The Shorter Catechism is, perhaps, not very easy to learn.
And very certainly it will not teach itself. Its framers were less
careful to make it easy than to make it good. As one of them,
Lazarus Seaman, explained, they sought to set down in it not
the knowledge the child has, but the knowledge the child ought
to have. And they did not dream that anyone could expect it
to teach itself. They committed it rather to faithful men who
were zealous teachers of the truth, “to be,” as the Scottish
General Assembly puts it in the Act approving it, “a Directory
for catechizing such as are of a weaker capacity,” as they sent
out the Larger Catechism “to be a Directory for catechizing such
as have made some proficiency in the knowledge of the grounds
of religion.”
No doubt it requires some effort whether to teach or to learn
the Shorter Catechism. It requires some effort whether to teach
or to learn the grounds of any department of knowledge. Our
children — some of them at least — groan over even the primary
arithmetic and find sentence-analysis a burden. Even the
conquest of the art of reading has proved such a task that
“reading without tears” is deemed an achievement. We think,
nevertheless, that the acquisition of arithmetic, grammar and
reading is worth the pains it costs the teacher to teach, and the
pain it costs the learner to learn them. Do we not think the
acquisition of the grounds of religion worth some effort, and
even, if need be, some tears?
For, the grounds of religion must be taught and learned as
truly as the grounds of anything else. Let us make no mistake
here. Religion does not come of itself: it is always a matter of
instruction. The emotions of the heart, in which many seem to
think religion too exclusively to consist, ever follow the movements
of the thought. Passion for service cannot take the place
of passion for truth, or safely outrun the acquisition of truth;
for it is dreadfully possible to compass sea and land to make
one proselyte, and when he is made, to find we have made
him only a “son of hell.” This is why God establishes and
extends his Church by the ordinance of preaching; it is why
we have Sunday schools and Bible classes. Nay, this is why
God has grounded his Church in revelation. He does not content
himself with sending his Spirit into the world to turn men
to him. He sends his Word into the world as well. Because, it
is from knowledge of the truth, and only from the knowledge
of the truth, that under the quickening influence of the Spirit
true religion can be born. Is it not worth the pains of the teacher
to communicate, the pain of the scholar to acquire this knowledge
of the truth? How unhappy the expedient to withhold
the truth — that truth under the guidance of which the religious
nature must function if it is to function aright — that we
may save ourselves these pains, our pupils this pain!
An anecdote told of Dwight L. Moody will illustrate the
value to the religious life of having been taught these forms of
truth. He was staying with a Scottish friend in London, but
suppose we let the narrator tell the story. “A young man had
come to speak to Mr. Moody about religious things. He was
in difficulty about a number of points, among the rest about
prayer and natural laws. ‘What is prayer?,’ he said, ‘I can’t tell
what you mean by it!’ They were in the hall of a large London
house. Before Moody could answer, a child’s voice was heard
singing on the stairs. It was that of a little girl of nine or ten,
the daughter of their host. She came running down the stairs
and paused as she saw strangers sitting in the hall. ‘Come here,
Jenny,’ her father said, ‘and tell this gentleman “What is
prayer.”’ Jenny did not know what had been going on, but
she quite understood that she was now called upon to say her
Catechism. So she drew herself up, and folded her hands in
front of her, like a good little girl who was going to ‘say her
questions,’ and she said in her clear childish voice: ‘Prayer
is an offering up of our desires unto God for things agreeable
to his will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sins
and thankful acknowledgement of his mercies.’ ‘Ah! That’s
the Catechism!’ Moody said, ‘thank God for that Catechism.’”
How many have had occasion to “thank God for that Catechism!”
Did anyone ever know a really devout man who regretted
having been taught the Shorter Catechism — even with
tears — in his youth? How its forms of sound words come reverberating
back into the memory, in moments of trial and suffering,
of doubt and temptation, giving direction to religious
aspirations, firmness to hesitating thought, guidance to stumbling
feet: and adding to our religious meditations an ever-increasing
richness and depth. “The older I grow,” said
Thomas Carlyle in his old age, “and now I stand on the brink
of eternity, the more comes back to me the first sentence in the
Catechism, which I learned when a child, and the fuller and
deeper its meaning becomes:
What is “the indelible mark of the Shorter Catechism”? We
have the following bit of personal experience from a general
officer of the United States army. He was in a great western
city at a time of intense excitement and violent rioting. The
streets were over-run daily by a dangerous crowd. One day
he observed approaching him a man of singularly combined
calmness and firmness of mien, whose very demeanor inspired
confidence. So impressed was he with his bearing amid the
surrounding uproar that when he had passed he turned to look
back at him, only to find that the stranger had done the same.
On observing his turning the stranger at once came back to him,
and touching his chest with his forefinger, demanded without
preface: “Whet is the chief end of man?” On receiving the
countersign, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy
him forever” — “Ah!” said he, “I knew you were a Shorter
Catechism boy by your looks!” “Why, that was just what I was
thinking of you,” was the rejoinder.
It is worth while to be a Shorter Catechism boy. They grow
to be men. And better than that, they are exceedingly apt to
grow to be men of God. So apt, that we cannot afford to have
them miss the chance of it. “Train up a child in the way he
should go, and even when he is old he will not depart from it.”
Robert Louis Stevenson, too, had learned this Catechism when
a child; and though he wandered far from the faith in which
it would guide his feet, he could never escape from its influence,
and he never lost his admiration (may we not even
say, his reverence) for it. Mrs. Sellars, a shrewd, if kindly,
observer, tells us in her delightful “Recollections” that Stevenson
bore with him to his dying day what she calls “the indelible
mark of the Shorter Catechism”; and he himself shows how
he esteemed it when he set over against one another what he
calls the “English” and the “Scottish” Catechisms — the former,
as he says, beginning by “tritely inquiring ‘What is your
name?,’” the latter by “striking at the very roots of life with
‘What is the chief end of man?’ and answering nobly, if obscurely,
‘To glorify God and to enjoy him forever.’”
To glorify God and to enjoy him forever.