the Confession of Faith, that it is not to be regarded as teaching that any who die in infancy are lost. We believe that all dying in infancy are included in the election of grace, and are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how He pleases.""

All this modification was due more to Wesleyan Arminianism than to any other influence.

Doctrines that have had such intellectual potency as to radically revolutionize long established theological systems, and the accepted philosophy of great Churches, by causing their supporters to see the truth and accept the very teachings they had antagonized, must have been most potent doctrines.

Doctrines that induced the thousands and the millions to turn from sin and seek the holy life, that uplifted individuals and communities, and gave men a new and better view of God, and a loftier and more inspiring view of this life and of the life to come, must have had in them the real truth, and the truth that humanity needs.

Wesleyan doctrines had, and have, did do and are doing, all these things, and they are the needed and winning doctrines that mankind cannot spare.

"Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America," Philadelphia, 1912.

A

XXIV

ARE NEW STANDARDS NEEDED?

RE new doctrinal standards needed for Methodism? Doubtless the question will surprise and

perplex many minds. They have never raised the question and cannot understand why it should be raised by anybody. Yet the question has been mooted at least by a few.

But why should any one start the inquiry? Standards of doctrine are to the faith of the Church somewhat of the nature of a national Constitution to the country, and both should have a certain degree of permanence and, therefore, neither should be disturbed unless some very serious reason demands it.

Then the faith of the Church is much more important than the polity of the Church or the government of a people and should not be treated as temporary or as something that could be easily unsettled, and, therefore, the fixed expressions of that faith should not be changed unless there is a most profound necessity.

Still there may arise conditions under which it might not be improper to inquire as to whether there was any absolute necessity for revising the doctrinal formularies of a Church.

If, for example, it was discovered that the statements of doctrine were false, that would be a good reason for correcting them. But if the standards of doctrine in Methodism were true when they were made and adopted, have they ceased to be true? If the doctrines

were true in the eighteenth century why are they not true in the twentieth? If they were true then do they not continue to express the truth? If they were true when they were made they must still be true, for the Bible remains the same and human nature is the same, and, if they still remain true, then, on this ground, there is no reason, good or bad, why the standard expressions of faith should be changed.

If the question relates to the literary form of the standards, then in turn it may be asked whether, even if the literary form might be criticized in some particular, that is a sufficient reason for changing the verbal form of such vitally important documents. Literary expressions and arrangements may be largely matters of taste and one or the other form might answer practically the same purpose, and, hence, there might be no practical gain in disturbing familiar expressions and substituting those that were merely different.

Further the English language in which the standards were written is essentially the same as it is to-day, and there is not an essential word in the standards that cannot be understood by any ordinarily intelligent reader of English in this generation.

That being the case one may insist upon knowing why any one proposes to change the language of the standards. Some may even raise a question as to the motive back of the desire, and, doubtless, some may fear that the intention is not only to change the expressions but also to make them mean something else than they now do, or to get rid of some particular exposition or doctrinal definition and in that way destroy some doctrine.

If, then, the doctrines remain true, and the literary

form can be understood, and is sufficient for all practical purposes, it will be exceedingly difficult to persuade a whole denomination that the standards of doctrine should be changed in any way or in any degree, and, especially because of the possible uncertainty of motive, and the uncertainty of the outcome.

Again it may be asked are not the standards of doctrine sufficiently broad in their scope? Are the doctrines as presented in all the standards sufficiently comprehensive? Do they not present the fundamentals of Christianity and touch the essentials of Christian belief? What essential is not presented? It cannot be named. Then nothing essential is lacking.

If it be said that some things are not mentioned in the Articles of Religion, then it may be answered that the Articles are not all the standards. There are the

Apostles' Creed, Wesley's Fifty-two Sermons, Wesley's Notes on the New Testament, and the Ritual. If the point in question is not in the Articles of Religion, it may be found in one, or more, of the other standards, and, perhaps, treated differently from what it could be in the Article form.

Further, the standards of doctrine are not only comprehensive, but they are also comprehensible. They embrace the essentials and they can be understood.

That is plain, because at the beginning and for more than a century and three-quarters they have been understood by all classes, by the illiterate as well as by the highly educated, and not only by their friends but also by their foes. The plain man has found them simple enough for him and the scholar has found them both profound and clear enough for him, because they are written in plain but excellent English. The method

of treatment and the language used make them understandable to all.

To suggest that one cannot know what Wesley means from his writings would suggest on the part of the objector a peculiar obtuseness, or a decided ignorance of these writings, for Wesley's English is remarkably clear, compact, and easily understood.

From the very beginning his doctrines were easily comprehended by the miners of Kingswood and Cornwall, and as well by the miscellaneous crowds on the London Moors, as by the scholarly students and learned professors when he preached at Saint Mary's in Oxford.

It may be objected that the standards contain much that belongs to general Christendom rather than to that which is peculiar to Methodism. If that is true, there is no point in the objection, for general Christian truth must have great value. If it be true it does not prove that such contents in the standards do not rightfully belong to Methodism. If certain symbols belong to common Christianity, then when Methodism adopts them they belong to Methodism which is a part of general Christendom.

Further Methodism is not something distinct from Christianity but is Christian, and all that belongs to Christianity belongs to it. Methodism is a part of the general Christian Church, and has a right to and needs everything that is Christian, and needs and has a right to these particular things just as much as any other branch of the Church of Christ.

In other words, Methodism does not claim to be different from general or essential Christianity, but to be in harmony therewith, and to be a part thereof, and, therefore, it must recognize and has recognized general