Page:PracticalCommentaryOnHolyScripture.djvu/25

 its own  account,  but  because  it  imparts  life  and  vigour,  picturesqueness and comprehensiveness  to  religious  instruction;  because  it  elucidates, proves, enforces  and  illustrates  the  truths  that  go  to  make  up  religious instruction. But, as  Dr.  Knecht  insists,  in  order  that  Bible  History  may be in  a position  to  render  these  services,  it  must  be  "taught  in  the closest  connexion  with  the  Catechism”.  “Catechism  and  Bible  History must  mutually  interpenetrate,  for  only  in  this  way  is  a systematic  course of  religious  instruction  possible”.  Catechism  and  Bible  History  must go  hand  in  hand,  but  Catechism  must  be  in  the  van.  Catechism  is  the guiding  principle,  and  Bible  History  its  handmaid.

These are  the  principles,  weighty  though  elementary,  on  which Dr. Knecht and  all  writers  on  Catechetics  are  generally  agreed. And how does  practice  harmonize  with  principles? Is practice  attuned  to principle? Or are  the  two  in  hopeless  discord? To begin  with,  how many teachers  have  mastered  the  reason  why  Bible  History  has  a place in religious  instruction? How many,  or  how  few,  realize  the  fact  that Bible History  and  Catechism  should  be  “taught  in  the  closest  connexion”? And what  percentage  of  those  who  have  grasped  this  truth  put  it  into practice? There is  no  denyinc  the  patent  fact  that,  as  a rule,  the  two are not  taught  concurrently,  and  are  not  made  to  run  on  parallel lines. Ten to  one,  the  Bible  History  set  down  for  a class  in  a given year has  no  connexion  whatever  with  the  doctrinal  instruction  of  that year. Thus, while  children  are  being  instructed  in  the  Holy  Eucharist, their Scripture  History  turns  on  that  singularly  uninspiring  period  embraced by  the  reigns  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Juda! All this  comes from being  enslaved  to  the  chronological  system. This is  the  root  of the  evil  to  which  the  axe  must  be  laid. Forgetting the  plain  principle that should  underlie  the  teaching  of  all  Bible  History,  and  utterly  ignoring the  profit  or  loss  to  the  children,  we  have  stumbled  over  the crooked idea  that  Bible  History  must  be  taught  chronologically  even  in our  poor  schools. I am far  from  denying,  nay,  I affirm  that  a systematic course  of  Bible  History  should  be  given  when  time  and  facilities are not  wanting,  as  in  our  upper  schools  and  colleges. But in  our  poor schools, where  the  time  barely  suffices  to  give  the  necessary  instruction and to  drive  it  home  with  religious  effect,  a slavish  adhesion  to  chronology is  to  sacrifice  realities  to  figures. To talk  of  a systematic  course in this  sense,  under  such  circumstances,  is  nothing  short  of  preposterous. In the  chronological  system,  Bible  History  cannot,  except  by  a happy accident, enforce  and  illustrate  the  religious  instruction. Far from  being a help, it  is  a drawback. Instead of  elucidating,  it  obscures. No longer the handmaid,  it  seeks  to  be  on  an  equality  with  the  mistress. For