^^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) y A '<^ C^x :/. f/u 1.0 I.I ■- Ilia |5 i^llM .: 1^ IM 1.8 1.25 1.4 6 •4 6" ► V] <^ // ^» U/^A /A Photographic Sciences Corporation S v 4' ! #'<\ 6^ '^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 .ymbole •-» signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbcie V signifie "FIN". Maps, plataa, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratioa. Thoaa too large to be entirely included in one expoaure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand comer, left to right and top to bottom, aa many framaa aa required. The following diagrama illuatrata the method: Leu* cartea. planches, tableaux, ate. , peuvent dtre filmte i dee taux de rMuction diff Grants. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour itra raproduit an un seul ciichA, il est filmi i partir de Tangle sup^riaur gauche, de gauche i droite, et de haut en baa, an pranant le nombre d'Images nicessaira. Lea diagrammes suivants iliustrent la m^thoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 vn I I PLYMOUTH ISM I ^?i^3^§^3;^'^3^3fS^^^E y WEIGHED IN THE BALANCES i 1 I BY REV. JOHN NICHOLS, Pastor of Si. Mark's Church, Montreal. W. DRYSDALE & CO. I il i i i i lf=ir=Jr=Ji=Jt=iJ WsJr:ssJfssatJf^7^Ji^irf. NOTE. The following article was not written with any view to publication. It was prepared in the first instance at the request of the Protestant Ministerial Association of Montreal and read before that body. Subsequently it appeareu in the columns of the Presbyterian College Journal, where it awak- ened fresh interest. Permission to issue it in pamphlet form was obtained by its present Publishers, to whose kindness a further issue in the Canada Presbyterian is also due. J.N. X '1 d PLYMOUTHISM WEIGHED IN THti BALANCES. i *• Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep's cloth- ing." — Matthew vii. 15. The word placed at the head of this paper is intended to stand for a broad designation of the tenets held by the Ply- mouth Brethren. Curiously enough this sect sprang up in Dublin, and within the pale of what was then the Established Church of Ireland. A dentist by the name of Groves left Plymouth, England, in 1828, and entered Trinity College, intending to qualify himself for the foreign mission work of the Church of England. Shortly afterwards he announced two conclusions to which he had come : i. That a man might preach the Gospel without Episcopal ordination ; 2. That Christians should partake of the Sacrament of the Lord's sup- per every Lord's Day. Accordingly, he and a few other devout churchmen met weekly to break bread, and to exhort and instruct each other. There was no intention at that time of forming a separate organization. In 1829 Mr. Groves left for the east, and in the following year his associates formed the first society of the Brethren in Dublin. Mr. J. N. Darby, hitherto a curate in the Irish Church, became one of its lead- ing members. In 1831 Messrs. Darby and Newton estab- lished a society in Plymouth ; but in 1845 they disagreed, became bitter antagonists and henceforth the leaders of two opposing sects of the Brethren. THE ORIGIN OF THE NAME. A few weeks before this split took place the society at Plymouth attempted to impose its views, concerning the pas- torate, upon the friends in Ireland, but the society in Cork retorted, " We will not be overruled by these Plymouth Lf-b^-'^ty 2 Brethren." The public at once caught the spirit of this desig- nation, and " Plymouth Brethren " has been persistently ap- plied to all the parties and factions of that persuasion ever since although the Brethren themselves protest against the appellation. PLYMOUTHISM AND THE CHURCHES. The attitude of the Brethren towards other religious denominations is extremely arrogant and offensive. They avow that Christendom, as now represented by the churches, has departed from the constitution, the order and practice of the apostles — that it is rent into pieces — that it lies in ruins — that it is a horde of schismatics, errorists, unbelievers and sinners, held together only by expedients and compromises. They affirm that any attempt to bring back this chaos to unity and order, by discipline and a paid ministry, is pre- sumption and folly. All who stay in this " Sodom," whether ministers or people, are put without the pale of salvation. So the sentence is pronounced, and let no one appeal from it— are not the Brethren our judges ? So much for modesty. SOME HOMCEPATHIC LOGIC. Ask a Plymouthite to what church he belongs, and he will answer with an air of pitying contempt, " I belong to no church, I am a Christian, a believer in Jesus Christ." That settles it, and is intended to settle the interrogator also. This answer will probably be accompanied by the parade of a limp Bible and an invitation to leave the filthy " Sodom " of the churches, and join the Brethren. According to Ply- mouthism, the very existence of the visible churches of Chris- tendom is a sin