THE USES AND MISUSES OF THE SHORTER CATECHISM

BY

S.W. CARRUTHERS

    Incomparably useful as it has been, yet the misuses of the Shorter Catechism have been a large factor in causing its disuse. The danger of such misuse was present to the minds of the Westminster Divines when they began to frame the Catechisms, and was keenly discussed. Stephen Marshall said that he would have a preface to explain that the answers should not necessarily be in the exact words, but "those, or to that effect". George Gillespie thought that what heads of households really needed was "an example of catechising". While there was general agreement as to the value of supplementary questions, there was considerable doubt whether they should be provided, or left to the catechist to form. Finally, the latter was decided upon, and it was left for Wallis and many another to provide them in later years.

    In adopting the Catechism, the Scottish General Assembly also made this point clear. Its phrase about those "of weaker capacity" is often quoted, but the words which precede are seldom remembered, "A Directory for catechising". The intention of the General Assembly is well described by Bannerman: "It was meant to be a directory or guide to teachers as well as something which children were to learn. Now this meets at once some objections which are occasionally heard against the Catechism as ‘too difficult for children.’ It was not meant merely for them, but also for those who have to teach them."

    Baillie also records, of the Scottish General Assembly: "We thought the Shorter too long and too high for our common people and children, and so put it in Mr. David Dickson's hand to draw it shorter and clearer", (Letters, III, 59). If Dickson ever started on this task, the result does not seem to have seen the light, unless the "Sum" — not in catechetical form — was the result.

    It was precisely to meet this need that the multitude of expositions were produced down the years. Each commentator saw the defects of his predecessors, but (as will appear later) not his own; Bourne was wise enough to realise that, for complete satisfaction, every man would want to be his own expositor. "Should any of my younger brethren in the ministry think fit to employ them" (i.e., his comments) "in their catechistical lectures, I would recommend to them an interleaved book, which will leave them room for corrections, illustrations, and additions from their own reading and reflection, to render the piece more perfect". One occasionally finds in a public library a copy of one or other of the expositions which has been thus used. Priestley, however, wished for individual expositions in greater number for another reason: "Had this been the practice for a century past, we should have had something excellent in the kind before this time, and no one particular form, as the Assembly's, would have acquired the degree of reverence which sets it upon a level with the Scriptures".

Types of Exposition

    The numerous expositions fall more or less into three types, though these merge into one another, and sometimes two are combined in a single work. There is the glossary type, initiated by Wallis, whose simplest instance is perhaps that of Carruthers's small edition. This is supplemented by the paraphrase form, in which the glossary definition is actually inserted into the answer, and the learner is expected to repeat this modified form. Then there is the method of Supplementary Questions, also begun by Wallis, and by its nature capable of great variety. Lastly, there is the Commentary method, which includes lectures, sermons, and even systems of divinity. Preliminary or introductory catechisms found favour with some men, but are not very numerous.

Value of Catechising

    Few have deliberately questioned the value of catechising, though many have simply let it fall into disuse. On the other hand, the enconiums of the method are many. A few brief extracts may be of interest.

    The urgent need for it was strongly felt by the Assembly itself. On 19th July, in their first petition to Parliament, they asked for, "a speedy and strict charge to all ministers constantly to catechise all the youth and ignorant people, (they being commanded to be subject to it), and all sorts to be present at it, and information to be given of all persons who shall withstand or neglect it".

    On 30th August 1655 the Provincial Assembly of London approved a document which was issued as a pamphlet of 23 pages, with the title, An Exhortation to Catechizing: the long neglect whereof is fully lamented. And the speedy reviving as earnestly desired. "It begins by emphasising the spread of Unitarian and other heresies, and praises catechising as a defence against them. This form of instruction should not be left only to parents; it is not to be performed without a clear insight into the greatest depths of religion, and a proportionate gift of ready expression". The Provincial Assembly sent it down to each of the Classes within its bounds, with seven definite instructions: (1) When announcing their intention to catechise, ministers were to preach sermons "effectually demonstrating the great necessity and utility thereof", and to exhort heads of households to prepare their children and servants by catechising them at home. (2) The Catechism used is to be the Shorter Catechism. (3) The persons catechised to be "children and servants that have not been admitted to the Lord's Table by the Eldership". (4) The time to be Sunday afternoon before the sermon, to the end that the whole congregation may receive benefit thereby". (5) "That the Catechism be briefly explained at the first going over it, that so the people may in a short time have a taste of the whole body of divinity. (6) That parishioners be asked to provide Catechisms for those who could not afford to buy them. (7) That a written report on progress in the matter be sent by the Classes to the Provincial Assembly within forty days.

    The same view prevailed in Scotland, as may be seen from the action of the General Assembly in the course of the centuries. On 30th July 1649 it appointed weekly days of catechising, so as "thereby the people (who do not all convene at one time, but by turns, unto that exercise)" might have the chief heads of saving knowledge at each diet.

