saddled with the contrary productions, but, even then, the Church might be saved by an appeal made to the Annual Conferences by any member, or minister, or by a test made in the civil courts, or by an agitation carried to a General Conference. In the meantime any one could pronounce the illegal action to be unconstitutional.

Then there may be efforts to weaken and overthrow the doctrinal standards by some other indirect method, and, unfortunately, the indirect method may be exceedingly effective. Thus by publicly and privately making light of, or antagonizing, the standard formulations, the hearers' respect for them may be weakened, and by frequently hearing such counter declarations, doubtless many might be influenced thereby and perverted in their own thinking.

Then there is a way of seemingly evading the law, and practically making new standards of doctrine, without changing the wording of the legal standards, and that by ignoring the legally established standards such as the Articles of Religion, by paying no attention to them, and saying, or writing, or printing other and different statements, regardless of what is in the constitutionally established formulations.

If this is permitted, in course of time the masses become unfamiliar with the real standards, and the people, hearing, or reading, these contrary statements, come to accept these unauthorized and illegal presentations as the views of the Church, and before long these illegal utterances may become the popular standards of doctrine though they are unconstitutional.

In this way, though the legal standards are verbally untouched, and stand unchanged in the print, they may

be relegated to the "innocuous desuetude" that in popular estimation becomes a practical abrogation. This insidious method should be watched and promptly checked.

There are practical and legal ways by which this violation and result can be prevented, but they may be of little avail unless they are promptly brought to bear. However it must not be forgotten that the constitutional standard remains the legal standard in spite of all such indirect action.

Further, this illegal process may be given a seemingly official sanction in various ways, or it may be so construed by some.

Suppose, for example, resolutions, reports, or other papers, adopted by Church bodies, and, particularly, by General Conferences, designedly or otherwise, contain expressions, or declarations, which contradict, weaken, or inaccurately express, the doctrinal standards of the Church, and these were permitted to stand unchallenged and uncorrected, and such things were repeated from time to time through the course of years, or say a single generation or less, the tendency would be to make the impression on the average mind that they were faithful presentations of the doctrines of the denomination, and that these particular statements, or phrasings, had official sanction, and they might be so quoted, or, at least, it might be inferred that they were just as good as any other doctrinal expressions that had been made by the Church, or in the Church, and this might be especially with those who did not know the Church's doctrinal history or the processes of constitution making.

Thus, again, suppose there was a new and irregular

revision, or restatement, of formulations of any kind, and, in the making thereof, constitutional and standard expressions of doctrine were modified, or eliminated, and that different, or contrary, statements or phrasings, were introduced, and these changes were permitted to stand, it is easy to see how these departures from the standard expressions might, in the popular mind, come to be regarded as reliable presentations of the real and constitutional expressions of the Church's doctrines on these particular points, or at least as fair equivalents thereof.

The Church should realize that such changes in doctrinal expressions are possible and, indeed, probable, unless the Church is constantly alert to prevent them, or to promptly correct them if in any such way they chance to be made.

The Church should remember that, as the years go on, the number of indifferent or uninformed persons may increase, and they may become so numerous in bodies like the Conferences that such changes could be made without the majority being aware that dangerous and destructive modifications had actually and illegally been made.

For these reasons the Church should constantly be on guard and those who have made a study of such matters should be encouraged to criticize and challenge new phrasings that may in any degree imperil the old and standard doctrines.

Otherwise the Church may be aroused and even startled when it is too late, or, at least, exceedingly difficult to rectify the wrongs perpetrated against the doctrinal formulations of the denomination.

Then they may awake to the fact that serious

changes had been made in this or that formulary or in approved doctrinal expressions, when those who should have represented and defended the Church had failed to recognize that new voices, and new pens had used new phrases that were meant to convey new theological meanings, and that they involve such departures from the old putting of doctrines that they mean their beclouding or their practical destruction.

Again articles may appear even in denominational papers phrased in such a peculiar manner as to suggest doctrines different from those set forth in the Church's doctrinal standards. Or, in sermons, or other public addresses in the Churches of the denomination, there might be heard statements, assertions, or intimations that are out of harmony with the teachings of the Church.

These are calculated to undermine the faith of the Church, are positively destructive, and should be promptly challenged. It is somebody's business to make the challenge and, primarily, the one who reads or hears such dangerous expressions should make the challenge or bring the facts to the attention of some one who ought and will call a halt, raise the question, and defend the doctrines the Church has duly recognized.

It is the duty of the Church and its representatives to guard the Church against these and all similar dangers, and it is the duty of each individual in the Church.

T

XXVII

CLOSING OBSERVATIONS

O recapitulate:

Methodism in general, as the Methodist Episcopal Church in particular, holds certain fundamental religious doctrines, and has standards of doctrine with which other or subsequent expressions of religious doctrine may be compared, and it demands that utterances or formulations of doctrine within the Church, and by those within the Church, shall harmonize with these standards, and, if they do not conform thereto, they are to be rejected, prohibited within the Church, and the parties holding and uttering these contrary doctrines, either in public or in private, are to be held responsible before the Church law, and to be inhibited from a repetition of the same.

The Church demands that its doctrines and doctrinal standards shall be respected by all in the Methodist Episcopal Church, First, because the Church has legally framed them; Second, because they are based upon, or spring from, the Holy Scriptures; and, Third, because, though it believes in the right of private interpretation of the Scriptures, it holds that while people are in a Church, whose laws they have formally or informally agreed to obey, they should conform to the interpretation the Church, in these particulars, has placed upon the wording and teaching of the Scriptures.

For these reasons the Methodist Episcopal Church