What is a catechism?

The person applying was at first received as a Catechumen, if his outward conduct was commendable; that is, he became a pupil — one to be taught by catechising. Here he might be kept for a year, or even two or three years; and if, in the meantime, he fell into idolatry, he must begin again, or the time be further prolonged. He was called a Christian all this time, but not a fidelis, one of the Faithful. This distinction was kept up, so that even on tombs it was not enough to say the one buried was a Christian, "fidelis" must be added, if such were the case.

Another curious custom was that the Catechumens were not allowed to hear the Lord"s prayer nor the creed; but when a portion of the service was completed, a deacon would tell them to leave. This is the more remarkable, seeing that the Lord's prayer forms a part of scripture, and should have been, but for the scarcity of the manuscript copies, in the hands of every one, as now happily is the case.

16 "Thou hast been instructed" (κατηχήθης), that is "catechised," as said of Apollos in Acts 18:25. Cf. 1 Cor. 14:19; Gal. 6:6; Wright: "Did the Gospel originate in the pulpit or in the schoolroom?" He supposes that Mark's Gospel was used for the instruction of Apollos; but Blass thinks that Apollos may have derived his information from reading the document as itself the instructor.

Goodwin: "St. Luke does not purpose to enlarge the knowledge of Theophilus, but to confirm it." In other words, the Evangelist does not, as sometimes alleged, propose to communicate to the addressee all that the writer himself knows.

Nearly all scholars are agreed that these three Gospels rest ultimately on oral tradition. "The written word marks a time when the first generation of Christians was passing away and the Lord still delayed His coming" (Green's Angus, p. 632). For a considerable time the Apostles laboured together in Jerusalem. But that which here is of chief importance is the Evangelist's reference to catechizing in verse 4; this has been turned to account by Wright (cf. Carr in Expositor, October, 1907). It must have been very much the instruction that now is given in Bible classes for adults and in Sunday schools or children's services. Timothy would engage in this (1 Tim. 5:17). See further, notes 9 and 16 below.

I shall now shew further that the principles which led him to the place where he is were all derived from man. This may be very clever with a view to involve Anglicanism in his present position, but is a distinct testimony that all was built on human influences, not on God's word or truth divinely received in any way. Dr. Hawkins gave him Sumner on apostolic preaching. Thus he gave up his remaining Calvinism, and received the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Another principle he received from Dr. Hawkins was the doctrine of tradition: "To learn doctrine we must have recourse to the catechisms and creeds … after learning from them the doctrines of Christianity, the inquirer must verify them from scripture" (61). Let me say here, I distinguish fully between learning truth and a standard of it; but this is a poor teaching. The first Christians certainly did not learn it from words or catechisms, for there were none to learn them from; and now a parent, as well as a catechism, a friend, a minister, may have taught us the truth, or scripture may have done so. Scripture is the only standard. The fallacy of the statement is in this, that catechisms and creeds are here introduced, not as teaching, but as authority; that is, the church is. We have received the truth from them as truth, without saying so. Let it be true or false, it is a deceitful presentation of the matter. A parent, a friend, a minister, is not an authority. If catechisms and creeds are only means of learning, there are a hundred others. Their authority is at the root of this tradition.

Next, the child is to be brought to be confirmed so soon as it can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, in the vulgar tongue, and is able to answer the Catechism set forth for that purpose. That Catechism sets forth and has taught him that he is a child of God by baptism already, and acknowledges he is bound to believe and to do as has been promised for him - articles which, though of course containing facts of Christianity, tell him nothing really of the way of a sinner's salvation at all, for even in the interpretation he is taught that all mankind are redeemed, and clearly they are not all saved; and he is made to rest on the promises which ruined Israel under Mount Sinai: "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do" an undertaking which, because of its perfection, works death to the sinner; and he is taught the Lord's Prayer.