    On 2nd August 1652 the Assembly gave full instructions to the following effect: (1) Every Lord's Day "without prejudice to the preaching", part of the Catechism was to be explained "before the whole congregation", and persons were to be called up to answer the questions. (2) Because many were bashful or afraid, the minister was to call up "some that were more able in knowledge, and prepared before", and the others were to be examined more privately or in their families. (3) Ministers were to make frequent household visits and see that the families were adequately instructed, negligence in this to be reported to the Session. (4) Ministers were to see that the Catechism was taught in schools, for this would make the public catechising more effective. (5) Once a quarter the minister, with some of the elders, should visit the school, and if the teacher were remiss in this, should replace him.

    On 3rd January 1696 ministers were told that "besides their ordinary work of catechising", they were also to "preach catechetical doctrine"; and this instruction was renewed on 23rd May 1720.

    On 26th May 1794 children in parish schools were to be required to commit the Catechism to memory, and by frequent repetition to fix it deep in their minds". And on 29th May 1837 it was ordered that all prospective divinity students should be examined in their knowledge of "the Catechetical Standards of the Church".

    Doolittle was one of the most convinced and earnest of catechist; of this his great folio "Body of Divinity" is monument, for it is the record of his actual performance. He tells us that "above three score gave in their names for catechising, and afterwards the numbers rose to more than twice that". This was more than he could examine at one time, so he had a Thursday group and a Lord's Day group; their ages were from six to twenty-eight.

    It was said ("Duty of Holding Fast the Form of Sound Words", 1717), "A good custom it has been, notwithstanding it has been abused by Papists on one side, and is now so much decried by Protestants of loose principles on the other". Thomas Gouge sets out four benefits of catechising; (1) a good and sure foundation is laid; (2) it is "the easiest and most compendious way" of instructing children and servants; (3) it enables people to give a reason for the hope that is in them; (4) people thus instructed "will not so easily be made a prey either to atheists, or papists, or other seducers". Doolittle exclaims: "Alas! how many hear practical sermons as riddles which they cannot understand, because they were never taught catechetical doctrines and terms in a familiar way, adapted to their weak capacities". He also says definitely that he had found people's "esteem of ordinances" raised by it, and tells how Richard Baxter had said to him that he considered catechising so valuable that he would be content to spend his remaining years in doing nothing else.

Value and Effects of the Shorter Catechism

    The commendations of the Shorter Catechism are so numerous and so whole-hearted that one could easily fill pages with quotations. Indeed it has acquired in some minds a place near that of the Bible. Corsan declared that it "has long been considered by the religious public of Scotland as the most admirable compact of religious instruction ever compiled by uninspired men". Belfrage, in rather milder terms, says, In lucid order of arrangement, in accuracy of expression, in richness and comprehensiveness of sentiment, and in exhibiting much solid and important instruction in a small compass, it stands unrivalled. It has been blessed of God for forming the principles and directing the practice of many generations.

    J. D. Robertson says of it, "Our forefathers were faithfully drilled in it, and we cannot help feeling that it was the homely training based upon its theology which put the iron into their hot blood, and made them stable in faith and strong in action".

    The Evangelical Magazine (1832), in reviewing Beifrage's Exposition, says, "We have always regarded the Shorter Catechism as the best compendium of theology extant; and we are satisfied that a large part of the morality and sound sense of the Scottish peasantry is attributable, under God, to the habit of parents teaching this form of sound words to their rising offspring". It goes on to deplore the lack of such training in England.

    Its effects have been remarked upon by many commentators. In general terms, Timothy Dwight describes it as having been "so long, so greatly, and so extensively useful in Europe and in America". W. H. Scott says, "I never heard of anyone regretting that he had learned the answers to the questions in this wonderful little book; but, on the contrary, thousands have rejoiced that they were made to study the Shorter Catechism in early life". It is in Scottish life above all that its influence has been felt, and Banaerman says that "fathers and mothers among us are defrauding their children of part of their national religious heritage if they do not see that they are taught it early". At the first meeting of the Presbyterian Alliance, in 1877, the Rev. John Burton made an even wider, but not unjustifiable claim for its effect on national character. "In Scripture knowledge, theological acumen, firmness to principles, reverence for sacred things and good old ways, in general intelligence, integrity, and well directed energies, the men of the generation passing away, who were trained in Scottish schools, Bible and Shorter Catechism in hand, have had few equals and no superiors in the pioneer marchings of western civilisation".

    That it has fallen into neglect is a fact of general knowledge. While this has been most marked in the present century, it was beginning in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In 1897 J. B. Robertson wrote, "It must be evident to everyone that the appreciation of this manual is far from being so hearty and generous as it once was.... Everywhere there are signs of its falling into comparative neglect and disuse."

