THE SCRIPTURE PROOFS OF THE SHORTER CATECHISM

S.W. CARRUTHERS

    The Scripture Proofs of the Catechism present some interesting features. Their history goes back to the original instructions given by Parliament to the Divines about their work in July 1643. The fifth of these was, "What any man undertakes to prove as necessary, he shall make good out of Scripture". That this was carried out is evident in the surviving accounts of their debates; but it said nothing about presenting to Parliament the Scripture warrant for their documents. Rather to their surprise, when they presented the first instalment of the Confession of Faith, Parliament enjoined them "to put in the margin the proofs out of Scripture". They immediately appointed a committee to consider the request, and upon its report they informed Parliament that it would then be impossible to proceed (as Parliament had ordered) with the printing of the Confession. The Assembly completed the Confession, and presented the whole of it, without proofs, to Parliament, which ordered it to he printed "without annexing the texts of Scripture for the present; yet, notwithstanding the House doth expect that the Divines should send in the texts of Scripture with all convenient speed".

    This instruction reached the Assembly on 19th December 1646; Baillie took leave on going to Scotland on Christmas Day, before the Divines began the work; but he shared the view of the Presbyterian section that the demand was not prompted by a genuine desire for Scripture. He wrote, "The retarding party has put the Assembly to add Scriptures to it, which they (i.e. the Divines) omitted only to eschew the offence of the House, whose practice hitherto has been to enact nothing of religion on divine right or scriptural grounds, but upon their own authority alone. This innovation of our opposites may well cost the Assembly some time, who cannot do the most easy things with any expedition; but it will be for the advantage and strength of the work" (Letters, III, 2). No action was taken in Assembly till 6th January 1646-7, when a committee was appointed, which reported promptly the next day. The work went steadily on, hut was not finished till 5th April 1647. On that day Lazarus Seaman made a proposal which, had it been adopted, might have saved much subsequent criticism of the proofs; he wanted "something annexed by way of caution to shew how the proofs are to be applied". But the Assembly would not have it, probably realising that it might only lead to more delay, and they were busy with the Catechism.

    The Shorter Catechism was presented to Parliament, and printed, without proofs, in November 1647. The proofs were not presented, however, till the following April. During this time the proofs for both Catechisms were dealt with, those for the Larger Catechism between 7th December and 1st March, those for the Shorter Catechism from 2nd March till 12th April. There were three committees to prepare those for the Larger, and only one committee on those for the Shorter Catechism, yet the latter took much shorter time. This was doubtless due to the fact that the proof texts for the Larger Catechism were there, and merely needed modification because of the lack of complete parallelism between the two, and the omission of some statements from the Shorter one.

    The character of the changes can be judged by the study of the proofs for a few questions which agree in the two catechisms. In Q. 1 they omitted John xvii. 21-3, a passage which only indirectly and inferentially proves that man is to enjoy God for ever. Q. 7 of the Larger corresponds to Q. 4 of the Shorter Catechism. The proofs as to God's glory, blessedness, perfection, all-sufficiency, incomprehensibility, and some other points became irrelevant, since these points were omitted from the answer in the Shorter Catechism. Strange to say, Exod. xxxiv. 7 is needlessly (though not irrelevantly) added to the previous verse as a proof of God's goodness and truth. Q. 5 of the Shorter Catechism omits I Cor. viii. 4, 6, seeing in the other two passages adequate proof of the answer. In Q. 6 they trust to the dubious I John v.7 and to Matt. xxviii. 19 for proof of the Trinity, omitting other texts at least equally good (Matt. iii. 16, 17 and 2 Cor. xiii. 14), as well as the insufficient John x. 30. On the decrees of God (Q. 7) they retain two passages as sufficient (Eph. i. 4, 11, and Rom. ix. 22,23), omitting the less manifestly relevant Rom. xi. 33, Rom. ix. 14, 15, 18, and the superfluous Psalm xxxiii. 11. In Q. 9 the statement of the Larger Catechism (Q. 15) that God made all things for Himself is omitted, and with it the need for the proof from Prov. xvi. 4.

    It is evident from the nature of the proofs, and from the extent of some of them, that the Divines did not contemplate their being committed to memory by the catechumens; they quoted enough of the passage to indicate the complete argument, and in some cases the reference was to a whole Psalm or other chapter. It is also evident that some attempt must have been made to use them by memorising, and their unsuitability been discovered at an early period, for the first modification was made in 1656, and was so well done that it has survived, along with the Assembly's set, till now; the Assembly's set being printed in the editions issued along with the other documents, the new set in the editions of the Catechism alone.

    These modified proofs seem to have originated with the Lancashire ministers, though the first edition in which they appear, in 1656, was printed in London. (See the quotation from Martindale in the Bibliography.) The change was most ably carried out, as a study of the first twenty questions will demonstrate. These questions originally contained 59 separate proof passages, of which 9 are omitted, and 18 modified. Two new ones are added, and in two other cases an additional verse is given.

    The omissions are: Q. 1, Rom. xi. 36; Q. 3, 2 Tim. iii. 16; Q. 7, Rom. ix. 22, 23; Q. 11, Psa. civ. 24; Q. 13, Gen. iii. 6-8; Q. 16, I Cor. XV. 21, 22; Q. 18, Jas. i. 14, 15; Q. 19, Lam. iii. 39; and Q. 20, Gal. iii. 21, 22. All of these are of doubtful value, if not actually superfluous. For instance, Gal. iii. 21, 22 is practically a repetition in other words of Rom. iii. 20, 21, 22 (though probably Gal. iii. 22 would have been the most suitable of the five verses as a proof). The omissions in QQ. 3 and 13 are accounted for by the use, most fittingly, of these texts in QQ. 2 and 15.

