Page:PracticalCommentaryOnHolyScripture.djvu/20

 on the  other  hand,  we  have  practically  but  one  Catechism,  which  is learnt  alike  by  infants  on  the  gallery,  and  by  youths  in  the  upper orms. Is it  better  to  have  one  Catechism  or  a graduated  series  adapted to the  several  capacities  of  those  who  use  them ? Surely, it  would not be  futile  to  discuss  the  respective  merits  or  demerits  of  the  two systems. For without  presuming  to  say  that  either  is  better  than  the other, I may  safely  affirm  that  ours  is  not  so  obviously  superior  as  to be  outside  the  pale  of  discussion.

Another question  closely  bound  up  with  the  former  is  to  determine what should  be  the  setting  and  frame-work  and  general  characteristics of a Catechism. Should a Catechism,  in  a word,  be  a Summa  Theologica in miniature ? a compendium of  Theology ? a condensed essence  of  theological treatises? Should it  be  couched  in  technical  language? Should it bristle  with  definitions? Should the  definitions  be  framed  with  such studied accuracy  that  the  most  fastidious  philosopher  shall  be  unable  to detect  the  slightest  flaw  or  imperfection? Should they  be  such  that “only a philosopher  can  read  them  without  a groan”? Or should  a Catechism  be  a religious  primer? Should its  language  be  plain  and simple, but  accurate  withal,  though  without  straining  after  minute  shades of accuracy? Should there  be  more  explanations  and  fewer  definitions? By way  of  illustrating  the  two  methods  I will  transcribe  two  answers  to the  question:  What  is  God? One answer  occurs  in  the  English  Catechism, the  other  in  Deharbe’s  Small  Catechism,  a translation  of  which is extensively  used  in  the  United  States.

The English  definition  is  made  up  of  a number  of  ideas  of  such a hard metaphysical  cast  as  to  be  wholly  impervious  to  the  ordinary mind, to  say  nothing  of  the  child-mind. Nay, it  may  be  affirmed  without exaggeration that  only  those  who  have  undergone  a philosophical  and a theological training  can  ever  hope  to  understand  it. The very  explanation involves  a course  of  theology. For the  definition  is  the  whole treatise De  Deo  in  a nutshell. Deharbe’s answer  immediately  stoops  to lowly  intelligences,  and  thereby  it  stoops  to  conquer. Being adapted to the  capacity  of  children,  it  will  give  them,  at  least,  some  idea  of God,  whereas  the  English  definition  cannot  but  leave  a blank. And