    This neglect was not entirely modern, however, for in 1794 the General Assembly declared that "the ancient and laudable practice of instructing youth in the principles of religion by means of the Catechisms has been much neglected" and ordered that in schools the children "be required to commit the Shorter Catechism to memory, and by frequent repetition to fix it deep in their minds".

Spheres of Use

    It was understood from the first that while the more thorough performance of catechising would naturally be the task of the minister, there was a definite responsibility upon fathers of families. Many of the expositors indicated in their title-pages their desire to help fathers of families, and provided instructions for that purpose. The present generation greatly needs Nuttall's admonition that "the instruction of truth must not be left all to ministers and school-masters and mistresses". Spurgeon wisely remarks "Those who use it in their families or classes must labour to explain the sense to the little ones; but the words should be carefully learned by heart, for they will be understood better as the child advances in years".

    Wilson, a Scottish Episcopalian, who followed the Shorter Catechism fairly closely in his two catechisms, gave a very serious warning to "Parents and Masters and Mistresses of Families". "A greater regard is to be had to your children and servants than to your cattle, yet generally there is no more. Ye list your children in the rolls of the church, and then permit them to follow their own ways, without precept or example, hence it is they so often prove crosses to you, and I your servants unfaithiful. As you will be answerable to God, set about this duty on the Lord's Day, and other convenient times; otherwise remember the warning will meet you at death and judgment. This from one who thirsts for souls." Richard Baxter, who thought so highly of catechising, wrote, "If at least masters of families, by such helps diligently used, will keep up knowledge and religion in their houses, it is not public failings in ministers, nor the want of what is desirable in the Assemblies, that will root out religion from the land".

    As to the method and frequency of catechising, the decision of the Scottish General Assembly on 30th July 1649 is so illuminating as to be worth quoting in full. "The General Assembly, taking to their serious consideration the great darkness and ignorance wherein a great part of this kingdom lieth, together with the late solemn engagement to use all means for the remedy thereof, do ordain every minister, with the assistance of the elders of their several kirk sessions, to take course that in every house where there is any one who can read, there be at least one copy of the Larger and Shorter Catechism, Confession of Faith, and Directory for Family Worship. And do renew the Act of the Assembly, August 30th 1639, for a day of weekly catechising to be constantly observed in every kirk, and that every minister do so order their catechetic questions as thereby the people (who do not convene all at one time, but by turns, to that exercise) may at every diet have the chief heads of saving knowledge in a short view presented unto them. And the Assembly, considering that, notwithstanding of their former Act, these diets of weekly catechising are much slighted and neglected by many ministers throughout this kingdom, do therefore appoint and ordain every presbytery to take trial of all the ministers within their bounds, once at least in the half year, whether they be careful to keep weekly diets of catechising and if they shall find any of their number negligent herein, they shall admonish for the first fault; and if, after such admonition, they shall not amend, the presbytery for the second fault shall rebuke them sharply; and if after such rebuke they do not yet amend, they shall be suspended." Lithgow, the Edinburgh University printer, accordingly produced an edition of the three documents in that year and the "Sum of Saving Knowledge" was drawn up.

    In connection with the public catechising, the General Assembly, in 1652, recognised that "many, being bashful to speak in public audience, do either absent themselves, or, if they must compear, are so distempered with fear that their edification is marred". So the minister was to call up "some that are more able in knowledge, and prepared before" and the others were to be "tried in their knowledge at more private diets of examination, or in their families". The General Assembly of 1652 gave instruction that in schools the children were to get the Catechism "by heart, which will much serve to further the public catechetical doctrine" of the whole congregation.

    The amount to be dealt with on each occasion varied greatly. Some seventy years ago, it was a common practice to go over a half or even the whole catechism, in the family each Sunday evening. Different commentators divided it into a different number of sections. Adams had four, Matthew Henry eight; in many cases it was divided into 52 sections, one for each Sunday of the year; in not a few, into 30 sections for each day of the month. It is evident that some of these arrangements did not allow for much more than a hare repetition by rote. The author of "The Principles of the Doctrine of Christ" has 36 sections to be learned in "so many longer Sabbaths of the year", but does not explain why the winter was to be a holiday season.

Glossaries and Paraphrases

    Wallis's original glossary was reproduced, more or less completely, by several subsequent authors. It was partly of a dictionary type, but partly also theological; the definitions vary, as may be seen from two examples. "Female: A woman, one of the she-kind." "Person of the Godhead: An incommunicable subsistence of the divine nature, distinguished from every other thing and person by its personal property." The same extremes of simplicity and complexity are to be found in all classes of expositions and commentaries, and other examples will be given. This was evidently due to the attempt to suit the explanations to children of all ages and intellectual abilities, and even to adults who might be learners. Lennie says, "As the common definitions given in Johnson's Dictionary would in many cases appear as mysterious as the terms themselves, an attempt has been made to simplify them". Yet here is one specimen of his simplification: "To enjoy God: To feel inexpressibly happy in His presence". Unfortunately the definitions of some commentators can be described in the words which Lennie used of Johnson.

