What rank had those old doctrinal tracts?

They were not classed as of the same rank as the Discipline, though they were bound up with the Book of Discipline. Jesse Lee simply called them "the tracts on doctrine" and the title page of the Discipline of 1788 styled them "Some other useful Pieces annexed." They were not of the Discipline, but other than the Discipline, and annexed simply because they were useful, and, at that time, there was room for them.

As to the substance of the tracts it was simply similar to, or the same as, was found in Wesley's Sermons, Wesley's Notes, and what appeared in the old Conference Minutes. If the matter in the tracts was already in Wesley's Sermons, Wesley's Notes, or the old Minutes, they were not separate and distinct standards, but were merely special portions of the standards. Though they contained the same truths, it would not therefore follow that they, as documents, were standards of doctrine.

At the beginning they were simply "useful pieces annexed" to the Discipline. Later they were slipped into the body of the Discipline as sections. Then they were omitted at pleasure as though they were not an essential part of the Book of Discipline, and, finally, they were taken out altogether.

They were "useful pieces" as brief statements or restatements of views, but they never had the rank or authority of the Articles of Religion, or the General Rules, or Wesley's Fifty-two Sermons, or Wesley's "Notes on the New Testament," or the doctrinal formulations that appeared in the old Minutes, or the Apostles' Creed, or the early Ritual.

Furthermore there is no evidence that they were put into the Discipline by act or order of the General Conference, but, the evidence seems to show, the insertions were merely the acts of the editors or publishers of the Discipline, and usually in the intervals between the General Conferences, and not in a General Conference year.

As a matter of fact whatever was "useful" in these tracts had already appeared in Wesley's writings and the duly recognized standards, and their "usefulness" was mainly in their brevity.

They served a purpose, but that they were put in and taken out at will would seem to indicate that it was understood that they did not possess the authority of the Articles of Religion and other documents which were conceded to be authoritative standards, and that they did not even have ordinary disciplinary rank.

It may now be asked: What is the present status of the "doctrinal tracts" which were printed, or bound, with the Book of Discipline in the early period of the Church?

At the present time they have almost entirely passed out of sight and memory, and the mass of the membership does not know that they ever had an existence. That fact, however, would have little or no value, if it were clear that they were at any time duly "established standards of doctrine," and that they had never constitutionally lost that rank. If they were standards, then it would be the duty of the ministry and the membership to know what they are and to treat them with due respect. But there is no proof that they were ever made official standards, and if they were not then there is not the same obligation. Nevertheless, even if

not official standards, they still would be "useful pieces," and for reading and study would continue to be profitable, but, whatever authoritative doctrines they may present are found in the unquestionable standards already indicated, and so, if they are not accessible to the mass of the membership but only to the historian, the loss is not vital or fatal.

If it be asked what doctrines did the Book of Discipline contain in 1792 when it was first called "The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America ?" it would not be a fair deduction to infer that it contained at all times all the doctrines of the Church, but that it did contain doctrines recognized by the denomination. Indeed we know that for years the Discipline was issued without the most standard of the standards.

But, leaving out the "doctrinal tracts," what doctrinal expositions did the book called "Doctrines and Discipline" contain? In the first place there were "The Articles of Religion," "The Ritual," including the "Apostles' Creed," the "Lord's Prayer" and the doctrinal suggestions in the "General Rules," and the insertion of the Articles of Religion alone would have justified the use of the word "Doctrines," but not to mean all the doctrines.

When the doctrinal tracts were entirely eliminated, these, and other things of a doctrinal character remained, so that the Book of Discipline still is a book of doctrines as well as of Discipline.

I

XX

DOCTRINAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE

MEMBERSHIP

T is asked: Does the obligation as to the doctrines and the standards of doctrine in the Methodist Episcopal Church apply to the lay members of the

Church?

That an obligation rests on the ministry is perfectly plain, but some have had a notion that the lay membership is free from any such obligation, and, within the Church, is at liberty to hold and advocate any doctrine, and to disavow and antagonize the doctrines and the doctrinal formularies of the Methodist Episcopal Church to which they belong.

If this be so, then the millions of lay members would be within their legal rights if they all refused to believe the formulated doctrines of the Church, positively denied them, spoke against them, and spoke in favor of contrary opinions.

If this were so, then the result of this would be doctrinal anarchy, and would produce confusion in religious thought and teaching, antagonism in religious opinions, and, possibly, personal antagonisms as well, and ultimately result in a disruption of the denomination.

It is inconceivable that any body, religious or otherwise, would deliberately incorporate within itself the seeds of its own dissolution. All human organizations of this nature provide, or intend to provide, for their own perpetuity, and not for their destruction.

In the same way, when such an organization constructs its organic law, and its statute law based thereon, it expects that those who are in, or who come into, the organism, will conform to these laws.

Being in, or coming into an organization, be it a Church, or any other organization, creates the presumption that those who are in, or come in, will conform to the rules and regulations of the body, and this would be so even if no formal oath, or pledge, were given.

This is a settled principle that membership carries with it the duty of conformity or obedience, and to release the member from such an understood obligation would require some enactment distinctly stating that there is no such requirement for the member.

In other words, the mere being in, or coming into, the organization, carries with it the obligation of conformity, and, in a Church, not only to its statute laws, but also to its organic law, and to its doctrines which are essentially parts of its constitution.

So when a Church frames its doctrines, as it forms its laws, that very fact carries with it the expectation that the entire membership does, or will, accept and obey.

We may ask whether there is any law to the contrary? If there is not, then the natural and legal presumption of obligation holds as to the doctrines of the denomination, as well as to any other agreement whether organic, or by enactment from time to time.

In the first place, then, is there anything in the law of the Methodist Episcopal Church that bears specifically on this matter?

Some have thought the requirement of conformity to