CATECHISMS AND MISSIONS.

Ir is an extraordinary fact, that the catechisms of the reformed churches are all alike destitute of the spirit of the gospel, so far as that spirit is prominently and authoritatively MISSIONARY. They are, thus far, in glaring contrast to the characteristic spirit of both the apostles and prophets, and especially of Jesus Christ himself. I do not say that they are at all hostile to that spirit, or alien from it; but, that they neither breathe it nor embody it. No child, however acute, could gather from his catechism any idea of the heathen world, or of the duty of the church to evangelise "all nations." It requires some power of generalization to bring this subject out of, or into the answer to the 102nd question of the Assembly's Catechism, "What do we pray for in the second petition, which is Thy kingdom come' ?" ANSWER. "We pray that Satan's kingdom may be destroyed, and that the kingdom of grace may be advanced; ourselves and others brought into it, and kept in it; and that the kingdom of glory may be hastened."

It is certainly easy for any one who understands the great commission, and the grounds of it, to find in these words the whole subject of Missionary enterprise; but they never could suggest it to children. They did not suggest it to parents, until the close of the last century; and even then, it was felt to be a new meaning of an old maxim.

I have a more national object than missions in studying the catechisms, now that education is about to take denominational forms, which neither church nor state can modify; for our catechisms are silent on other points of supreme importance to both truth and liberty. In the mean time, however, and in order to pave the way for this, I confine my remarks to the unmissionary character and spirit of all the catechisms in general use in the families and schools of Nonconformists, as an anomaly discreditable to Protestantism, and injurious to the young; and thus, as a check to both the spread and spirit of Christianity, at home and abroad.

Now, the single fact, that this anomaly has remained, hitherto, unfelt and unnoticed even by missionary societies and by missionaries themselves, will go far towards explaining and excusing the oversight on the part of catechetical compilers. No diet of the Reformation, at home or on the continent, could fairly be expected to provide for the young what even the financiers of missions and the philosophers of education have not yet called for,-a catechism as true to the missionary spirit of the gospel as to the doctrines of grace and holiness. The heathen world was shut to the Reformers, and not open to the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and hardly came into sight in the time of Dr. Watts. They were not likely, therefore, to teach children what they themselves understood but imperfectly. Indeed, the lesson

on a grand scale, is yet to learn even now, that the heathen are calling aloud for "help ;" and although missions are half a century old, and education the paramount question of the age, in both schools and families. Accordingly, nothing connected with religious education is, perhaps, less a living or vivid conviction in the mind of either teacher or parents than the solemn scriptural fact, that Christianity has not been taught as "the truth is in Jesus," to any child or grown-up person who is ignorant of the condition and claims of the heathen; nor is any one taught to pray with the understanding, "Thy kingdom. come," who has not been led to watch the comings of that kingdom. Besides, even the finest elements of the young mind, its craving curiosity and keen sympathies, have been left dormant in reference to the spirit of the gospel, wherever the state of the heathen world has not been brought under its notice and home to its feelings. Children are "all eye and ear" to news, if graphic, about distant lands and coloured people; and "all heart" to vivid pictures of foreign ignorance, idolatry, and wretchedness. They are "instinct with living fire," in relation to whatever they cannot see at home, that is either wonderful or deplorable in the condition of mankind. Strange that their susceptibility, so wide and warm, should have been overlooked by the compilers of catechisms; and, until lately, not cultivated much even by the missionary friends of education!

"See nations, slowly wise, and meanly just!" said the poet. So, too, are churches. Yes, and so they will go on, and parents especially, until both weigh the sublime and solemn fact, that they have but a single rule for the religious education of children, and that one rule, neither explained nor expanded in the New Testament: "Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." We talk, and think, and pray about the instruction of children, as if we had a whole code of explicit laws on the subject; whereas, we have only a single maxim to guide us. Christianity sublimely takes for granted, that "the Lord" himself is so well known to all Christian parents, that they can neither overlook nor mistake his character or spirit, as "full of grace and truth" for the world at large, as well as for their own families and nation. This glorious feature of his image, however, is overlooked by all parents and teachers who do not train children to care and feel for "all nations" as He does.

Even these brief and imperfect hints throw the mind direct upon the meaning that the first Christian parents, especially in the Gentile churches, would naturally and inevitably put upon the one rule of parental duty. They could not make it their pole-star without seeing at a glance, that nothing could be the nurture or the admonition of the Lord, which did not imbue the mind of their children with His solicitude for the heathen, as well as with His love to the church. They could not steer the course of either their domestic lessons or

example by that star, without bringing their children's thoughts and feelings into contact with the wants and woes of "the dark places of the earth." They could not imagine for a moment, that either the example or the gospel of Christ was set before a family by a lesson that terminated upon itself, or even upon the neighbourhood. The Gentile churches owed their "own souls" to the missionary spirit of the men whom He had nurtured and admonished in his own school; and, therefore, they could not even think of Christ or the gospel, without feeling, that next to the duty of commending them at home, was the duty of spreading the knowledge of both abroad.