    In not a few cases the learner was expected to incorporate the definition as a paraphrase in the answer. This has generally a tendency to become cumbrous, and an extreme example is Gall's version of the first answer: "The principal design for which man was made, and which he ought constantly and chiefly to seek after, is to become acquainted with, to exhibit in his life, and to declare to others the perfections of God, and to derive all his comfort and happiness from the conscious possession of God's favour and love".

    Gillies has explanations which expand the doctrine; e.g. he explains God's incommunicable attributes, and tells how the righteousness of Christ has two parts, His satisfaction to justice, and His fulfilling the law.

Supplementary Questions

    This method also was used by Wallis, the first expositor. His questions were numerous and were to be answered simply by "Yes" or "No". This had already been the method of Herbert Palmer, noted for his catechetical ability, to whom the preparation of the Catechism had been at first entrusted by the Westminster Assembly. The value of it had been discussed in the Assembly, and finally rejected; and opinions about it long continued to differ. Wallis claimed that, without burdening the learner's memory, "the several particulars of the large answer are distinctly pointed to, and briefly explained to the apprehension of weak capacities"; and he suggested that the instructor should first read over the answer, and then ask the supplementary questions, which are "not so much an exercise of the memory as of the judgment, being able to distinguish between the truth and falsehood". By this time, he says, the memory of the main question will be much helped. Matthew Henry thought this method made the work easy, and that the pupil might thus even begin without a teacher. Brown, on the other hand, claims that repeated experience" proves that the method too often encourages inattention.

    Most of the supplementary questions are of a more elaborate kind, and are often multiplied almost beyond belief. Flavell has 13 to question 1, 8 to 2, 5 to 3, and 95 (in ten groups) to 4. (This question naturally requires many secondary ones.) Notcutt exceeds even Flavel, and to the first five questions he has 76, 85, 29, 102, and 37 supplementaries respectively; so that his "Short Explanation" fills 242 pages! The scope of the supplementary questions varies; Struthers' are not merely doctrinal; e.g. in question 2 he deals with the Septuagint and Wiclif's translation, in question 22 Mary's sinfulness is discussed, and in question 95 who may administer baptism.

    James Millar gives a good account of his method, which makes the Catechism a gateway into a wider field. "The questions intended to analyse and unfold the Catechism are confined strictly to this object, with the exception of the final one, which often gives a practical turn to the subject. And the questions appended, to be answered by the scholars from their own knowledge and judgment, are not necessary with reference to the Catechism, though they naturally connect themselves with the subject under which they are given, and are in a sort of progressive series, rising in difficulty, and affording the teacher ample opportunity of imparting important and connected information."

Expositions and Commentaries

    These vary from a methodical commentary, such as the popular one by Alexander Whyte, to sermons, lectures, and even systems of divinity. Many of them have had limited, even localised, circulation; others were often reprinted and became standard works. Of these expositions, the most prominent examples are Lye (1662), Flavell (1692), Vincent (1701), Willison (1737), Some (c. 1750), Fisher (1753), Brown (1758), Boston (1773), and Paterson (1841). Some of these were translated into Gaelic.

    The Bellefont series of tracts, published in America, deal each with a single answer; but the most remarkable example of prolixity is John Hall's nineteen chapters (122 pp.) upon the first answer. Naturally the systems of divinity, such as Beifrage, Boston, Doolittle, Green, McDowell, Watson, and Willard, reach considerable dimensions.

    Hodge and Aspinwall envisaged for their "System of Theology contained in the Shorter Catechism" a wide series of uses, all, of course, based upon a knowledge of the Catechism itself. "To enable parents to make a home instruction intelligent and correct, to encourage the formation of adult classes in the Sabbath Schools for the study of the doctrines of the church, to furnish our elders with a clear and brief exposition of the system of doctrine which they are required sincerely to receive and adopt, and to give our candidates for the ministry, at the very beginning of their course, a general view with clear outlines, of God's nature and His gracious plan of salvation, and of man's condition and duty, which they are to devote their lives to study and to preach."

    Watson wrote: "I intend, every other Sabbath in the afternoon, to make it my whole work to lay down the grounds and fundamentals of religion in a catechetical way". His method is a brief statement of the points of the answer, then subsidiary questions with full answers, then practical uses; and it is evident chat it was preaching rather than ordinary catechising. Beifrage in 1832 stated that "there are few ministers who have not in the course of their pastoral duty explained it in whole or in part to their people", and quoted Principal Hill as saying "that it was formerly a general practice in the church to make a question of the Shorter Catechism, with the Scriptures that prove the answer, the subject of a discourse on one part of the Lord's Day, which was called preaching catechetical doctrine".