against the Holy Ghost. We shall let this statement pass for what it is worth, and ask. What is the remedy proposed by the Brethren for these divisions? " Tell it not in Gath "— Plymouthism is the only cure. In other words, the Brethren propose to put down sectarian- ism by raising another sect — to heal our divisions by cre- ating a multitude of their own — to ann'hilate the denomi- nations by adding several more to their number. This is applying the homoepathic principle with a vengeance. It is a pretence of curing like by like — evil by evil — of 8 washing away bitterness by turning upon it the waters of Marah ! But logic does take strange freaks at times. The absurdity is intensified by the strifes and divisions among the physicians themselves. As a matter of fact Plymouthism began to split into sects and parties soon after it began to exist, and it has been dividing and sub-dividing ever since. Each of these sects is constantly pelting the others with the worst of names. One Brother, writing about the Darbyite contingent, asks, " Have you tried these Brethren, the Darby- ites ? I have tried them and found them false prophets in every sense of the word, false. They are false m what they say of their brethren, they are false in doctrine, and they are false in their walk." The Darbyites retort with similar pleas- antries,—" Let brotherly love continue." Each sect writes and speaks as spitefully of the others, as if they were Pres- byterians, Episcopalians, Methodists or Baptists. Each party is an Ishmaelite, and if either is to be credited, old Diogenes might still find use for his lantern among the others. There is hope, however, for " pure and undefiled religion," for there are not wanting indications that these contending factions will neutraliie each other's influence by mutual re- criminations, or they will divide and sub-divide each other out of existence. WHOLESALE SHEEP-STEALING. The folds of Plymouthism are supplied by proselytism. The " highways and hedges " at home, and dark heathenism abroad are outside the scope of its mission. Yet, surely, these were within the scope of Christ's command to His Church. We accuse the Brethren here of a lack of the primary and most distinctive mark of a Christian Church. Whoever heard of Plymouthism missioning the dark places of the «arth ? Instead of this Christ-like effort it expends its energies in maligning ministers and robbing churches. Such a gross vio- lation of the command, " Go ye, therefore, and disciple all nations," is significant. Plymouthism allows other churches to bring home the sheep from the mountain and wilderness, and prepares itself to shear off" the fleece. All who permit themselves to be sheared are saints, while all who have common sense and Christian firmness enough to refuse are generally de- nounced as sinners. The mission of these people is almost ex- clusively to unsettle the minds of those who already believe in Christ as their Saviour, and to allure them, by specious mis- representations, from their allegiance to those who sought them in the wilderness and restored them to the " Good Shepherd." Wherever they go they are arrant disturbers of the peace of churches, — moral anarchists and plagues. They " creep into houses and lead captive silly women," and silly men, too, for the matter of that. A small percentage of these are good people, and love the Saviour sincerely, but their ideas o* what the Bible teaches are crude and confused. Their piety is not an intelligent one. They are " reeds shaken with the wind," rather than houses built upon the rock. But, for the most part, Plymouthism is the last refuge of spiritual incurables — the hiding-place for much of the pious vagabondage, senti- menlalism, and Pharisaic bombast which, for good cause, have been cast out of the visible vineyard, or which the Brethren have raked out for themselves. There are but few members of the fraternity who do not try to throw filth upon the church from which they have been cut ofT, or from which they have been inveigled by some ultra-purist broth »r. They talk flippantly about having " escaped from Sodom," " from darkness," " from the gall of bitterness," etc., by which terms they charitably mean the respective Christian churches of the land, or the various shibboleths of the Brethren, to which they are equally opposed. There is one thing, how- ever, for which the churches should be grateful to Ply- mouthism, viz., for providing a receptacle into which these malcontents and excrescences of the religious world can be "gathered." UNSCRIPTURAL SEPARATION. The Plymouthite claims to be too holy to associate with any of our existing churches. Salvation is impossible in any of them ; but it is a " sure and certain hope " among the Brethren, for every one of them is saved by grace ! In illustration of this position it may be mentioned that some time ago a F'ymouthite rose at the end of a service conducted by a minister now stationed in this city, and said " that man is