THE usual definitions of the word "Catechism," in catechetical writings, are exclusively taken from the existing use of it, as a guide for the Christian instruction of youth, and do not express the original sense and design of the thing itself. They leave room also for the impression, that, as a guide, it may be changed, from time to time, for a new one, as is done with other manuals of instruction. Still deficient, but more correct, is Spener's definition: "A brief extract from the Scriptures, of the most important points of doctrine proper to be understood by a Christian, and arranged in questions and answers for oral delivery." Luther's definition is more exact: "Die Kinderlehre, die ein jeglicher Christ zur Noth wissen soll; also, dass wer solches nicht weiss, nicht könne unter die Christen gezählt und zu dem Sacrament gelassen werden.' Nitzsch fully expresses all that properly belongs to the idea of a catechism, when he says that it is "a text of public doctrine and confession, as held by the church communion, a settlement and confirmation of the general belief of Christians."

1. That which belongs properly to a catechism is, that it bears the character, as to form and contents, of a church confession.

2. That, as such, it be not only accessible and known to the people, but perfectly familiar; and accordingly, whenever an act of confession takes place in the church life, that it be made use of as the fundamental authority; and that,

3. It should constitute for this very reason the basis of the church instruction of the young.

Let us consider these three characteristics of the idea more closely. The first requires that the catechism should have its place among the symbolical books of a church, or at least be recognised as symbolical authority. That this is the case in the Protestant Church, as it respects the principal catechisms, and so far too as concerns the Roman catechism, is well known. As for other Roman Catholic catechisms,

the approbation of the church could the more easily invest them with a symbolical character, inasmuch as the Romish Church has very little idea of a symbolic book in the sense of the Evangelical Church institutions. In the mean time, the catechism should take its appropriate place among the confessional writings of the church; so that it was not just every symbolical book that should be made use of as a catechism.

In the first place, the confessional peculiarities should be so clear to every mind, that no two churches would have the same catechism. If they could unite upon one catechism, they should cease to regard each other as different churches, At the same time, it is just as little the business of the catechism purposely to give prominence to the points of confessional difference-to give polemical edge to them in their proper place as a positive exhibition of faith, by any damnant, or anathema opposed to the doctrine of any other church; but, in accordance with the often misused, as well as forgotten truth, that in all Christian churches, there is still given to them a common property in essential Christian truth, of which they are not and cannot be deprived by their differences, but which always manifests itself in actual existence, in some more or less suitable form-and this common property in the truth is the basis upon which the catechism should rest.

It is in keeping with this, accordingly, that the Brentz catechism commencing with the question: "What is your faith?" answers simply: "I am a Christian;" not, "I am a Lutheran." Rightly to hit this relation between that which is common to Christianity, and that which belongs to particular churches, that is, neither to permit the last to appear as the central point of salvation, nor yet the other to be so externally connected that the church confessional becomes a mere accident to a common Christianity, that could be dispensed with just as well as not, is the difficult task, for which a rare combination of theological cultivation

churchly tact, and sincere piety, added to a more than ordinary talent for popular statements, is indispensable.

For, in the second place, the catechism, above all other symbolical writings intended for the people, should be in popular style, inasmuch as with the Bible and hymn book, it ought to be in their hands. For this reason already, that it was designed ad parochos, the Catechismus Romanus, is much less a catechism than that of P. Canisius; and for the very same cause, even Luther's larger catechism, though popular in style, never was able to find its way to the people, as did his Enchiridion.

But this leads us to the other essential characteristic mentioned. It is possible to present Christian doctrine in a plain way, and it may still be no catechism. It ought to be in the hands and mouths of the people for a definite purpose, that, whenever a confesional act is performed, it may be referred to as the actual confession.

The same service that was done by the Augustana at the Imperial Diet, and that was effected by the articles of Smalcald at Mantua, should also be rendered by the catechism continually for the whole church, that is, it should literally furnish the text, and serve as an actual, openly expressed confession -not so much indeed, in passing from one confession to another, when something more definite and expressive of the confessional differences would be required-but rather in confessional acts, and especially at confirmation.