    Henry Read says: "Two or three Lord's Day Evenings in the month during the summer season, after hearing the children repeat the Catechism" (i.e. his own Catechism) "I discoursed on the several heads in order, with a practical improvement, and proposed many plain questions, to which the children were required to answer only ‘Yes’ or ‘No’".

    While the sermons were for adult members of the congregations, more particularly the younger ones, the expositions were, of course, in most cases though not in all,. for the teachers rather than the taught. Yet they exhibit ideas about child psychology (as do the definitions and paraphrases) quite astounding to the modern mind. Of all the criticism of predecessors, perhaps the most instructive, and indeed one of the most moderate, is that of William Smith (1828). "Without wishing in any respect to depreciate the merits of the productions of those who have preceded me in this department of literature, I think I may say, without being chargeable with presumption, that some of these expositions are not more adapted to the capacities of the young and uninformed than the work which they are intended to illustrate. To others of them it may also be objected that they are by far too large, and embrace too wide a field for being adopted into schools; that they admit a great deal of extraneous matter, and seem rather to be intended to teach the peculiar tenets of their respective authors than to explain in a fair unbiased manner the language of the Shorter Catechism, and the doctrines which it teaches. For these reasons, several works illustrative of this valuable manual have been less read than perhaps their intrinsic merits deserve. An explanatory treatise therefore, which shall contain nothing but what is taught in the Shorter Catechism, and which shall at the same time be of a size that may suit the generality of schools, seems still to be wanted. This is what has been attempted in the following pages." His work is 112 pages, moderate in comparison with not a few of his predecessors.

    One cannot but smile at the way in which critics fall into the very faults which they condemn; Bain, for instance, refers to "the concise manner in which the subject is treated" by him, and devotes more than 2-1/2 pages to the first question, 1-1/4 each to questions two and three, 4 pages to question four, and so on, to a total of 184 pages. Crawford, after remarking "The answers, you see, are all conceived as shortly as I could, that they might be the more easy to your memories", fills four pages with the sub-questions to the first question, and extends to 186 pages in all. Brown is more candid: "If some few of the answers be thought too long, or to consist of too many particulars, it is easy to overleap the last part of them". His "Shorter Catechism" has short answers, it is true, but there are 204 of them, and his "Brief Explanation" runs to 743 questions. James Inglis says in his preface, "The explanations are necessarily brief"; but in fact they are considerably longer than most others except those in an actual text-book; it is fair to add that he says they should be carefully read over, but not committed to memory.

Is the Catechism too difficult for Children?

    The shorter expositions were based, of course, on the assumption that it was above the children's heads, the longer ones, on the other hand, that it was an inadequate expression of doctrine. Why the authors of the latter did not recommend the Larger Catechism, which was intended as the normal basis of instruction, is not evident; it was ready to their hand.

    The propriety of using so abstruse a work as the Shorter Catechism was discussed in a good many prefaces. George Morison (1831), while not wishing his work to supersede the Shorter Catechism, adds "But, however high the merits of our Assembly's Catechism, it cannot be denied that there are many ‘things hard to be understood’, not only by children, but even by those of more mature age". Some of his own answers are longer than any in the Shorter Catechism, and contain words at least as recondite. William Smith (1823) says that the style of the Catechism "however masterly in itself" is above the comprehension of "by far the greater part of children at school"; he adduces the fact that "there are many who can repeat the whole Catechism, but who are nevertheless in a great degree ignorant of the real nature of its contents". After all, that is an indictment rather of the method of teaching by rote than of the book itself.

    Watts said, "I do no more than twenty others have done before me, who had a high esteem for the Assembly's Catechism, and a great and just veneration for it. Has not Dr. Owen, Mr. Edward Bowles, Mr. Thomas Gouge, Mr. A. Palmer, Mr. Matthew Henry, Mr. J. Noble, and other worthy men in England; Mr. Cotton in New England, Mr. Willison in Scotland, etc., composed shorter catechisms for the use of children? And has not this been the very reason which has set most or all of them to work, viz., that even the Shorter Catechism of the Assembly of Divines has been thought by many to be too long for young children to retain in their memory, and that all of them have supposed it too hard for children to understand? What means the multitude of explications of this Catechism by so many famous divines, almost ever since it has been written? Do they not all declare that children are not able to understand the Catechism without an explainer? And are not all these explications much too long for young children? What means the breaking of the long-connected sentences by some of these judicious explainers into short pieces, and expounding them piece by piece? Does it not plainly slew that they thought many of the answers to reach in length far beyond the stretch of the thinking process of a child? Do they not expressly tell the world so in a preface?"

