children ought to be so framed as to let the beams of divine light into their minds by degrees as they can receive it, that the young scholars might have some understanding of every thing which they are obliged to learn by heart. Why should not religion be taught in this respect in the same gradual way as we teach other parts of learning or knowledge? When a child learns to read, do we not first teach him to know the letters, and then to join syllables and words? After this, some short and easy lessons are appointed him and then some that are longer and more difficult: But we never put a young child to read the most perfect and the hardest lessons at first coming to school. So if we instruct a lad in any science, whether grammar, logic, or natural philosophy, we teach him first the most obvious and easy principles, and give him a short and general view of that science, and thus prepare him to receive the more difficult and more complicated parts of it: Now why should we not practise after the same manner when we instruct children in the great and important things of religion? Why should religion of all things be taught in such a way as is least suited to make the learner understand it? And indeed how can the knowledge of God and our duty be taught at all in such a way as will let us know little of our duty, or our God, even while we learn to speak much about him.

It is certain, that at the age of three or four years old, a child may be taught to know something more than mere words and terms; he may attain such ideas both of the God that made him, and of his duty to his Maker, as is necessary for his share of practice in that infant state: And yet it is impossible that he should then take in the deep and sublime and controverted points of faith. At seven or eight years of age he can receive more of the truths and duties of christianity than he could at four: And the same remark may be repeated concerning a child of ten or twelve years old, and concerning a youth of fourteen or fifteen. Now would it not be of admirable advantage if we had different catechisms for children and youth, and lessons of religion more or less easy, in proportion to their different ages? Is it not a most desirable thing to have shorter and longer summaries of christianity drawn up in various forms, answerable to the tender capacities of children, and the continual growth of their understandings? Did not the reverend assembly of divines at Westminster mean the same thing when besides their confession of faith, they agreed upon a larger catechism for grown persons, and a shorter catechism for those who are younger or more ignorant? It is plain they had such sort of sentiments as these, and something of this kind in view by setting forth two catechisms, a longer and a shorter.

Now if there were a series of such successive catechisms drawn up in a shorter and easier form than that of the assembly, and the truths expressed in a more condescending manner, it would be of unspeakable advantage toward the instilling the early knowledge of religion into mankind, even from their very infancy. Then parents would not be under an unhappy necessity of teaching children the greatest and deepest things of christianity in their infant age, before they can possibly know the meaning of them. Then children need not have such a long train of theological phrases and hard sentences imposed on their memories, while by reason of their infancy they understand very little more of them than a parrot, and talk them over almost by mechanism.

SECTION VI.

OF COMPOSING ANY OTHER CATECHISMS BESIDES THAT OF THE ASSEMBLY of divines.

Objection. BUT why should you pretend to write one or more catechisms after that admirable form of sound words appointed by those great men in the assembly of divines at Westminster?

Answer I. The plainest and most obvious reasons for composing shorter and easier catechisms for young children, are, because that of the assembly of divines contains one hundred and seven questions and answers, and is therefore much too heavy a task for their memory: Some of these answers also are formed into too long connected sentences for the minds of children to comprehend or to remember: And there is much of the sense, as well as the style and language of it, too hard for children to understand.* These reasons are so evident to all men, that there is no need to enlarge upon them. Experience has taught this inconvenience to every family who hath tried it.

Let me only point at the cause how it came to pass that this catechism is so long and so difficult. It is well known that the Assembly's Larger Catechism was not composed for children, but for men, to give them a large and full view of all the parts of our holy religion. There are therefore many deep and difficult points of doctrine contained in it, and that in those phrases and forms of speech which are chosen with much learned accuracy by divines skilful in theological controversies; and it must be confessed, that in such a complete and accurate scheme many ideas and many phrases will be far above the reach of any young child in the world. Now the Shorter Catechism is but an abridgment of the larger, and was made partly with the same design of fulness and accuracy; and it must be acknowledged it is a very judicious abridgment. It is said to be collected or drawn up by a committee of divines, and approved by the assembly at Westminster; and it is expressed in many of the same phrases as the larger. The composition of it doth not seem to condescend quite enough to the weak understandings of children, either in the choice of the plainest sentiments, which are most needful for children, or the most easy and familiar language; a multitude of the same latinized and theological terms are used in it as in the larger: The chief advantage of it for learners is this, that it is more easy for the memory, because it is shorter than the other.

