the Reformed world! While people are searching the Internet for resources and study materials, this gem has been hiding all the while in plain sight. So far it has proved to be clear, concise and extremely readable. Recently I have been going through the "The Distinctive Doctrines of the Heidelberg Catechism" by George Richards found in the column to the right under Additional Resources. This has been helpful, along with Ursinus' commentary, in understanding the design and construction of the document.
It is obvious from the start that "comfort" is a key focus of the catechism. Ursinus thoroughly discuss the kind of comfort we seek, how to get it, how to know that we have it - including the response (which is not optional). Richards' work helps us to get a step farther, in seeing how some of the key doctrines found in other Reformed documents are integrated under the hood. For example, election and predestination are doctrinal issues covered in Calvin's and other catechisms of the Reformation. The Heidelberg Catechism (HC from here) does not explicitly address these doctrines, but they are present when seen from a user's point of view - and that is consistent with the very personal nature of the catechism. Question 2, for instance, addresses "how great my sins and misery are", including the detail that I am totally unable to initiate a fix to this dilemma - it must come from God. It is not difficult to see election and predestination lurking in the shadows.
As noted, comfort is a major focus of the HC - Question 1 asking, "What is your only comfort..." As noted above, Ursinus addresses the specific kind of comfort we need to seek, but I was prompted to consider how that term typically functions in our day-to-day lives. A warm sweater or a well-worn pair of slippers might provide comfort, both for their warmth, but maybe also some inkling of nostalgia. We have comfort food, sometimes junk food, which we seek when we are stressed. And sometimes we develop bad habits in search of comfort - the occasional glass of wine, becomes a daily glass, and then glasses... Ursinus, in his exposition of Lord's Day 1 also touches on the deceptiveness of our hearts and our tendency to devise our own methods of deliverance, which I'm sure includes and goes beyond the examples I've mentioned. While the comfort of the HC is about spiritual comfort, it needs also to be a daily comfort. We do not necessarily have to discard our favorite slippers or foreswear other occasional indulgences, but I think that we do need to be cognizant of how deeply the comfort of which the HC speaks should encompass and integrate with our daily lives.
Now for some brief highlights from Ursinus commentary. Ursinus starts with the basics in exploring "comfort" - What is it? What does it consist of? Why is it alone solid and trustworthy? Why is it necessary? How do we get it (i.e., how many things are necessary for its attainment)? There are some other breakout lists like this, but for the most part it is a solid exposition of the steps in acquiring faith, sometimes referred to as the Golden Chain or "ordo salutis". He also notes that the only sure map in navigating our way from misery to comfort is Divine Revelation - the Word of God - the Bible (which of course connects to another solid Reformational maxim - Sola Scriptura).
Therefore, although philosophy, and all the various sects, enquire after and promise such a good as that affords solid comfort to man, both in life and death, yet they neither have, nor can bestow, that which is necessary to meet the demands of our moral nature. It is only the doctrine of the church that presents such a good, and that imparts a comfort that quiets, and satisfies the conscience; for it alone uncovers the fountain of all the miseries to which the human race is subject, and reveals the only way of escape through Christ. (from Ursinus' commentary)
Question 2 of the HC further sets the structure of the catechism, asking how many things are necessary to know in understanding, finding and acquiring this comfort. The Answer speaks to the size of the problem, a solution with the ability to remedy the problem, and the appropriate response for the remedy provided - from this comes the alliterative formula - Guilt, Grace, Gratitude - around which the rest of the catechism is structured.
A few things that I was surprised by in Ursinus' commentary was the emphasis he puts on gratitude. First, he notes that we must know the enormity of our problem (to draw on the Canons of Dort terminology, Total Depravity - but this is 35 years future to Ursinus). Then understanding the magnitude of the solution, we should have an appropriately sized response. Ursinus seems to go even further, indicating that we must have an appropriate response of gratitude. Size is not so much the issue, but if a gratitude response is not evident, the question arises as to whether anything has actually happened - i.e., has the prerequisite recognition and resolution of the problem occurred? An additional dimension of the need for gratitude, is that it must be appropriate gratitude - acceptable to God as prescribed in his Word.
A final thought on catechisms and comfort - another distinctive that Richards points out has to do with the relationship between Creator and creature - whereas the Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) asks:
Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
The Heidelberg asks, "What is your only comfort in life and in death?" A totally different approach, but while following a different road, it does end up at the same destination. While the WSC prescribes a definition, the HC takes a very personal approach. But as noted above - the importance of gratitude in recognizing the greatness of the salvation that God has provided through the work of Jesus Christ does ultimately result in bringing praise, worship, thanksgiving and glory to God.