Page:PracticalCommentaryOnHolyScripture.djvu/23

 have said  that  the  English  and  Rottenburg  Catechisms  share  this principle in  common. But, after  all,  the  agreement  between  the  two Catechisms is  only  apparent. For there  is  this  difference  between  the two, that  in  the  English  Catechism  the  question  was  framed  before  the answer, whereas  in  the  Rottenburg  Catechism  the  answer  was  framed before the  question. Thus in  the  latter  the  true  principle  appears  as a living  force.

This is  a matter  of  greater  import  than  at  first  blush  it  may  seem* Not only  is  this  mode  of  procedure  a courageous  assertion  of  the  true principle on  which  I have  been  insisting;  not  only  is  the  true  proportion between question  and  answer  thereby  observed; but  it  also  gives  us  a glimpse  of  yet  another  truth  which  we  seem  barely  to  have  realized: viz. that answers  gain  in  clearness  and  directness  when  they  are  unhampered by  the  stilted  phraseology  of  a preformed  question. How much plainer  and  simpler  would  Catechisms  be,  if  all  were  constructed on this  plan! Still, if  the  Rottenburg  principle  is  right,  we  may  reasonably go  a step  farther  and  ask,  how  far  it  is  advisable  to  have  stereotyped questions  at  all. Will the  Catechism  of  the  future  — if  Catechism it can  be  called  — consist  merely  of  sets  of  plain  simple  consecutive statements ? That some  chapters  in  the  Catechism  lose  in  effectiveness  by being  put  in  the  form  of  question  and  answer,  is  to  me  painfully  evident. Take, for  instance,  the  last  chapter  — the  Christian’s  Daily  Exercise. Will any  one  say  that  the  beautiful  instructions  therein  contained  would not be  far  more  telling,  if  written  in  the  form  of  pithy  childlike  statements? But, as  they  stand,  they  are  positively  handicapped  by  the questions to  which  they  form  a pendant. And it  is  to  be  feared  that, in consequence,  children  often  think  of  the  duty  inculcated  only  in connexion  with  its  question  in  the  Catechism.

Leaving the  domain  of  general  Catechetics,  we  now  come  to  that branch which  is  the  subject-matter  of  the  present  volume,  viz. Bible History. And, first  of  all,  it  may  be  asked:  what  place  does  Bible History hold  in  a course  of  religious  instruction? Bible History  is  not the foundation  on  which  religious  instruction  rests,  nor  the  centre  round which it  revolves,  nor  the  goal  towards  which  it  tends. Our religion centres in  our  faith,  which  is  not  a condensed  extract  from  Bible History, but  comes  from  the  Church. Not Bible  History,  then,  but  the teaching of  the  Church  must,  on  Catholic  principles,  be  at  once  the beginning, middle  and  end  of  religious  instruction. Hence Bible  History, to claim  a place  in  religious  instruction,  must  do  so  only  inasmuch  as it  bears  on  the  doctrines  of  faith. If this  principle  be  kept  steadily  in