And with this object in view, the language should be so terse and concise-something always forgotten when the catechism is regarded only as a guide for instruction,-that it might be used in prayer. Such a text may be prepared in various ways; but it must always be understood that the Decalogue, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the necessary explanations of the sacraments, should constitute its essential parts; for these are the very forms in which the simple facts of the primitive Christian Church were actually expressed. If indeed the Decalogue was not connected with them in the ancient church, and, as a part of religious knowledge intended originally for the Israelites, could not with propriety be connected with the disciplina arcani, which, as it was thought, could only express what was essentially

Christian, it nevertheless found in the confessional, particularly in the Middle Ages, its proper relation to the confession, so far at least, that the sins which were to be confessed were arranged in the order of the ten commandments, and the directions to the confessor, for the purpose of regulating his questions and judgments, were all in accordance with the exposition of the decalogue (See the excellent work of Geffken, d. Bilderkatechismus, d. 15 Jar. etc.).

In this way, indeed, we at first have nothing more than the text of the parts, which the candidate for Baptism, or his godfather, must recite. But here we meet with a want, which may have a decided influence upon the formation of the catechism itself, that of an explanation of these brief forms. If this was done in the old Oriental Church, in characteristic rhetorical style, and if the ancient Roman Church also endeavoured to provide for it, the eighth century already in like manner can point to the labours of Kero, of St. Gall, and to the powerful impulse given to the movement towards a more general improvement, by Charlemagne, which called forth more extended explanations of these parts in the German language (Otfried of Weissenburg, 840), and which were followed by works of a similar character until the time of Luther.

But here we meet with a twofold possibility. These explanations may proceed together, as a substitute for oral catechization upon the simple text, or they may be a part of the catechism itself-in which case, they must necessarily partake of the type indicated above. In this way Luther proceeded; and thus it was possible in the first place to round off the whole, and connect the incoherent parts, and then also to bring out in proper measure the more individual church character. It was, therefore, good policy to incorporate Luther's explanations in the catechism of Brentz, as was done at Wittenberg.

But this was not enough. That which at first was nothing more than explanatory addenda grew so luxuriantly that they overshadowed the original text, when the didatic, and not the confessional object, was exclusively kept in view, and the text itself was only mentioned in particular passages, and no longer formed the principal

stock. This last was done in the Heidelberg catechism, which in this respect is behind the Lutheran; although it certainly is in keeping with the spirit of the Reformed Church, so far as it is more independent of tradition, is more didactic, and for this reason is more scholastically systematic in its form.

Even Calvin's Genevan catechism is more conformed to tradition, in retaining the principal heads, de fide, de lege, de oratione, whilst in execution, it is made to bear a more decidedly theological character. In the Hirsher catechism the divisions of the old confessions are lost sight of; although it accords with the idea of tradition, for the Romish Church to hold fast to those parts, even if it was done with the specific Roman additions, contained in the catechisms of Canisius and Bellarmine (Ave Maria; five commandments of the church; consilia evangelica; the three theological; the four cardinal virtues; the eight beatitudes; the seven mortal sins; the four last things; etc.).

Catechisms, however, which no longer contain the text of the old points of doctrine, are mere school-books, which may be produced at any time; the name of a catechism they do not deserve. For the very reason that a catechism should essentially be a confession, it ought to be in the form of questions and answers. It does not rest upon didactic ground, as does the Socratic, but it is in its very nature, as is the case with the Credo, an answer to a question (1 Peter iii. 15); and as this question is really asked at baptism and confirmation, so ought the catechism in its form already exhibit this act.

Finally, when it is said that the catechism at the same time should serve as the basis of the church instruction of the young, it is simply required by this, that if the confession is really to be a confessing, which implies knowledge and faith, then, and in that case, it should not only be clear as to its whole contents to the understanding, but also to the conscience of the penitent; the instruction should essentially be information concerning the confession, an explanation of the catechism. The defence of this proposition against those who want nothing but the Bible, as well as those who on account of their superior pretensions to systematics, desire a new catechism, belongs to catechetics.

66

To what has been thus far said we add a few historical remarks. The name Catechism," in its existing usual sense, originated with Luther. It is true, the parts belonging to it were elaborated here and there by one and the same compiler (the Symbols and Lord's Prayer by Kero, the same by Otfried, and Notker Labeo; by Wickliffe, the Symbols, Lord's Prayer, and Decalogue; and besides these several others, which together bore the general title " Pauper Rusticus"); but the want of a generally received title, as well as the dissimilarity of the contents of such a collection of writings, show that, although there are many parts that every Christian ought to know, still, taken as a whole, it is not a perfect miniature of Christian doctrine.