    Its use as a "first reader" was, of course, widespread both in Scotland and in America as late as 1888 the Presbyterian Board of Publications in Philadelphia was advertising an edition of the first 34 questions "for use in infant classes".

Special Issues

    Doolittle says of his Plain Method that it is in a good type, that "it might not be made useless to the weak eyes of ancient people, whose instruction in catechising I much aim at". He also made special provision for its circulation among the poor; ministers could get it at a shilling a copy (417 pages) with the free addition of thirty for every hundred, and in proportion for smaller quantities, "to be given to the poorer sort, especially to such as will answer according to the proposal in the following page". Other authors made similar arrangements for their own parishioners; thus Gillies granted to John Orr of Glasgow the "right and property" of his edition on condition that the poor of the South Parish had 300 copies gratis.

    Two of the many editions of Thomas Watson's "Body of Practical Divinity" are of interest. They are subscription issues, and contain long lists of subscribers in humble walks of life, as well as farmers, merchants, etc. The fourth edition (1741) has the imprint "Glasgow-College. Printed for Archibald Ingram, James Dickman, John Hamilton, and John Glassford, Merchants in Glasgow." These men, one must suppose, financed the printing, took the risk, and of course recouped themselves from the subscribers. But the fifth edition (1759) is even more interesting; for a single unimportant person seems to have taken the financial risk. Its imprint is "Glasgow Printed by John Hall for the Publisher, James Tweedie, A.M., Student of Divinity, and to be sold at his House, at the foot of the Grammar-school Wynd".

    There is a London edition printed "or a Society of Gentlemen, to be distributed among the Poor". Another London edition, at the end of last century, owes its existence to the fact that Lord Wharton ordered by his will in 1696 the distribution of this Catechism under its Parliamentary title, "The Grounds and Principles of Religion"". The trustees had for many years circulated the Prayer-book, as it contained the Church Catechism; but on the reconstruction of the trust by the Charity Commissioners with the reintroduction of Nonconformist trustees, this provision was noted, and the Publications Committee of the Presbyterian Church of England produced a cheap edition with the parliamentary title, which was distributed by the trustees along with the Bibles to all who desired it, as well as being on sale in the usual way.

    When Sunday Schools came into existence the Catechism naturally found a place in them. In Mosley's edition of Brown (1800) there are two interesting pages telling of the formation in Edinburgh in March 1797 of "The Sabbath Evening School Society", followed by similar ones in Glasgow, Perth, Dundee, Paisley, Aberdeen, Montrose, Haddington, "and in most other towns". About the beginning of June, 1799, two schools, with about 40 pupils each, were opened in Long Buckby, Northants; others soon followed, especially several in Southwark, under the Rev. Rowland Hill. A brief account of the method of some of these schools is given.

    Belfrage speaks of the use of the Catechism in the colleges in America, as a manual of piety. He adds that in the College of Saybrook, afterwards King's College, one of the regulations was that every student should recite weekly the Assembly's Catechism in Latin; and special editions were printed.

    A Gaelic edition of Gustavus Aird's "Analysis"" was distributed by the three chief Scottish churches to the men in the forces in 1916.

The Catechism as a First Reader

    The most remarkable use of the Catechism, and that which is responsible for a large series of editions in Scotland and America, is as a first reading book. These editions have been separately listed in the Bibliography, and some notes as to their characteristics will be found at the head of the "A,B,C" and "New England Primer" lists. Copies are naturally rare, for they were used till worn out and thrown away.

    This custom dates from the very beginning. On 5th January 1649 the Commission of General Assembly appointed "that the Little Catechism be printed severally with the A,B,C, before", and recommended to its clerk "that it be done with diligence". This had been done before with other catechisms, for in July 1648 the General Assembly had condemned one such catechism because of very gross errors. An ordinary text was almost universally used, but at least one syllabised edition was issued. Apart from the editions themselves there is evidence as to the prevalence of this custom. In 1694 James Porterfield drew up a very thorough method, whose principles are evident from his title-page; in it the Catechism was the first reading book, and the Bible the second. About 1700 the Rev. John Anderson of Dumbarton criticises some details, but not the method itself; he says that "the first set to the child is to learn how to read his mother tongue"; and for this he goes through a course of "Catechism, proverbs, psalm book, chapter book (as they call it) and Bible" he does not criticise the sequence, but emphasises the facts that much of it is printed in Black Letter, and that they are not taught to divide a word into syllables, which hinders their progress when they come to Latin. He adds a curious caution: "No woman should be allowed to teach, or at least none but those who are known to understand syllabication. They are generally under no favourable character for their skill in spelling."

    In 1727 it is recorded that not only children, but "persons far advanced in years" were crowding to the S.P.C.K. schools in the Highlands, and that "few of them left the schools till they had learned the Assembly's Catechism by heart".