    The modifications consist in the omission of irrelevant or superfluous verses, or in the curtailment of a verse so as to retain only the important point. These changes, of course, made the learning of the proofs an easier task.

    As an example of the first class, take Q. 11. Here Matt. x. 29 (Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and one of them shall not fall to the ground without your Father) is adequate, and verses 30 and 31 add no essential truth. Other omitted verses are: Q. 1, Psa. lxxiii. 27, 28; Q. 2, I John i.4; Q.4, Job xi. 8, 9; Q. 7, Eph. i. 4; Q. 10, Gen. 26; Q. 18, Rom. v. 10-18, 20, Eph. ii. 2, 3; Q. 19, Gen. iii. 10, Matt. xxv. 46.

    As an example of the second class take Q. 4, where the description of the four beasts in Rev. iv. 8 is omitted and only the words "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come are retained. Other curtailments are: Q. 4, Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7; Q. 5, Jer. x. 10; Q. 9, Gen. i. throughout; Q. 11, Heb. i. 3, Psa. ciii; 19; Q. 19, Rom. vi. 23. In dealing with the creation story in Q. 9, only verses 1 and 31 are retained, and these are rightly allotted to the first and last clauses of the answer.

    The additional proofs are: to Q. 18; Rom. iii. 10, to prove the want of original righteousness, and Psa. li. 5, to prove original sin; in this question also Matt. xv. 20 (These are the things that defile a man) is added to the list of sins in verse 19; and in Q. 7, the important words from verse 12 (That we should be to the praise of His glory) are added to Eph. i. 11.

    The texts were often distributed under additional reference letters so as to make clear the point which each was intended to prove, a practice of which good use was made by later commentators. Examples are in Q. 8 where creation and providence each get a reference letter, and in Q. 18 (which had originally only one reference letter) where four distinct references are given, —for Adam's sin, for the want of righteousness, for original sin, and for actual transgressions.

    In these 20 questions there is but one example of a change of doubtful value. In Q. 11 the wisdom of God's providence was originally proved by two passages, Psa. civ. 24 and Isa. xxviii. 29 The former was dropped, though it seems somewhat the better one.

    The wise judgment of these ministers is also well seen in the answers about the commandments where they rejected some proofs and added others freely. These proofs are the ones generally used by commentators and expositors.

    Two years later, in 1658, the first of the well-known Rothwell impressions appeared, "with the Scriptures at length". The cumbrousness of the original proofs had evidently been realised, for an attempt was made to shew "the emphasis of the Scriptures in a different character", namely, in italics. This providing of the proof texts printed in full was so popular that no less than five impressions were issued within a year; in the earlier ones the italics were given only in part of the Confession of Faith, but they were ultimately extended to all three documents.

    The idea was good, and, broadly viewed, was well done; but the details were handled in slovenly fashion. In many cases the italicised words by themselves do not make sense, and are sometimes not a sentence at all. Thus, in Q. 4 the words "variableness, neither shadow of turning" are italicised, but the essential word "no" is in roman type. Unnecessary words are italicised, such as "and everlasting King" in Q. 5; and in Q. 60 parts of Neh. xiii. 22, a verse which (along with 18-21) is superfluous, are so treated. On the other hand, italics should be used for such phrases as "and honour not his father and mother" (Q. 65). The proofs to Q. 62 have no italics whatever.

    In 1855 Johnstone and Hunter issued a well-printed edition, with a note calling attention to some of its special features, "more particularly the restoration of the italics used in the fine editions of 1658 and 1688". Unfortunately they were restored with uncritical fidelity.

    Some later modifications are worth mentioning. In 1672 Lye seems to have used both sets of proofs; he also made a few judicious omissions and additions.

       In 1699 there was a London edition with the title "The Grounds and Principles of the Christian Religion", whose title-page states, "The Proofs carefully corrected and amended". It was based on the original set, and contains numerous modifications. These changes are very uneven in value, and taken as a whole are hardly to be considered an improvement. The work is badly marred by poor proof reading, there being between thirty and forty misprints in the references.

    John Clifford in "Sound Words" (1699) endeavoured with considerable success to shorten the proofs, leaving only the essential words. For example, (Q. 1) "Do all to the glory of God"; "God is the strength of my heart and my portion for ever"; and (Q. 4) "God is a spirit"; "His understanding is infinite"; "Thou only art holy".

    The largest number of additional proofs occurs in James Gall's "Key", where there are 519, as against 290 in the 1656 set. This is due to the desire to give each separate clause of the answer its individual proof, and it is very well done. This set of proofs occurs also in "The New Proof Catechism".

    In "The Shorter Catechism Popularly Explained", James Inglis provides a largely new set, including a few of the original; the work is on the whole good, though some of them are rather far-fetched.

    A drastic revision was undertaken in America for the Presbyterian Church of the U.S.A. It is a very careful and extensive revision, based on the original set of the Divines, and with a considerable number of additions. There is a small amount of redundancy, which would tax a child's memory unduly. The added texts are generally most suitable, though occasionally only indirect or inferential proofs. Those omitted are often unsatisfactory, but some are quite suitable (e.g. Q. 4, Job. xi. 7 and Psa. cxlvii. 5). In Q. 19, Mark ix. 47, 48 has been substituted for the more strictly relevant Matt. xxv. 41, 46.

    The Berlin translation (1858) has many additional proofs, which I have not been able to trace to any English source.

    Missionary translators have sometimes made selections of their own, based on the customary sets of proofs (e.g. Gujarati, Xhosa).

    The commentators, such as Brown and Fletcher, naturally provided numerous additional proofs to illustrate their expositions.