If this be well considered, the name or character of that venerable assembly who composed the larger catechism for men, and appointed the shorter as an excellent abridgment of it for the use of the more ignorant, can never suffer any affront by having still an easier form of words drawn up for the instruction of young children in the principles of christianity, to prepare them for the better understanding and more profitable use of both their catechisms.

II. While I make an attempt of this kind, I do no more than twenty others have done before me, who had a most high esteem for the Assembly's Catechism, and a great and just veneration for it. Has not Dr. Owen, Mr. Edward Bowles, Mr. Thomas Gouge,

* Mr. Thomas Lye, one of those worthy men who have written an explanation of the Assembly's Catechism, confesses there are hard and difficult words and phrases in it: His words are these, "Try the child's ability to express his knowledge of the meaning of every hard and difficult word or phrase in the preceding answer, because to repeat words and not to understand the truths contained in them is but to act the parrot, and profits very little.

Mr. A. Palmer, Mr. Matthew Henry, Mr. J. Noble, and other worthy men in England; Mr. Cotton in New-England, Mr. Willison in Scotland, &c. composed shorter catechisms for the use of children? And has not this been the very reason which has set most or all of them to work, viz. that even the shorter catechism of the assembly of divines has been thought by many to be too long for young children to retain in their memory, and that all of them have supposed it too hard for children to understand?

What means the multitude of explications of this catechism by so many famous divines, almost ever since it has been written? Do they not all declare that children are not able to understand this catechism without an explainer? And are not all these explications much too long for young children? What means the breaking of the long-connected sentences by some of these judicious explainers into short pieces, and expounding them piece by piece? Does it not plainly shew that they thought many of the answers to reach in length far beyond the stretch of the thinking powers of a child? Do they not expressly tell the world so in the preface?

One of these divines before mentioned, prefaces his catechism with these words: "When the venerable assembly composed this form of instruction, it seems that few of themselves thought it designed or fitted for babes; some answers being so long and so full of great sense, that though they may recite the words, that can be of little benefit till they also apprehend the meaning; for teaching is not thrusting a set of words into the memory, but helping the learner to understand what is said. Hence about that time we had a multitude of lesser catechisms aiming to stoop to the weak; these are now much forgotten. Some later essays I see to the same purpose, and this I hope may be of like After this is competently understood, then go on to teach them the Assembly's Shorter Catechism, so as to fix it in their memories and judgments." My heart agrees with this writer, and I would say no more than what he expresses.

use.

I can sincerely declare, it is far from my design or my wish to exclude this catechism out of religious families; for if that should once be done, I have much reason to fear in our age there would scarce come a better in the room of it. All that I presume to propose to my friends is, that the Assembly's Catechism might be put into the hands of youth when they are grown up to twelve or thirteen years of age, or more, and that there might be some shorter and easier forms of instruction provided for young children to lay the foundation of the knowledge of religion in their tender minds, and to train them up by degrees till they are capable of using the Assembly's Catechism with understanding and judgment. This method would prepare them to read and learn it with greater profit than ever they would do if they learned it by heart in their infancy, without knowing what it means.

SECTION VII.

THE INCONVENIENCES OF TEACHING CHILDREN WHAT THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

HERE some will be ready to say, where is the inconvenience of it, if children learn something which they do not understand in their younger years? When they have learned these hard words and sentences by rote, they may come to understand them afterward; and hereby they will have a form of sound words treasured up in their memories, which may be of use to them when they come to know their meaning. Now to answer this

objection, I will spend some time in shewing the great inconveniences and disadvantages of this way of catechising, or of pretending to teach children religion by catechisms which are far above their understanding.

I. Inconvenience. Then the little creatures will know almost nothing but words; They will be ignorant of the great and necessary things of religion till several years after, when they come to understand what is the sense and signification of so many hard words and phrases. And can your consciences be satisfied to treat your offspring at this rate? Shall their whole childhood be spent till eleven or twelve years of age, or perhaps longer, without any real or substantial knowledge of divine things, resting and feeding almost only upon sounds? Is this the best and happiest way to instil principles of godliness early into tender minds, viz. to teach them words which they cannot understand, in hope that they will come to understand them hereafter?