    Corsan, a schoolmaster, issued an edition divided into syllables in 1836, and, strange to say, this edition had also a theological explanation of the more difficult words. He recognised the drawbacks of the Catechism as a first reader, and introduced a corrective in one respect: "As the questions are generally repeated in a sing-song, monotonous manner, I have, to remedy this bad habit, marked the principal inflections of the voice". He uses the acute, grave, and occasionally the circumflex accent upon a duly explained system.

    In 1825 Lennie, also a schoolmaster, gives the Catechism a rather later place in the learning of reading; he asks of his edition "whether, in its present form, it will not admit of being bound up with a spelling-book, which will preserve it both from being so frequently mislaid and torn, — two circumstances which have hitherto occasioned me much trouble. At the end of the spelling-book, too, it will form an additional number of reading lessons."

    The Catechism was used also in later stages, as the basis for teaching grammar and syntax. Perhaps the most important of these editions is that by William Rattray, to whose high qualities as teacher Sir Donald MacAlister paid tribute. Woodford, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, produced an edition of this sort.

    William Hamilton, whose edition has 300 doctrinal questions, describes it as being "Adapted to the Intellectual System of Tuition". He was the author of "First Lessons in English Reading" and this system was apparently one of his own.

Introductory Catechism

    Another method of helping children to understand the Shorter Catechism was by using simpler preliminary ones. These varied in style and contents, and in many instances do not follow the lines of the Shorter Catechism. Joseph Priestley, for instance, has one, to be begun in general at the age of four or five, on quite independent lines, though he evidently contemplated the learning of the Shorter Catechism thereafter. Others took the more hopeful plan of simplifying the Catechism; W. H. Scott writes "I conceived the idea of the Shorter Catechism Shortened; not a single word has been added, but the effort has been to answer each question, though not so fully as in the standard edition. A child, having once learned the abridged edition, is ready in advancing years to study the complete catechism, which will be easier to memorise because of the knowledge already gained." He stated explicitly that his version was not intended to take the place of the full Catechism.

    Sutherland Sinclair took a similar plan, hut also omitted the "elaborate explanations" of the Commandments and of the Lord's Prayer, and took rather more liberty with the text. A couple of answers are good samples of his work. "4. God is a spirit. He is almighty and eternal, and is perfectly wise and good." "7. The decrees of God mean the wise plan by which He works."

    Isaac Watts had two preliminary catechisms, on independent lines. The first,"to be begun at three or four years old", has as its first question and answer, "Can you tell me, child, who made you? The great God, who made heaven and earth." The second, to be learned without proofs till about ten, and thereafter with proofs, begins: "Dear child, do you know what you are? I am a creature of God, for he made me both body and soul. Isa. xlv. 11, 12. Job x. 11. Zech. xii. 1." While he said that it was not necessarily all to be learned before going on to the Shorter Catechism, this suggests that the latter would not be begun till about the age of twelve, far later than the Scottish practice.

    Dr. Williams also has a graded series. The first is a catechism on Scripture History, under individuals, from Adam to Timothy, Jesus Christ being one. The second begins like the Church Catechism, by "What is your name?", and deals with baptism, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Commandments. Thereafter it closely follows the Shorter Catechism, omitting some questions. The third is the Shorter Catechism itself, with explanatory notes, generally of a wordy type, but sometimes helpful, e.g. "According to the counsel of His own will: which will was guided by wisdom, and guarded by equity".

    One of the most popular of the preliminary ones was Willison's. It has no less than 358 questions, but the answers are short, though the Questions are not all simple. It begins thus: "Who made you? God. Who is it that redeems you? Christ. Who is it that sanctifies you? The Holy Ghost. Of what are you made ? Dust."

    Wilson was a Scottish Episcopalian, but his Catechism for little children after they have learned to speak: is perhaps the most elementary form of the Shorter Catechism. It starts thus: "Who made man? God. To what end was he made? To serve and enjoy God. In what state was he made? Holy and healthful. Continued he so? No; he broke God's command. What brought he on himself by that? A state of sin and misery."

    Inglis simply marked with an asterisk the questions suitable for junior classes; forty-seven are thus indicated.

    Wilson's "Cream for Children" (in verse) does not closely follow the shorter Catechism, but its influence is clear, e.g.:
        Did their sin hurt any but themselves? 
        Yes! born in sin, poor, dark and blind,
         Is the lost state of all mankind.
        What is faith? 
        A saving grace whereby I rest
        For pardon on the Lord my Christ.

Methods of Teaching

    Emerson says of his minor Doctrinal Catechism what might well be said about the Shorter Catechism: "It is earnestly recommended to teachers of the Primer, that they exert themselves to make learners repeat the answers as distinctly, deliberately, understandingly, solemnly, and in, all respects properly as possible."

