In other words the General Conference cannot make a doctrinal change directly or indirectly, or in any way. That being the case, various things follow, thus:

If the General Conference cannot change the Articles of Religion, or set up any other formulations not in harmony with the teachings of the standards of doctrine, then no individual can, or has a right to, attempt to do so within the Church, and the General Conference cannot authorize, permit, or give opportunity for its agent, or any other person, to do so. In other words, its committee, or commission, cannot do so, and the test of any official, or semi-official, or any other statement of doctrine in the Church, is its conformity to the standards of doctrine as in 1808, and its enactment through the constitutional process.

It is equally true also that the General Conference has no right to recognize, or permit to be recognized, any doctrinal statement through a committee, commission, or otherwise, prior to the formulation of the statement, its presentation to the General Conference for its scrutiny and formal action, and its passage through the complete constitutional process for a constitutional change, and that requires the constitutional action of all the constitution making, and mending, powers of the entire Church.

Further, it follows, that any doctrinal formulation by the General Conference, or any agent thereof, is null and void, if it is contrary to the Articles of Religion or the established standards of doctrine in existence in 1808, when the Constitution was made.

If the General Conference cannot in any way change the Articles of Religion, or set up "any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to the (then) present ex

isting and established standards of doctrine," then nothing less than the sovereign power of the entire Church could, or can, do so.

Some have even denied that the whole Church has any power to do it, by constitutional process or otherwise, but there is dissent from that view.

A question may be raised as to whether all the revisions of doctrinal formularies, which are supposed to have been made, have been made according to the constitutional process.

That will start other questions, thus:

Is the mere action of a delegated General Conference sufficient? To this the answer must be: Certainly not as to doctrines, for on that the Conference is restricted as it is on any and every organic matter.

Or, would it be sufficient for a commission composed of a number of persons, or a single individual, even if authorized by a General Conference, to make a doctrinal revision? Again the answer would be: It would not be sufficient, because the General Conference itself does not possess such power.

Would it be sufficient for an individual or a larger body, authorized by a General Conference, to make a new or revised formulation of doctrines without further action by the Church using its function of constitutionmaking? For the same reason this would not be sufficient or legal, for the General Conference has no power to empower in the matter of doctrinal formulations. If the General Conference cannot change the Articles of Religion, or make any contrary standards of doctrine, no individual, or any number of individuals, below the General Conference, can do so.

Specifically a question may be raised as to whether

any doctrinal expressions have been changed in certain formularies like the Ritual and the Catechism, recently, or in the course of years, and, if they have been modified, whether the changes have been made constitutionally. If there is such an inquiry then the tests already suggested should be applied.

If the changes have not been made according to the constitutional process, then there might arise another question, namely, if they have not been constitutionally adopted, whether they are binding upon the Church.

A question like this might be pressed: Suppose a General Conference adopted changed formularies which contained statements of, or allusions to doctrines, without seeing their contents, or hearing them read, or knowing what they contained, would that be a legal action? Or, suppose a General Conference told a party to revise a formulary containing doctrines and the Conference did not vote upon it at all, could such a revised formulary have any legal standing? It must be evident that any doctrinal form not adopted in a legal manner would not have any legal status.

If illegal matters of this nature have assumed the place of legal enactments, then one might raise the question: Can an unconstitutional thing become constitutional by continuing in its unconstitutionality?

A few years ago the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, appointed a commission to make a study of changes which had appeared in the formularies of that Church, and the Commission in its report enunciated the principle that the General Conference alone did not possess the legal power to change the formularies, and recommended that modifications made in the Ritual by the General Confer

ences be eliminated and that the original ritual forms be restored.

These questions are not merely curious moot questions to while away the idle moments of a dreaming doctrinaire. They are exceedingly practical questions that touch the very vitals of the denomination.

They relate to the past, they involve the present, and they have a decided bearing on the future of the Church.

What has been done in relation to the doctrinal standards should be studied, what we have should be severely scrutinized, what is proposed now, or may be in the future, should be sternly challenged and compelled to prove its worth and its necessity, and, further, it should be insisted that the full constitutional process be followed if changes are to be made.

E

XXVI

DANGERS TO BE GUARDED AGAINST

VERY good thing in this world is subject to attack. Every form of life is beset by forces

which tend to destroy it. Every truth meets opposition and must struggle for its existence.

The same thing is true as to religious doctrine. Its truth may have been demonstrated a thousand times, and it may seem to be on a firm foundation and appear to be impregnable, and yet antagonists will continue to arise.

Some attacks will be open while others will be like the concealed operations of the sapper and miner who works underground and out of sight.

So, everything that would survive must be on the watch, and ever alert to defend itself against the destroyer, no matter what his approach may be.

The Methodist Episcopal Church, like every other body of the Methodist family, has its standards of doctrine with which other doctrinal utterances that profess to be Methodist Episcopal may be compared and tested, and, if they do not stand the test, they can be exposed and rejected. More than that, the Church has laws to protect its doctrines and to punish those within the Church, who make, or try to make, a disturbance in the Church by utterances against the Church's doctrines.

And yet there have been instances where individuals in the Church have arrayed themselves against some