going to hell, and you are all going to hell with him." Permit an illustration of this extraordinary purity,— A pious lady, who was a member of the church of which the writer is the pastor, had a legacy left her of $1,200. A Plymouth brother was taken to the house and introduced fo her ; the limp Bible and the usual talk about the iniquity of the churches, and the piety of God's people made a favour- able impression upon her mind. His visit was repeated, and repeated. Finally the brother persuaded her that he had a good opportunity for investing the $1,200 to her advantage. She trusted him, and he decamped with the money to the United States ! This incident is not men- tioned because there are no robbers in our churches, but because the Brethren claim that they are all saved by grace, and are bound by the loftiness of their moral char- acter to keep aloof from our Christian denominations. The talismanic word of Plymouthism is, " Come out froai among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thmg." To this every Christian will respond --" Amen'^ It is needless to say that every Evangelical church msists upon separation from the " world " and its when Plymouthism makes use of the prove that Christian believers should churches, because those] churches are scenes of moral filihiness, it must be held guilty of pervert- ing the Word of God. The passage is found m 2 Cor. vi. 17, and a glance at its context will show that it will bear no such meaning as the Brethren attempt to foist upon it. The apostle was not urging separation from thoae who hold false doctrine, but from those who are addicted to vile practices ; not from an existing Christian Church, but from the abominations of heathenism to which the Corinthians had, in times past, been addicted. For Christians, in these days, the text, certainly, demands separation, not, however, from a visible organization which holds Christ to be the head, and against which no wickedness can truthfully be charged, but from worldlings who are habitually and palpably wicked. We hold it to be grossly insulting and grossly false on the part of the Brethren, " uncleanness." But text just quoted to come out from our 6 to stigmatize as " unbelievers '' and " unclean," those who honestly and practically avow their faith in the Redeemer. When the Hrethren tell us that, by separating from the Chris- tian denominations, they are carrying out this Apostolic injunction both in word and in spirit, and that they alone represent the true ideal of the Apostolic Church, we are driven to ask,--" In which of the many divij ,ns of your fraternity is this assumed purity of faith and practice to be for.nd ? " Put the question to any one of their divisions in Jbis city, and it will be found that the moment any one lays iiaim to the possession, all the others will unite in hurling anathemas at it— like Herod and Pilate, they will become friends for the nonce by a common antipathy to the alleged usurper. Does not such a presumption as this smack strongly of infallibility } Is not the claim a piece t unblushing arro- gance, in presence of the bitterness, faction and discordance so rampant among themselves? Is it not chimerical to imagine that such a heterogeneous assemblage, as Plymouthism pre- sents, can be the only foundation upon which the disciples of Christ can unite ? The interpretation put upon " Come out from among them," is ar, false as false can be, and so are the ideas of church unity, upon which the Brethren base their separation theory. Mr. Davis, a light and a Plymouthite, writes : " Now, the Church of God is one body. Nevertheless we find to-day 1,300 sects and parties. Which am I to join ? But surely it must be einl to be a fellow-worker in supporting parties / Then, I will join ?? " Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel." On the other hand, it is said that the work of the pastor or elder is to preach to be- lievers only, />., " To feed the flock of God," and therefore he should not be paid. We demand, On what authority does Plymouthism make this distinction ? Our position is, that the New Testament nowhere warrants either of these proposi- tions, but that it does warrant the very reverse. Let us see. The command to " feed the Church of God " is tound in Acts XX. 28. But, according to verse 17, those who received this command were "elders" in the church at Ephesus. It is undeniable that the " elder " in this passage was a settled pastor, and preached to believers. Now, the Plymouthite says that these should not be paid. But Paul says that they ought to be paid. In Timothy v. 17, we read, " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." But what has this " double honour" to do with the question of pastoral support .'