THE Shorter Catechism, as a manual of religious instruction, was at one time acceptable to almost every Protestant denomination in Scotland. Though it has come to be regarded as a purely Presbyterian document, it originated with the famous Assembly of Divines sitting at Westminster in the seventeenth century—an Assembly that was composed of twelve Congregationalists and one or two Episcopalians, as well as a number of Presbyterians. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, on the 28th July, 1648, approved of “the said Shorter Catechism, as a part of the intended uniformity, to be a Directory for catechising such as are of weaker capacity.” Congregationalists, including Baptists, as well as Presbyterians, have used it in the instruction of their children—Baptists omitting only one question, namely, that relating to infant baptism. It seems a strange turn of affairs in the religious life of our country that leading men in the Church of Scotland are now the chief promoters of a new Catechism, the general adoption of which would entirely exclude the Shorter Catechism from the public schools, and from the prominent place it has hitherto had in our national life. This new movement brings out in stronger relief than ever the widespread departure “from the faith once delivered unto the saints” which has taken place among the Churches. And yet some of these ecclesiastical leaders tell us that they and their Churches stand where they did! We are glad to observe, however, that as yet the new Catechism is making very little, if any, headway, and that School Boards are disposed to continue their adherence to the Shorter Catechism.
It is our intention in this article to examine briefly some of the objections that have been raised against the use of the Shorter Catechism.
The first kind of objection, we observe, is that directed against the doctrine of the Catechism. Some persons do not hesitate to say that the Catechism contains many errors. These objectors, who declare themselves so plainly, are, for the most part, Arminians among the Congregationalists and Baptists who feel under no obligations to respect the Shorter Catechism. Presbyterians who are anxious for a new Catechism, generally express themselves in a more plausible way, though not essentially different in spirit or opinion from the previous objectors. Being conscious, however, that they are under some obligation to hold the doctrines of the Shorter Catechism, they veil their opposition in the language they employ, and speak of the harsh and severe terms in which some of the questions are expressed. The questions referred to, our readers may readily surmise, are such as relate to sin and the Fall and its consequences, and the sovereignty of God’s grace in the salvation of sinners. Now it is not the design of the present article to enter into any elaborate argument in defence of the doctrinal statements of the Shorter Catechism. Suffice it, meantime, simply to point out that the Church in the past has regarded the Catechism as expressing in a simple, clear, orderly manner, certain plain Scripture truths on the above subjects. With all impartiality there is really nothing in the Catechism but what is already in the Scriptures. The controversy therefore is, in reality, with the Bible and not with the Shorter Catechism. We do not claim that the Catechism is an inspired document, but we make bold to say that men may as well cast off the authority of the inspired apostles and of Christ Himself as to reject the doctrines that are stated in it. And this is really what many professedly Christian teachers are doing at the present day. They reject, for example, the authority of the Apostle Paul, and they cut and carve the Scriptures in general into various elements to suit their own opinions. The deep-seated reason, then, why certain questions in the Shorter Catechism are not palatable to them is that they have never been subdued to the acceptance of the truth by the grace of God. The law in its spirituality, sin in its heinousness, guilt and punishment, and salvation as of free grace, are things which have never been opened up to them by the Spirit of God.
Unregenerate, untaught men have got into the position of ministers of the gospel and professors of theology. Many of the spiritual guides of the people are blind leaders of the blind. They disbelieve and hate the humbling doctrines of God’s Word, and take care to preach and advocate only what is palatable to the flesh. We have been studying these matters for years, and unregeneracy, chiefly in the pulpit, is the only adequate solution we have discovered of the general declension from “the faith,” and the widespread opposition to the doctrines of sin and salvation, as hitherto expounded by men manifestly enlightened by the Holy Ghost.
Before passing to another kind of objection to the Shorter Catechism, we shall notice shortly one objection to the doctrinal expression of the Catechism which has been raised by men of various schools. They say that it does not sufficiently enlarge upon “the love of God,” and an instance has been cited in the case of the answer to Question 20: “Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?” The answer runs—”God having, out of His mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.” Some, who profess to be Calvinists, say that there is not enough about the love of God here. Now, our first answer is that this is the Shorter Catechism, and that if a more enlarged expression of things is wanted, they can find that in the Larger Catechism. But it appears to us that the framers of the Shorter Catechism exhibited the greatest Christian wisdom in their formation of this as well as other questions. They studied to express themselves in such a way as to exclude error as well as unfold truth, and thus did the work of faithful guardians of the youthful understanding. There are no points on which the natural mind is more ready to go astray than the extent of God’s love and the determining principle of salvation, and so they did very well indeed to lay the foundations of the faith so carefully and wisely in the minds of the young. It would be better for their critics if they followed their example in the teaching of the present young and rising generation. “Religion made easy for the carnal mind” seems to be the motto of many present-day instructors of youth.
We shall resume this subject in next issue.
A Note from Latimer’s Sermon of the Plough.—”Who is the most diligent Bishop and Prelate in all England, that passeth all the rest in doing his office? I can tell you, for I know him who it is; I know him well. But now I think I see you listening and hearkening, that I shall name him. And will you know who it is? I will tell you: it is the Devil. . . . And his office is to hinder religion, to maintain superstition, to set up idolatry, to teach all kinds of Popery. When the devil is resident, and hath his plough going, then away with books and up with candles; away with Bibles, and up with beads; away with the light of the Gospel, and up with the light of candles, yea, at noonday. When the Devil is resident, that he may prevail, up with all superstition and idolatry, censing, painting of images, candles, palms, ashes, Holy Water, and new service of men’s invention, as though man could invent a better way to honour God with than God Himself hath appointed. ‘Down with Christ’s Cross, up with Purgatory Pick-Purse, up with him—the Popish Purgatory, I mean; away with clothing the naked, the poor and impotent; up with the decking of images, and gay garnishing of stocks and stones; up with man’s traditions and his laws; down with God’s traditions and His Most Holy Word. Down with the old honour due to God, and up with the new God’s honour. . . . Oh, that our Prelates would be as diligent to sow the corn of good doctrine as Satan is to sow cockle and darnel!'”