Page:PracticalCommentaryOnHolyScripture.djvu/19

 word Catechetics,  but  it  was  marked  with  an  obelus  or  death-mark,  to show  that  it  was  either  dying  or  dead. The thing  is  not,  perhaps,  quite as lifeless  as  its  name; but  if  Catechetics,  as  a science,  still  barely  lives, it is  the  utmost  that  can  be  said. I am far  from  saying  that  there  is a lack  of  earnestness  amongst  us,  or  that  we  have  no  experienced Catechists who  have  attained  a fair,  or,  if  you  will,  a large  measure of success. Nor am  I insinuating  that  we  are  not  alive  to  the  vast consequences with  which  success  or  failure  in  catechizing  is  fraught  for the future. On the  contrary,  the  steady,  if  slow,  growth  of  a catechetical literature amongst  us  points  to  a growing  interest  in  the  subject,  and a deepening sense  of  its  importance. All this,  however,  while  proving that we  are  in  point  of  fact  catechizing,  only  serves  to  bring  out  in greater  prominence  the  fact  that  we  are  still  without  the  science. Are our tools  rusty? Are our  weapons  broken  or  blunted? In a word, are our  methods  right  or  wrong? Are the  instruments  we  are  using adapted to  the  purpose  for  which  they  are  intended? Are our  Catechisms correctly adjusted,  that  is,  are  they  set  in  a manner  best  calculated  to secure  their  aim? All these  are  questions  on  which  our  future  success turns, and  which  clamour  for  an  answer. If our  methods  and  our instruments are  perchance  wrong,  we  are  but  wasting  our  energies  in attempting  to  naturalize  mistakes,  by  forming  them  into  a regular  system. And what  answer  can  be  given  to  these  questions? Until lately  no answer  has  been  attempted,  even  if  the  question  has  been  asked. But recently an  enterprising  clerical  journal,  Pastoralia  by  name,  has  been rife with  discussions  that  have  yet  only  touched  the  fringe  of  these great questions;  still  I am  not  without  hopes  that  when  the  mass  of nebulous  matter  condenses,  it  may  prove  to  be  the  beginning  of  a solid catechetical system.

We in  England,  then,  seem  to  be  just  entering  on  the  preliminary stage of  discussion. In Germany  the  stage  of  discussion  has  long  been passed. And, it  will  naturally  be  asked,  has  the  discussion  proved  as barren  of  practical  fruit  as  many  German  discussions  have  undoubtedly been ? What has  been  the  net  result ? Is any  advantage  likely  to accrue  from  a discussion ? Is not  the  catechetical  system  that  is  stereotyped in  practice  good  enough? These are,  I submit,  questions  that may be  profitably  discussed,  even  if  the  discussion  entail  no  change. At any  rate,  it  can  do  no  harm,  if  it  only  strengthen  our  self-assurance that we  are  travelling  on  the  right  road. For it  is  not  a little  singular that the  Germans,  who  have  discussed  these  matters,  and  we,  who  have not, move  in  many  respects  on  totally  distinct  planes. The Germans, for instance,  use  a graduated  series  of  Catechisms. There are  lower Catechisms, middle  Catechisms,  and  upper  Catechisms. In England,