* The answer is in the following (verse 18) : " For the Scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that 10 treadeth out the corn. And the labourer is worthy of his hire." Out of his own mouth the Plymouthite is, again, convicted of perverting the Scriptures. Still farther : in i Cor. ix. 7, Paul presents three illustrations in support of the fact, that the " elder "—minister or settled pastor — should be supported, viz., the cases of the soldier^ the vinedresser^ and the shepherd. His argument is, that as each of these is rewarded for his labours, so should the minister be. But the apostle has not done yet ; in verse thirteen he tells us that the priests of the temple, " live of the things of the temple." The Plymouthite will scarcely have the temerity to assert that those priests were " itinerant evangelists." It is a simple fact of history that they were settled ministers and had a settled income. In these enlightened days the Brethren would stigmatize those paid ministers as " money-grabbers ; " but the fart remains that they were paid by Divine authority. There is one favourite text of the Brethren upon this matter which is worth a passing notice, viz : — " It is more blessed to give than to receive." Still, Christ who first uttered the words said, also, " The labourer is worthy of his hire." " It is more blessed to give than to receive." By the way, would not this text apply to the " itinerant evangelist," or to the cobbler, with as much force as it does to the minister ? The minister was certamiy not singled out by Christ for this special gene- rosity and blessedness. The Brethren tell us that "the min- ister ought to live by faith and not upon a fixed income." So he might, and would, perhaps, if the butcher, the baker, the tailor, the landlord, the city tax-gatherer, etc., could be persuaded to do business upon the same terms. Mr. E. Rust says: "Many Brethren live by faith, and find it to answer very well — they have hats, clothes, provisions, luxuries, and $1,000 a year, while Paul hungered and fasted, and the poor starving saints in Jerusalem did likewise." i( BREAKING BREAD." All evangelical churches are at one upon the importance of the Lord's Supper; but when these Plymouth sectaries insist t!iat Scripture requires its celebration every Lord's Day^ they must pardon us if we ask for chapter and verse. The only 11 text looking in that direction is found in Acts xx. 7, " And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." We sub- mit that there is not one word here to furnish either rule or inference in support of the Brethren's theory. There is not one word to show that the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper was then a practice, or that it is now an obligation. All that can be gathered from the text is that upon this par- ticular occasion the disciples had come together to bre k bread, and that Paul preached to them. We have no quarrel with the Brethren for their weekly breaking of bread ; but when they abuse and denounce us for not accepting their ipse dixit as a Divine Revelation we crave leave to enter a pro- test. Moreover, they pretend to a great respect for Apostolic precedent, especially in minute details. Why, then, do they depart from it in this case ? As a rule they break bread in the morning, whereas the New Testament churches did so in the evening. Again, they assume a sitting posture, while the posture of the New Testament churches was that of reclining. But Plymouthis'Ti does not take well to logic. HIS HEAVENLY HUMANITY. There are many doctrinal errors fundamental to this system, but space will not permit us to enlarge upon them. There is. for mstance, their error respecting the person of Christ. They tell us that the words, " made of a woman," do not mean *' born of a woman," and that he was not man of the sub- stance of his mother, but that of his Father. Hence they talk about the " Divine Man," and his " Heavenly Human- ity." The contention is that the Holy Ghost introduced some divine element into his human nature. The text quoted in support of the theory is i Cor. xv. 47, " The second man is the Lord from heaven." In reply we might quote Heb, ii. 14, " Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood. He Himself likewise took part of the same." We may point out also that the words of the angel were not, " The Holy Ghost conceived in the womb of the virgin ; " but, Thou shall conceive in thy womb^^ — words conveying a vfjry different meaning (see Luke i. 31.). His humanity, 4t 12 therefore, must have been of her substance, and so not divir/*. In harmony with this, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews frequently uses the phrase, " This man," and Paul, Romans viii, 3, tells us that the Redeemer was " made in the likeness of sinful flesh." If any other proof were needed there is the unanswerable fact of His death. ERROR CONCERNING THE WORK OF CHRIST. Not only do the Brethren deny the vicarious character of the Saviour's righteousness, but they limit His atoning suffer- ings to His sufferings upon the cross. Other sufferings are admitted, but these are ascribed to causes which are not easy to understand On this point Mr. Darby had better speak for himself : " There is