283 Now what is the position of the English Establishment, Dissenters, and the so-called Plymouth Brethren as to this? The Magazine says the two former take people on their own profession, and that he does not know an instance where a discovered adulterer or fraudulent person has been permitted to go. But this is a very false representation of the theory of the English Establishment. They do what they accuse the Brethren of - confound the external professing body and the invisible Church in the worst way. They teach (and so does even the colonial system, though circumstances modify the state of things) that "in baptism I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." These members of Christ, who have received, we are told, remission of sins by spiritual regeneration, are to be brought by their godfathers and godmothers to the bishop to be confirmed, so soon as they can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and have learned what is briefly set forth in the Church Catechism. That is, they are members of Christ and children of God by baptism, and, as such, being confirmed, they are to take the Lord's supper. They are members of Christ by baptism to start with, when they know nothing about it, and are carried on to the sacrament when they have had adequate instruction. And in theory all the population are supposed to belong to it, passed over to it at the Reformation from popery, for a long time were forced to be of it, and, if they are not, it is by their own act and they are reckoned to be in schism and dissent. The way of being a member of Christ is not by faith and the Holy Ghost, not by profession, but by a sacrament! To talk of discovered adulterers, feeble and delicate as to evil as such a precaution is, is nothing to the purpose. They are made members of Christ, children of God, members of what is called the Church of England, not by faith as scripture teaches as to being a child of God, not by the baptism of the Holy Ghost as scripture teaches as to members of Christ; but by a sacrament. Discovered or undiscovered they are members of Christ without any professed faith of their own. The truth is, all the reformers held baptismal regeneration, falsely so-called, for 'regeneration' is not so used in scripture - English, Lutherans, Presbyterians, much as the last kick against the proofs of it, which are perfectly clear both in Calvin and their own symbolical books. Scottish, Dutch, and others all have the doctrine in their documents. The only difference is that the Presbyterians hold that the invisible grace is not so absolutely tied to the sign as to be true of any but the elect. But this only proves the more that they do hold it to be so conferred where it is effectual. Luther insists on it for all in his Catechism, and the English one in the worst terms possible.

The child grows up and at the age of sixteen or so is urged to be confirmed. It suffices for the candidate for confirmation to repeat the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments, and answer questions that are contained in the short Catechism. It takes for granted the carrying on of the lie of baptismal regeneration, and still further lulls the soul into a deadly, false peace. Suffice it to say that the rite of confirmation gives to the candidate no spiritual blessing whatsoever, any more than his being baptised as an infant did. Let all who enter on the partaking of the Lord’s supper lightly, remember the solemn warning of Scripture: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 2:27).

I do not condemn articles of faith. For my own part I rather admire the Articles of the Church of England; I don't mean the ecclesiastical or political, but the doctrinal. I consider them very fair; sound, for the most part; and certainly moderate in their statements. Even the Athanasian Creed, which many clergymen are anxious to get rid of, I consider to be the best of the three Creeds. As to the Apostles' Creed, it is a very poor affair; and I suppose you know that no apostle had ever anything to do with it. This is merely one of the frauds of the early Fathers. Then the Nicene Creed is anything but a successful production. The great point in it is, "I believe" — not in the church — "I believe the … church;" which has tended to set the church up as a teacher. But the church is nothing of the kind. It is all a mistake. God is the source of teaching. The instrumental means by which the church is taught is through His ministers, but the church does not teach. It is all an error of Popery, but it is an error that has got into all kinds of bodies very far removed from Popery. I only now refer to it to show the importance of the truth, and I say again that, while allowing the value of these articles of faith where it is set forth in creeds, still there is no life in them. They may have their value in guarding against error, or in being a kind of bulwark; but we want something more than that. It is not enough that the house be empty, swept, and garnished. Far from it. We don't keep out error merely by an abjurement of error. We need the power of the truth. We want a living power to preserve our own souls individually. There is that which tends to death, because it tends to corruption, and there is but one thing which counteracts it all; the Holy Ghost working through the Word, and through the Word revealing Christ to men.

And what does this "bringing up" involve? What does it mean? In what does it consist? these, surely, are weighty questions for the heart and conscience of every Christian parent. It is to be feared, that very few of us indeed really understand what Christian training means, or how it is to be carried on. One thing is certain, namely, that Christian training means a great deal more than drilling religion into our children, making the Bible a task-book, teaching our children to repeat texts and hymns like a parrot, and turning the family circle into a school. No doubt it is very well to store the memory of a child with Scripture and sweet hymns. No one would think of calling this in question. But is it not too frequently the case that religion is made a weariness to the child, and the Bible a repulsive school-book?

The instruction included the whole of sacred history, from the creation downwards, and after this the gospel narratives. Then instructions in the subjects of God, of Christ, of the Holy Ghost, of the judgment to come, of the body, soul, etc.

At length the time approached for their reception, and for forty days special preparation was made for baptism by prayer and fasting. Instruction was given in the creed, the nature of the sacraments, and discipline in the church; and special inquiries were now made as to their walk. A few days before baptism, they were taught the Lord"s prayer and the creed. In some places, they were now allowed to lay aside their heathen names and take christian ones.

The time for baptism was between Easter and Pentecost of each year; and it was administered by the bishop or presbyter. Midnight was the appointed hour, and torches were burned to give the necessary light; curtains were hung from the pillars to separate the sexes. Each candidate faced the west, and, as he stretched forth his hand, said, "I renounce thee, Satan, and all thy works, and all thy pomps, and all thy service." Then turning to the east, he repeated the belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He was then rubbed from head to foot with oil, and on approaching the pool was questioned by the bishop, and on his confession was immersed (by some thrice, by some once): he was again anointed with oil, and then, dressed in white, received the kiss of peace, and a little honey and milk. Now for the first time he repeated the Lord's prayer. He was now a Fidelis, and ready for the Lord's supper.*