This is not a matter of conjecture or uncertainty, although the exact forms of historical truth cannot be given to it now; except, indeed, as M. Michelet has demonstrated, from the spirit of the Roman youth, that the family was "the central idea of the Roman polity." In this way, however, the very fireside of the first Christian families might be thrown open to us for inspection and imitation. But, whoever shall do this with the force of truth, now that the forms of it are lost, must be wiser than Cave, and less imaginative than Neander, and "of quick understanding" in both the fear of God and the love of mankind. In the mean time, however, neither talent nor learning, of a high order, is wanted, to see that the Gospel could not have spread as it did in the second century, had not the parents, in the apostolic churches of the first century, sought "a godly seed," who might spread as well as perpetuate the Gospel. Where else, chiefly, but from Christian families, brought up in "the nurture and admonition of the Lord,”—then the only rule, came "the multitude of preachers," that filled the Roman empire with light, and even flew beyond the sweep of its eagles? Conjecture may be defied, to account for either their numbers or their influence otherwise. It is, therefore, neither pun nor paradox,―neither dream nor fancy,-to say, that "mothers in Israel" then, did as much, if not more, to spread the Gospel, than "the Fathers," as the apologists are called, did to defend it. Indeed, it would not be very difficult to prove, that the now canonized "Fathers" would have annihilated as well as neutralized the Christianity of the New Testament, by their vagaries, had not "holy women of old" taught it to their children at home; and thus preserved in the nursery, what was perilled in both the schools and the councils of the Nicene church.

I cannot go into details on this subject now; but I will do so in a paper on the catechetical instruction of antiquity, as a beacon for modern times and the present crisis. Unspeakable results, to both the nation and the world, now hang and hinge upon the spirit that shall pervade the catechisms of that mighty host of schools, which the present denominational movements must originate and perpetuate; for I take for granted, that catechisms will be common to most of

them. In whatever else, therefore, these catechisms may differ, they must be alike in reference to both missions and the voluntary principle. In this respect, as well as in the case of the great doctrines of grace and holiness, the spirit of the Gospel must both "breathe and burn" in them, so that no child in our schools can grow up ignorant of either the nature or the duty of the church of Christ.

Now this result can be easily secured, by a rigid and reverential adherence to the sole but sublime rule of parental duty, in all catechisms, "the nurture and admonition of the Lord." If we "hear him" only, and "him" fully, "in all things," the foolish watch-word, "Hear the church," will both weary and wear out the trumpets that now utter it. Great wisdom, and equal spirituality, however, will be needed, in order to let him speak in his own way, and to render it self-evident that our catechisms would be just the same, were there not a religious establishment or endowment on earth, nor a hierarchy in existence. But I will not anticipate my remarks on this point further now, nor touch the question, whether catechisms should be used. I return to the glaring contrast, as to the diffusive spirit of the Gospel, between the Protestant catechisms and the Bible. Now, with the exception of "the Church catechism," I can hardly imagine anything, on the whole, better adapted to give a right direction to the young mind, on vital points, than those chiefly in use. Towards the formation of character in youth, they are invaluable. But Christian character can only be formed for Christian purposes: it never is well formed, just for its own sake. No one either will or can be very good, but in order to do good. Abstract truths, and lessons that terminate upon the scholar, never have, nor can have, the force of truth. It is a violation of nature, as well as of Christ's educational rule, to teach any child religion, merely for his own sake, or even for the comfort of his parents. He belongs to mankind, and is a living part of the living world; and, therefore, he must be treated as such, if we would train him successfully for God and godliness. His sympathies will come into play about something beyond both himself and the family. How wise and kind, therefore, is Christ's educational law, that claims the best and strongest sympathies of childhood, for the world He died to save, and lives to convert! That world, in its scenes and customs, in its wonders and woes, in its history and monuments, has variety adapted to lay hold on all the diversities of juvenile taste and temperament. It is full of thrilling interest to minds of all orders and ages. And then, it is so invested with immortality by the Gospel, that, if presented to the young, just as Christ views it, and feels for it, its most specious aspects could hardly impose upon a child. For, what if the great majority of both the young and the old have always been imposed on, by its blandishments and false appearances? That great majority were not brought up in either the nurture or the admonition of the Lord. It is, therefore,

worse than impertinent, to quote the experience of ages, against the probable influence of the one law, upon which He in whom "all the families of the earth shall be blessed," has staked his own wisdom and glory, as well as the success of their parental discipline. It will be time enough to question the efficiency of that law, when obedience to it is found to mend nothing, or but little, in the present state of domestic and social life. Again, therefore, we say, that neither Christian character nor principle can be successfully formed in youth, but by educating the young for Christianizing purposes, as well as for eternity. This should need neither proof nor illustration. But there is nothing less believed or recognised, of all that now regulates education, than the duty of bringing up children to glorify God, by doing good, as well as by being good. Many parents, indeed, of late, both allow and encourage their children to teach in Sunday-schools, and to give and collect money for religious societies; but how many more would be quite content, were their children " 'only pious, and thus safe for eternity," as they express their solicitude for them! Now, it may be readily granted to such parents, that were their children "truly pious," both God and man would get some active service from them; but the real question is, are they likely to become pious, if all that is said to them, centre in their own personal welfare? It is not with children, as with adults and the aged, when listening to the Gospel, for conscience burns or stings to a degree which invests the Gospel with immediate interest to them. What they consider to be their sins and depravity, is not of that dark aspect which alarms them deeply. They are so often pardoned by their parents, that they take for granted that God is equally lenient. And, in the case of very amiable and exemplary children, nothing is more difficult, perhaps, than to bring home to them a sense of personal guiltiness before God, whilst they see how well they stand in the estimation of the wise and good around them. A child that is "every thing to its parents that a child can be," and thus a favourite with its friends, can only be "convinced of sin" by the spirit of the law and the Gospel; or by being led to see the sinfulness of not sympathizing with, and praying for, all the poor, and all the ignorant, and all the idolatrous, and all the perishing throughout the world. Thus, "THE LORD" would teach and admonish children! He would endear Himself as a Saviour to them, by showing them how little of his own love to their neighbours, and to the world, was in their hearts; and thus how much they needed both mercy and grace for themselves. But this is not the medium through which our catechisms deal with either the hearts or consciences of children. "The mind that was in Christ Jesus" is not brought out in catechisms, as it is in the Gospel, nor as He would lay it open to children, as an overflowing fountain of universal benevolence!

Maberly Chapel.

R. PHILIP.