a double character of suffering besides atoning work, which Christ has entered into and which others can feel — the sufferings arising from the sense of chastening in respect of sin, and these mixed with the pressure of Satan's power in the soul, and the terror of foreseen wrath. In the former we suffer with Christ as a privilege ; in t' e latter we suffer for our folly and under God's hand. But Christ has entered into it^ He sympathizes with us. But ail this is distinct from suffer- ing instead of us, so as to save us from suffering, undergoing God's wrath that we might not." We are told also that Christ endured " distress under the sense of sins," and this, again^ as distinct from His atoning work. But does not this involve a charge of guilt against Christ ? Can any b it the guilty experience a " sense of sin ? " And yet John declares that " He knew no sin." ERROR CONCERNING FAITH. The teaching of the Brethren about faith is deeply tinged with Sandemanianism. With them faith is but an intellectual assent to the doctnnes of the Gospel. Christ came to save sinners — that is faith. Christ died for me— that is faith. It stops with " If I may but touch the hem of His garment I shall be made whole " — it does not rush through the crowd and lay its hand upon the seamless robe. There is no laying hold of eternal life in Plymouthism. Yet Jesus said : u Stretch forth thy hand," " Come unto Me," etc. 13 ERRORS CONCERNING THE MORAL LAW. Their teaching upon the Christian's relation to the moral law is simply Antinomianism. They claim that Christians are not under any obligation to it. The stern Sinaitic Code was abolished for them in the death of Christ. Sinai was for the Jew and not for the Gentile ; the Christian is " not under the law bi!t under gjrace." If he puts himself under the Ten Commandments^ he puts himself under the curse. The Decalogue does not bind hand, foot, eye or tongue. What wonder that the good Brother ran away with the lady's $1,200! But if the Plymouthite is guilty of any rascality, he claims that it is not he that has done it, // was the devil. Who could believe or trust a Plymouthite after this? Un- fortunately, in reading the Scriptures, the Brethren have a bad habit of stopping just where they should go on, Paul certainly says in Rem. vi. 14, " For ye are not under the law, but under grace." But his argument here is that the legal enactments of the law have made no provision for our salvation from the power and penalty of sin — but ^ace has. In this case, as in so many others, the Brethren have either ignorantly, or intentionally, wrested the Scripture from its evident teaching.* Had they read the following verse it might have checked their impulsiveness. The Saviour's own words also, Matt. v. 17-18 : "Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets," etc., are sufficient to show that the law is still in force. ERROR CONCERNING THE BELIEVER'S RELATION TO EARTHLY EMPLOYMENTS AND PHILANTHROPIC INSTITUTIONS. We are told, by Plymouthism, that the world is under the curse ; that most of its employments are for the benefit of the devil, and that its governments are in the hands of the wicked. The believer, therefore, it is said, must not touch or handle these unclean things. He may be a doctor, or a farmer, how- ever, or may work at a few branches of mechanics ; but most of the other employments are devilish. Even missionary so- cieties and benevolent institutions are placed in the same cate- gory, so the believer must "come out from among them." Well, 14 Joseph was a prime minister in a heathen country, and what is more, he seems to have been placed there by God. Daniel and Nehemiah were politicians in the government of Persia, and nobody condemns them for it. Erastus was chamberlain in filthy Corinth, and Cornelius was a military officer of imperial Rome, and there were " saints in Caesar's house- hold." But did an apostle, or an angel, or God ever com- mand them to "come out"? The Brethren would have done so, and would do so still. This is another instance of their obtuseness, or something worse. We take it that Paul was as good a Christian and as great a scholar as any of the Brethren, yet we find him appealing to Lysias and unto Caesar ! And is it not by Christ that "kings reign and prin- ces decree justice ? " ERROR CONCERNING THE CHURCH. We have pomted out that the Brethren deny the existence of a spiritual and Invisible church within the various visible or- ganizations, while the parables of Christ and the Apostolic and pastoral epistles teach this distinction. We are told, farther, that the church had no actual existence before the Day of Pen- tecost — that previous to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost it existed only in the purpose of God. Mr. W. Trotter says: "It was not till after the death and resurrection of Jesus that the church began. As to its actual existence on the earth, the church was formed by the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost." This