This at first was Luther's thought; he was not content to have "a brief form of the Ten Commandments," 66 a brief form of the Creed," "a brief form of the Lord's Prayer;" these three he did not regard as accidentally brought together, but as belonging to each other. The first told the Christian what he should, and should not do; the second, where he should seek and find it, for of himself he can do nothing; the third, how he should seek and obtain it. Instead of the parts which previously were attached to the principal heads, it appeared to him— after the doctrine of the sacrament, in 1525, had acquired new importancealtogether necessary to add two chapters upon Baptism and the Lord's Supper. It was not, however, the sacramental controversy which led him to do this, but the pure, objective, thoroughly-grounded consideration,

"that without the sacraments no one could be a Christian, although, unfortunately, thus far no one had so expressed himself."

To all this together he gave the name "Catechism.' Whether he was led to this appellation by a passage of Augustine, as Geffken conjectures, or simply made the designation of the work the title of the book (just as Liturgy at first was the name of a transaction, and then was applied to the book corresponding to it), is of the less importance, as we know that Luther, in letters of the year 1525, used the word "Catechism" in our sense.

Before this, catechismus, beyond all question, meant the performance of

those instructions by which the candidate for Baptism was prepared for confession. As this, however, was extended to the immediate exercise of recitation and to the act of confession itself, so that catechismus assumed the meaning of sponsorship, so the word had reference also to the whole previous preparatory course, even in its pedagogical aspect; and when, for instance, Augustine (De fide, et op. 13) says of it, that in the catechumenati are those whose vitia damnabilia apertis factis convinci redarguique non possunt, still, at least, præceptis et catechismis validissime flagellantur, and thus reformed, he only can have reference to one class of the instructions belonging to the training of catechumens, and not improbably to the examination necessary to admission to the grade itself.

If the Catechism of the Waldensians, which they profess to have had in 1100, was actually so old, and bore that name, Luther would certainly have derived it thence; but, as it is certain that the name in this sense was not found in the reformatory churches of the Middle Ages at an earlier period, so have we reason to conclude from more recent investigations that the Waldensian catechism is more probably an imitation of those produced at the time of the Reformation, possibly, indeed, copied from an older confession of their Bohemian brethren. (See Dieckhoff, Die Waldenser, etc.; Herzog, Die Romanischen Waldenser, S. 324, etc.; the last has the catechism of the Bohemian brethren in print, and contains the three old parts, introduced appropriately, but not as the basis of the whole.) Besides, it is equally beyond doubt that the old Waldensians not only had already expositions of particular chief points in their language; and the conjecture of Dieckhoff is clear, that the Waldensians, as they in the absence of their itinerating preachers, instructed each other, that they must have had books, and that this instruction was carried on in questions and answers, and hence the general impression that this form of catechizing originated with them, which, although it is without historical ground, still there is as yet no positive proof against it.

The medieval writings and documents, which bear the name of catechisms, until now chiefly in the hands of philologists, have recently become

acceptable to a large class of readers It is to be wished that some skilful hand would, as has been done for liturgical and hymnological purposes, gather up all the material extant, for an authentic careful collection of the catechetical memorials before the Reformation.

THE MARQUIS OF ANGLESEA AND JOHN ELIAS. Translated from the Welsh, by a Clergyman, for the CHRISTIAN WITNESS.

ABOUT forty years ago, or at least about ten or twelve years after the formation of the Bible Society, it was beginning to draw special attention in every country. This was the case in Wales, and especially in Anglesea and Caernarvon.

