I.
OF all the catechisms that were ever issued none has been so popular and widespread in its influence as the Shorter Catechism. “Nowhere else,” says the late Dr Carruthers, of the British Museum, “can be found so plain and simple, yet so complete a statement of Scripture doctrine as it was understood by Augustine and Calvin, by Knox and Usher, and by Chalmers and Hodge, as in this Shorter Catechism” (The Shorter Catechism, p. 37). It was drawn up by a race of theological giants, masters of theology, both in its doctrinal and experimental aspects, and as Dr Mitchell so truly put it, the Catechism bears “the ripest fruit of the Assembly’s thought and experience.”* Though drawn up by an Assembly called by the English Parliament, it is with Scotland, the land of its adoption, that the Shorter Catechism is most closely linked. Prior to the adoption of the Shorter Catechism by the General Assembly of 1648, Scotland had its own Catechism, that drawn up by John Craig, Knox’s co-adjutor. Craig’s Catechism was abridged in 1591 at the request of the General Assembly for the use of the young, and it continued in use until the adoption of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. The Act of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland adopting the Shorter Catechism may be here quoted:—”At Edinburgh, July 28th, 1648. Session 19.—The General Assembly, having seriously considered the Shorter Catechism, agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines sitting at Westminster, with the assistance of Commissioners from this Kirk, do find, upon due examination thereof, That the said Catechism is agreeable to the Word of God, and in nothing contrary to the received doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Kirk: And therefore approve the said Shorter Catechism, as a part of the intended uniformity, to be a Directory for catechising such as be of weaker capacity.” The concluding words, “such as be of weaker capacity,” have often provoked a smile, as if they were a stroke of unconscious humour. They are not so—they are the deliverance of a race of theological giants to the theological pigmies of our day!—a challenge by the heavily-armoured knights who fought in the stern theological conflicts of the 17th century to the lightly-equipped theologians of later days.
* “The Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, and especially their Shorter Catechisms, may be regarded as, in several respects, the most remarkable of their symbolical books, the matured fruit of all their consultations and debates, the quintessence of that system of truth in which they desired to train English-speaking youth, and faithful training in which, I believe, has done more on both sides of the Atlantic to keep alive reverence for the old theology than all other human instrumentalities whatever” (Mitchell’s “Catechisms of the Second Reformation,” p. ix.).
The Westminster Assembly of Divines met on the 1st July 1643, being summoned by the two Houses of Parliament to advise as to a further and more perfect reformation in the Liturgy, Discipline, and Government of the Church of England. They proceeded at once to the revision of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. But by the time the Commissioners from Scotland arrived (Henderson and Gillespie on 14th September, and Rutherford and Baillie on 20th November), the Divines had a wider field of labour placed before them. They were requested to prepare creeds and directories, not simply for the Church of England, but for the Churches of Christ in the three kingdoms, so as to bring them into the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, church government, and public worship, and catechising. The Scottish Commissioners had no vote; but they sat in the Assembly and took part in the important discussions, and rendered great service in the deliberations.
The preparation of a Catechism was put by the Assembly, in December 1643, into the hands of Herbert Palmer. The first step towards the preparation of a Catechism, according to Dr Mitchell, was in December 1643, when Messrs Marshall, Palmer, Goodwin, Young, and Herle, with the Scottish Commissioners, were appointed a committee to draw up a directory for public worship. This was intended to include a directory for catechising, if not a formal catechism, and the preparation of the paper on this subject was entrusted to Mr Herbert Palmer, then Master of Queen’s College, Cambridge, and famous as the best catechist in England (Baillie’s “Letters,” II., 140). Great though Mr Palmer’s reputation was as a catechist, his paper does not seem to have met with the approval of the Scottish Commissioners, if we are to judge from Baillie’s comment on the same: “Mr Marshall’s part anent preaching, and Mr Palmer’s about catechising, though the one be the best preacher, and the other the best catechist in England, yet we no ways like it; so their papers are passed into our hands to frame them according to our mind” (Ibid., ii. 148). This was written on 2nd April 1644, and on 21st November of the same year, Baillie briefly records that “the catechise is drawn up, and I think shall not take up much time.” A month later (26th December) he again states “we have nearly also agreed in private on a draught of catechism, whereupon, when it comes into public, we expect little debate.” Dr Mitchell infers from these notices that the catechism, which was drawn up and nearly agreed upon in private, was either some one which had been drafted by themselves in terms of the remit made to them—the catechism published in 1644 for the benefit of both kingdoms, or that of Rutherford, till now only extant in MS.—and which they were prematurely counting on getting the Committee and the Assembly to accept without much discussion, or else that it was some modification of Mr Palmer’s directory or catechism (Mitchell’s “Catechisms of the Second Reformation,” p. xi.).
Before this date the Minutes of the Assembly indicate that the following members were joined with Palmer “for hastening the catechism”:—
Stephen Marshall, B.D., the illustrious preacher; Anthony Tuckney, B.D., afterwards Master of St John’s, Cambridge, and Divinity Professor; Matthew Newcomen, M.A., of Dedham, Essex; and Thomas Hill, D.D., afterwards Master of Emmanuel, and then of Trinity, Cambridge, and for some time Vice-Chancellor of the University. After the expiration of two months, and no report being presented, the Assembly added to the Committee, Edward Reynolds, D.D., afterwards Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, and Vice-Chancellor of the University, and then, having conformed, Bishop of Norwich; and Philip Delmé, of the Reformed French Church, Canterbury. As the Scottish Commissioners claimed a right to be on all Committees appointed to carry out any part of the uniformity covenanted for between the Churches, they were members of the above-mentioned Committee.
(To be continued.)