    Hamilton is a little more detailed. "In teaching this Catechism, the first object is to have it read correctly.... Correct reading is a guide to the sense." He recommends that one person should read the question and another the answer, slowly and distinctly, pausing at every punctuation mark. Twenty questions should take about five minutes. He also tells of pauses where there is no actual mark, and of the varied inflections of the voice.

    Warnings against mere rote repetition are frequent. Some, whose work shews insight into the whole problem, remarks that "when young persons see a great deal before them which they are required to commit to memory, they soon grow weary of the  exercise, and find excuses to absent themselves from it".

    An early, and careful, set of instructions by Lye is worth summarising. (1) Simply ask the question and have the answer given. (2) Try whether the child discerns truth from falsehood, by the questions to be answered by "Yes" or "No" (Wallis's method). (3) Try the child's ability to explain every difficult word or phrase. (4) Divide the answer into its several propositions, and let the child give the Scripture proofs of each. (5) Put each proof distinctly to the child, and "ask him what he observes from them". (6) Propose such usual objections from Scripture or reasons as seem to contradict the truths asserted. (7) "Apply the truths thus learned and proved." Excellent, but surely somewhat beyond those of weaker capacity!

    Gall has a similar but slightly less exacting system.   The methods of division into "points", "doctrines truths", or "principles" is frequently followed by expositors, and was undoubtedly a helpful one. The most striking example of such analysis is that of Hutton, as shewn by the quotation of his answer 6 (in the Bibliography).

Modifications and Controversy

    Modifications involving doctrine have not been numerous. The "Revised Catechism" of 1736, by James Strong, roused a pamphlet war of some importance. Guyse in a sweeping accusation says that the alterations "strike at the doctrine which the Assembly taught" in many particulars, for example, the supreme place of Scripture, the Trinity, the Decrees of God, the two covenants, original sin, the person of Christ, and others. These points were also criticised by Gibbs, an antipaedobaptist minister, in 1737, in a letter which reached three editions in the one year. Rees, another staunchly Calvinistic Baptist, had in 1736 made a somewhat astute remark: "If the reverend and learned Reviser had formed a new and distinct Catechism consisting purely of his own principles, and those of the majority of the ministers of this age, whom he claims as on his side, it would in my opinion, have denoted a much nobler resolution, and not less fairness and candour. But to attempt to introduce notions contrary to those of the Westminster Assembly under the cover of their own Catechism, by quashing some entire paragraphs, by transposing some particular phrases, or by adding other imperfect sentences, seems to me to be a sort of acting in disguise, and as if things were not ripe enough as yet for the author to declare his sentiments so roundly as he could wish." He adds: "I cannot forbear concluding that the Reviser is wrong in his calculation by reckoning too fast, when he would engross the majority of the ministers of his day in his way of thinking."

    That the controversy became somewhat acrid seems evident from the remark of Millar ("The Assembly's Shorter Catechism Rescued", a reply to the "Vindicator".) "The Reviser", he says, "has been generally more soft, and seemingly grave and serious; but as for the Vindicator's manner and style, one had need to serve an apprenticeship at Billingsgate to qualify him to reply in his own way.

    Guyse was one of five ministers (Thomas Bradbury, John Guyse, Thomas Hall, Richard Rawlin, and William King) who, almost twenty years later, commended Samuel Pike's exposition to the use of "all Christian families". This orthodox Calvinistic work was severely criticised by Caleb Fleming, an Independent and Anti-trinitarian, who pungently remarked, "A Calvinistic system, recommended by Calvinists, is not so properly a recommendation to any but Calvinists", and therefore they ought rather to have said "to all Calvinistic families".

    Wesley omitted the questions as to the decrees of God, softened the definition of sin, omitted question 20, described Christ as the Redeemer of mankind (not of "God's elect""), omitted effectual calling, adoption, and made several other minor changes. But the Shorter Catechism, even thus edited, was not much used by Methodists. There are several Baptist recensions, the earliest being "Keach's Catechism" (1664), which was revised by John Rippon in 1794. In 1874 Henry D. Brown issued a version with immersion and antipaedobaptism inserted, and with no mention of the Covenants or of original sin. He added questions: "What is conversion?" and "What shall be done to the wicked at the Day of judgment?", and modified to a lesser degree 25 questions, omitting altogether some 33 others. Charles H. Spurgeon also issued a modification in 1878.

Metrical Versions

    Instead of a preliminary catechism, several authors have tried to make the learning of the Catechism easier by turning it into metre, no simple task.... James Fisher puts it well in his "Author's Apology": "though it is not pretended that the following answers in every particular are literally versified, for in many instances that would be incompatible with the essentials of rhyme, yet the author has uniformly endeavoured to preserve with accuracy both the sense and the substance". The general character of these attempts can be judged by the answers to the first question quoted in the Bibliography. Some versifiers expanded their work into a commentary, of original or partly original poetry, as will be seen by the notes in the Bibliography.