About this time public meetings were to be held in the towns of Caernarvon and Beaumaris. The Marquis of Anglesea was invited to take the chair. The illustrious nobleman kindly accepted the invitation, and promised to become an annual subscriber of ten or twenty pounds. This produced a great sensation through the Principality. It came like wildfire on the feelings of many in the country. It gave great offence to many of the most respectable in the land, and caused no small terror in the camps of those who were prejudiced in their minds and narrow in their principles. Attempts were made to persuade the Marquis that it was below his dignity thus to mingle with the Dissenters, and that he would do more good by joining another society that was already in existence. But the Hero of Waterloo could not thus be diverted from his course. After having made up his mind, he would sooner have suffered another limb to be cut off than to forfeit his word. The Marquis was probably the first nobleman in Wales who advocated the cause of the Bible Society. The meetings were advertised, and Dr. Steward, of Liverpool, was announced as one who was to speak in English, and John Elias, in Welsh. It was thus seen that the Marquis could not be turned from his purpose. It was concluded that his presence would draw to the meetings many of the higher ranks, though to some of them it would not be a very pleasant thing. The Marquis had been lately crowned with the glory of the

ever-memorable Waterloo, and had been in many ways highly honoured. His monument had been lately erected near the Menai, in Anglesea. The gentry who had lately assisted in erecting that monument, could hardly decline to meet him on the present public occasion. They all thought that it would be better for them to be present, and to allow Dr. Steward, as a stranger, to speak; but that it would be advisable to excuse John Elias on such a public occasion, as he could exercise his talent at meetings less public throughout the country. They could not bear the thought of hearing him, though they did not expressly say so; but they intimated that he might be excused on this occasion. The proposal was made to the conductors of the society, but none of them would consent to have Elias put aside. They were all agreed that he should address the assembly.

The day of meeting came, which all the country were looking forward to with the greatest interest. There was hardly a family, either in Anglesea or Caernarvon, from which there was not one or more present. There were there ladies without number, from every part. Everything was now ready to begin the meeting, and the place was full of hearers. Great anxiety was now felt in every bosom, and all were looking towards the door, and listening whether there was any symptom of the approach of the chairman, and expecting every moment to hear the trampling of the horses' hoofs on the pavement. Anxiety was becoming greater and greater as the time to begin was approaching. There was no appearance of the chairman coming within five minutes of the time to commence. Now there was a whisper that the chairman would not come to the meeting. This threw a damp on the whole, as though a thick dark cloud had spread over the whole place. But, hear! as the clock began to strike eleven, the noise of the chariot was heard at the door, and there came in the great man, and was immediately conducted into the chair; joyful animation pervaded the whole place at once, and there was a smile on every face. Well! every one was in his place, and silence throughout, and the important business of the meeting commenced.

The chairman arose, explained the

VOL. XIV.

object of the meeting in a few words, and said that he wholly approved of the design of the society, and that he deemed it a privilege to co-operate with others in so blessed a work.

After reading the report, and going through the usual course, the speakers were called upon, who made motions and addressed the assembly; and everything went on in the most pleasing

manner.

At last, John Elias is called upon by the chairman to speak. Strange was the appearance of many at this time; some turned their backs on him; and others, not turning their backs, looked sideways at him, with a pouting lip and scornful eye. Well, be it so, such things did not daunt him. He came forward, and courteously bowed to the chairman in a dignified manner, which the chairman acknowledged by a smile. He instantly saw that he had no common man before him. Our old friend began his work. Though his name was detested by many, his very appearance seemed to have slain one half of their prejudice, and his graceful address had nearly the effect of slaying the other half.

He began by showing the state of Wales before they had the Bible. He showed, in a few minutes, that he was quite at home in the history of his country. The assembly was a mixture of English and Welsh; some understood him, and some not. When he came to narrate the history of the Welsh translations, and mentioned William Salusbury, Dr. Morgan, Dr. Richard Davies, Thomas Hewitt, the Chancellor of St. David's, Dr. Whitgift, Dr. Hughes, Dr. Bellit, Dr. Gabriel Goodman, Dr. David Powell, vicar of Rhiwabon, Archdeacon Prys, Dr. Richard Vaughan, Dr. Parry, and others, such sounds descended on their ears as they little expected; and all those dear names were like music to their hearts. And as he went on, giving an account of the various editions of the Welsh Bible, naming Thomas Middleton, Rowland Heylin, Walter Cradoc, Vavasor Powell, Thomas Yonge, Stephen Hughes, David Jones, Bishop Loyd, Moses Williams, the Morrises of Anglesea and others,and as they saw that the whole history was as familiar to him as the letters of the alphabet, they could not but listen to him. And after he had gained their attention, melted their feelings, and

2 L