It is plain that in all Mr. Wesley did in preparation for the reorganization of his people in the new republic, he had had no purpose or thought that the preachers or the people would give up their old doctrines, or their old doctrinal standards which he himself had constructed and perfected for them.

Nothing of the sort did he ever intimate or intend, and there was nothing in the work of reorganizing that necessitated such a change of view or form on the part of himself or his American followers.

On the other hand the organizing Conference did not do away with the old standards, and, as the former doctrines already existed, and were duly recognized, it was not necessary to reenact them.

They were already believed and formally recognized, and they would continue by right of inheritance, or long usage, as in the case of the common law brought over from England to America, used in the Colonies, and then in the United States of America, without new statute law or reënactment. If there was no other reason the common law principle would hold, and the old standards of doctrine would come over into the reorganization by inheritance, long-continued usage, or common consent, unless there was formal action or deliberate declaration to the contrary, which there was not in any sense or any form. Further, we know that preachers and people went on preaching and believing the old doctrines in the old way.

Some one may ask whether the adoption of the Articles of Religion could automatically do away with the doctrines and the doctrinal standards that existed among the American Methodists before they were organized into a regular Church, or did the former

doctrines continue with the Articles as an addition to the former standards?

The older standards and the Articles were different formularies and covered different grounds, and the adoption of the one would not nullify the other. In other words, the former standards being in existence, the adoption of the Articles would not do away with the former doctrines, unless the Articles contradicted and annulled them, or there was a formal action stating that their adoption rescinded, displaced, or supplanted the older doctrinal forms, which as a matter of fact the Articles in themselves did not, and there was no clause or act to that effect.

The Articles did not annul anything in the old standards and there was no act of abrogation. Indeed much, or all, in the Articles was already embraced in the preexisting, and continuing standards, and, particularly, in Mr. Wesley's recognized writings, only that in the Articles these doctrines were stated concisely as in the formula of an authoritative declaration or decision.

Just as English Methodism came over with, and to, the American Methodists, so American Methodism was carried over into the new Church organization, excepting where by some specific action a new and modifying feature was introduced, or a positive change was made. So with the old doctrinal system, it remained the same, or stood as before, unless modified or otherwise affected by formal action or other specific change.

Evidently many things were carried over into the new Church organization without any new or formal vote. Thus the General Rules, a most important and fundamental document, went into the reorganization

without any formal reenactment. Like many other things the Rules went on as a matter of course. So it is an historical fact that the old doctrines went on and were preached and believed as before, and deeds for church property made after 1754 recited the doctrinal requirements as did the earlier deeds. This was the

case, for example, in the deed of the Ebenezer Church of Philadelphia, which church was built in 1790, and the deed was drawn at that time.

One thing is perfectly clear, and that is, that the new Articles of Religion adopted at the organization were standards of doctrine in and for the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, no matter how many other standards there might be.

They were distinct and carefully formulated statements, declarations, and definitions of religious doctrines, deliberately prepared for, and adopted by, the new Church at its organization to be symbols of belief, and they have always remained standards of doctrine, and are just as obligatory now as they have been at any time since their adoption in December, 1784.

XVI

STATUTORY DEFENSE OF THE DOCTRINAL STANDARDS

I

T is evident that the Articles of Religion prepared

by John Wesley for the new American Church,

and agreed to by the organizing Conference of December, 1784, thus became doctrinal standards of this newly organized ecclesiasticism, the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

Where Wesley got his Articles, and why and how he revised and used the Thirty-nine Anglican Articles, and gave the new American Church Twenty-four, is most interesting history, but these things do not form the present question, and are not absolutely necessary for its consideration.

The important fact is that Wesley prepared Twentyfour Articles of Religion for the proposed organization, and that the organizing Conference accepted them, and then framed and adopted another article, thus making Twenty-five Articles of Religion, which the Church possessed at its beginning, and their very nature and the circumstances of their creation and adoption showed they were to be, and that they were, a formulation of doctrines which was a doctrinal standard.

The new Articles of Religion were doctrinal expressions by and for the new Church, and, therefore, were to be received and respected by those who chose to be in the Church.

They were no longer the utterance of a mere indi

vidual, no matter how distinguished he might be, but the official declaration of the Church, voiced by the Conference that possessed the sovereign power.

The Articles, therefore, were as obligatory, to say the least, as any Disciplinary enactment, or any measure of government, adopted, or agreed to, by the sovereign body that organized the Church in 1784 and determined its basal organic law, and, by its action, these articles became part of the Constitution of the Church, and, so, obligatory upon all within the body.

It may be asked, whether there is any evidence that the Articles of Religion were regarded as standards of doctrine, and obligatory upon the Church, other than the fact that Wesley prepared them for reorganized Methodism in America, and that they were adopted by the Methodist Episcopal Church at its organization?

These facts are sufficient to settle the authority of the Articles, but nevertheless we should allow the question: Are there any other facts that may be cited in proof of their authority?

In answer it will be seen that there are other various, and conclusive, evidences, a few of which will now be presented.

In the first place, it should be known that they had become part of the obligatory expressions and enactments of the Church, and that that fact was speedily asserted in the legal statutes of the denomination.

This soon became necessary, for in all organizations there are persons who do not willingly yield to law, but who wish to vary their conduct according to their own mood or impulse, rather than according to constitutional agreements or statute law. To this, the Church is no exception, and both Church and State find