fuch Catechifms must be beft which they can beft underftand, fuppofing that all the Articles of Religion neceffary for Children. are contained in them.

The Bufinefs and Duty of the Teacher is not merely to teach them Words but Things. Words written on the Memory without Ideas, or Senfe in the Mind, will never incline a Child to his Duty, nor fave his Soul. The young Creature will neither be the wifer nor the better for being able to repeat accurate Definitions and Theorems in Divinity without knowing what they mean. Suppose a grown Perfon, who knows no Language but Englifh, fhould get by heart the divineft DoEtrines, or moft perfect Rules of Duty in French or Hebrew, what Profit would he find by all this Labour of his Memory? Wifdom and Goodness does not confift in fuch Fatigues of the Brain, and fuch a Treasure of unknown Words.

'Tis not enough to fay, "This is the "moft compleat Syftem of Divinity, this is "the most perfect Compendium of facred "Truth, and therefore let the Child be re"quired to learn it." Whereas the Child would learn facred Truths fooner and better by a lefs perfect Syftem, which might contain only the ABC of Religion to be instilled by Degrees, than by having his little Soul overwhelm'd at once with a full and accurate Difcourfe on the deeper Points of Chriftianity. Surely Catechifms of Religion for the Inftru

ction of Children ought to be fo framed as to let the Beams of divine Light into their Mind by Degrees as they can receive it, that the young Scholars might have fome Underftanding of every thing which they are obliged to learn by heart. Why fhould not Religion be taught in this refpect in the fame gradual way as we teach other Parts of Learning or Knowledge?

When a Child learns to read, do we not firft teach him to know the Letters, and then to join Syllables and Words? After this, fome fhort and eafy Leffons are appointed him; and then fome that are longer and more difficult: But we never put a young Child to read the most perfect and the hardest Leffons at first coming to School. So if we inftruct a Lad in any Science, whether Grammar, Logick, or Natural Philosophy, we teach him firft the most obvious and easy Principles, and give him a fhort 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 fame Manner when we inftruct Children in the great and important Things of Religion? Why fhould Religion of all Things be taught in fuch a Way as is leaft fuited to make the Learner understand it? And indeed how can the Knowledge of God and our Duty be taught at all in fuch a Way as will let us know little of our Duty, or our

C 3

God,

God, even while we learn to speak much about him.

'Tis 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 fuch Ideas both of the God that made him, and of his Duty to his Maker, as is neceffary for his fhare of Practice in that Infant-state: And yet 'tis impoffible that he should then take in the deep and fublime and controverted Points of Faith. At feven or eight Years of Age he can receive more of the Truths and Duties of Chriftianity than he could at four: And the fame 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 Catechifms for Children and Youth, and Leffons of Religion more or less eafy, in proportion to their different Ages? Is it not a moft defireable Thing to have shorter and longer Summaries of Chriftianity drawn up in various Forms, answerable to the tender Capacities of Children, and the continual Growth of their Underftandings? Did not the Reverend Affembly of Divines at Wefiminfter mean the fame Thing when befides their Confeffion of Faith, they agreed upon a larger Catechifm for grown Perfons, and a forter Catechifm for those who are younger or more ignorant? It is plain they

had

had fuch fort of Sentiments as these, and fomething of this kind in view by setting forth two Catechifms, a longer and a shorter.

Now if there were a Series of fuch fucceffive Catechifms drawn up in a fhorter and easier Form than that of the Affembly, and the Truths exprefs'd in a more condescending Manner, it would be of unspeakable Advantaage toward the inftilling the early Knowledge of Religion into Mankind, even from their very Infancy.

Then Parents would not be under an unhappy Neceffity of teaching Children the greatest and deepest Things of Christianity in their Infant-Age, before they can poffibly know the Meaning of them. Then Children need not have fuch 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 almoft by Mechanism.

SECT. VI.

Of compofing any other Catechisms befides that of the Affembly of Divines.

Object. BUT why fhould you pretend to

write one or more Catechifms after

that admirable Form of found Words appointed by thofe Great Men in the Assembly of Divines at Westminster?

Anfw.

Anfw. 1. The plainest and most obvious Reafons for compofing fhorter and eafier Catechisms for young Children, are because that of the Affembly of Divines contains one hundred and feven Queftions and Anfwers, and is therefore much too heavy a Task for their Memory: Some of thefe Anfwers also are formed in too long connected Sentences for the Minds of Children to comprehend or to remember: And there is much of the Senfe, as well as the Style and Language of it, too hard for Children to understand *. Thefe Reasons are fo 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 Catechifm is so long and fo difficult. It's well known that the Affembly's larger Catechifm was not compofed for Children, but for Men, to give them a large and full View of all the Parts of our holy Reli

gion.

Mr. Tho. Lye, one of thofe worthy Men who have written an Explanation of the Affembly's Catechifm, confeffes there are hard and difficult Words and Phrafes in it: His Words are thefe, Try the Child's Ability to express his Knowledge of the Meaning of every hard and difficult Word or Phrafe 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.