Words are but, as it were, the husk or shell of this divine food, whereby the souls of children must be nourished to everlasting life. Though the food is divine, it is possible the husk may be too hard for them to open. Is it the best method for the feeding and nourishing the bodies of young children, to bestow upon them nuts and almonds, in hopes that they will taste the sweetness of them when their teeth are strong enough to break the shell? Will they not be far better nourished by children's bread, and by food which they can immediately taste and relish? And do you not think that those children who were taught such plain and easy principles of religion as they can understand, will grow up to sincere practices of piety much sooner than others, who till eleven or twelve years old know little more than hard words? And a few hard words is almost all that they will know unless you have taught them these divine things in some plainer words, and by particular explications?

Let us take notice how exceeding solicitous the apostle was that the Corinthian converts, who abounded in the gifts of the Spirit, should understand every thing that was spoken in their assemblies; and with what a sacred severity he satirizes the practice of speaking divine things without teaching the meaning of them. Read his own words; 1 Cor. xiv. from the first verse to the 28. Hear how he exposes that unreasonable conduct, even of men inspired with gifts. If the trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to the battle? And so you, except ye utter by the tongue things easy to be understood-Ye shall speak into the air. If I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian to me. I had rather speak five words with my understanding that I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

II. Inconvenience. Such a practice turns the learning of the principles of religion into a painful and tiresome task instead of a pleasure. What a huge and heavy toil do you impose on those young creatures at four or five years old, when you force them to learn by heart such a number of words and sentences which they understand not? What a severe drudgery are they laid under to treasure up in their young memories such long complicated propositions, and such a train of connected sounds of which they have no ideas. Put yourselves for an hour or two in the place of your children: Impose a task on yourselves to get by heart a few of the deep and complicated propositions and demonstrations in geometry or in algebra, or in any mathematical science, which you understand not; or set yourselves to learn the tenth or the thirty-sixth chapter of Genesis, where the generations of Noah and Edom are rehearsed; make the experiment and learn hereby

what tiresome burdens you impose on your children; and judge whether this be the best and sweetest way to instil religion into them. Is not such a dry and painful task imposed on them much more likely to make them out of love with religion betimes, and settle their childhood in a rooted aversion to that which is so toilsome without any mixture of delight.

III. Inconvenience. Words which are not understood are much more difficult to be remembered. Can you imagine this is the most effectual way to fix divine things in their memory? Would not the principles of religion and catechisms be much easier learned, if children understood the sense and meaning of them as fast as they proceed? Would not the articles of christian doctrine and duty slide into their minds with more abundant ease and pleasure? Would they not be fixed much deeper in their remembrance if they took in ideas together with their words? And would they not be sooner brought into practice, and retained even to old age? For by this means the things as well as the words would take some hold of the memory, and gain a firmer root by their union; and the one would help to recall the other to mind upon every occasion. Words and things are most easily learned together.

Perhaps you intend that your sons and your little daughters should learn arithmetic as they grow up toward the business of human life. Why do you not teach them this art of numbers the same way as you teach them religion, if you think it is the best for their instruction and profit? Why are they not set to learn by heart in their infancy the definitions and the rules of addition, subtraction, division, and proportion? You may as well say, They will understand them in time, they will learn the meaning of them when they come to years of discretion.

No, my friends, you are all wiser, and have more reason, than to trifle at this rate in other parts of knowledge which you would bestow on your children; you endeavour to make them understand what they learn by heart, whensoever you think them fit to begin that part of learning: And why should the noblest knowledge, even that of religion, be taught them in so irrational a manner? Why must they be forced to get into their memories such a number of religious sentences and phrases, so many years before they can grasp the meaning of them, or so much as guess at the sense. But you say, They will come to understand the meaning of them hereafter." I reply,

66

To which

IV. Inconvenience. They will not arrive at the meaning of those words the sooner or better for having learned them by heart without a meaning; but the sound and chime of the words that has passed over the ears and the tongue five hundred times, without any signification, will rather go on to pass over still in the same mechanical manner, and will not seem to want a signification afterward. Thus the children of papists being taught from their infancy to say their pater-noster and ave-maria by rote, and to repeat their prayers in Latin, continue always contented to say prayers in the same manner, and do not want to know what the words mean.. hmmm

And when protestant children have learned certain hard words and phrases, which were taught them as their religion, very early, it has been found too often by sad experience, that instead of learning the true meaning of these words and sentences at mature years, they content themselves with having once learned the words by heart, and perhaps entirely forgot them again, for want of knowing what they mean. It is five to one if ever they give themselves the trouble of reading and considering the sense of them, when