quietly rules out of the church all the Old Testament saints, all the worthies catalogued in Heb. xi. and the countless thousands whose names are not found there. They may have been saved, but they are not in the body of which Christ is the Head. And yet we do find a church existing before the death and resurrection of Christ — in fact, an Old Testament church. In Matt, xviii. Christ speaks of the church in connection with the oflfend- ing brother. We find the church also in Psa. xxii. 22. " In the midst of the congregation will I praise Thee.'' The writer to the Heb. (ii. 12) in quoting that text, uses the word "church" instead of "congregation." Then we find Stephen declaring (Acts vii. 38) that Moses was a member 16 of the Old Testament church, "This is he that was in the church in the wilderness." But the Brethren quietly set Stephen aside and unchurch the great law-giver of Israel. ERROR CONCERNING CHRiST' COMING, According to Plymouthism there are yet to be two com- ings of Christ. In the first He will come " for " His saints, to take them out of the world. This is to be invisible and in the air. The second will be at the " last day," when He will bring His saints " with " Him to judge the wicked. The truth requires us to say that the "first" coming has been invented to patch out their premilJenarian theory. There is not a shadow of ground for it in the Word of God ; it is only an unwarrantable inference drawn from Paul's words to the Thessalonians— " Them, also, which sleep in Jesus will God brmg with Him." Ergo^ He must have pre- viously come " for ' them, in order that He might now bring them " with " Him ! Further, we are told that the Lord may come " for " His people any day or any hour— that there is nothing to prevent this. This is wonderful ! If there be nothing to prevent Him, how is it that He does not come? To an unsophisticated mind the very fact that He does not come is sufficient evidence that He is pre- vented by something. But the Brethren base another statement upon the one just made, viz., "the Scripture teaches that His people should live in daily expectation of His coming, as did the apostles and early Christians." The Scripture teaches nothing of the kind concerning the apostles— the huge blunders of modern premillenarians, to wit. It cannot be shown that the apostles lived in any such " daily expectation." On the contrary, Paul is con- stantly talking about his approaching " departure " by death, and Peter would have his readers remember certain things after his " decease." There is no Plymouthitic expectation of the Lord's coming in either case. But Paul has some positive teaching upon this matter, and it is fatal to the view of the Brethren. In 2 Thess. ji. 2 he rebukes the Thessalonians for their " daily expectation " errcr : " That ye be not soon shaken in mind ; or be troubled ; neither by 16 spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand! " And Peter, in his second epistle, and third chapter, makes it very clear that the day of the Lord's coming and the " last day " are one and the same event. Paul in i Thess. i. 7-10, teaches the same doctrine without the possibility of doubt. On many other points the teaching of these people is not only defective, put positively erroneous. In our judgment their errors are more numerous and more fatal than those of the Roman Catho)-,cs. Repentance and the agency of the Holy Spirit, in working out the great purposes of Christian life and character, have no place in their creed. They are as bigoted as Mahommedans and as self-righteous as the Phari- sees. Accordmg to their way of thinking, sin is rampant every- where except among themselves. Still, on the whole, thanks to the constant batterings of their critics, they have patched up r tolerably consistent system of teaching — but at what a tremen- dous sacrifice of divine truth ! The consistency is that of a patchwork or " crazy quilt," and in constructing it they have handled Scripture much in the same way as the ladies cut and shape the patches for that mysterious article. Texts are wrenched from their contextual meaning in a most reckless manner, and are cut down so as to fit into some nook or cor- ner of the system. All that cannot be made to fit are thrown away as so much useless rubbish. There are few people on earth who carry on so large a business in parading Scripture, holiness and logic, with so small an amount of capital invested. Yet they are never amenable to argument. You may pelt them with logic ; you may knock them from pillar to post with Scrip- ture ; you may leave them without a breath or a word to say for themselves, and in five minutes after they will as coolly proclaim the same errors to some one else, as if nothing had happened. In closing, we strongly urge that our policy must be, not to argue with them; but to fully instruct our congre- gations in the truth of the Bible— to thoroughly indoctrinate the youngs and so ^uard them against these and other errors.