ORGANIZATION or ORGANISM　

Section I. During the intervals between sessions of the Conference, the Executive Committee shall have full administrative power, and shall fill for the current term any vacancies that may occur in its offices, boards, committees, or agents, by death, resignation, or otherwise, except in cases where other provisions for filling such vacancies shall be made by vote of the General Conference.

Section II. Any five members of the Executive Committee, including the president or the vice-president, shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of such business as is in harmony with the general plans outlined by the Committee, but the concurrence of four members shall be necessary to pass any measure before the Committee.

Section III. Meetings of the Executive Committee may be called at any time or place, by the president or vice-president, or upon the written request of any five members of the Committee. (General Conference Bulletin, 1903, p. 146.)

The minority of your Committee on Plans and Constitution beg leave to submit that the Constitution proposed by the majority of the Committee appears to us to be so subversive of the principles of organization given to us at the General Conference of 1897 and 1901 that we cannot possibly subscribe to it.

The proposed new Constitution reverses the reformatory steps that were taken, and the principles which were given and adopted as the principles of reorganization, in the General Conference of 1897 and 1901, and embodied in the present Constitution; and this before that Constitution or the organization according to it, has ever had adequate trial.

We therefore recommend that the Constitution of 1901 be given a fair trial before it be annihilated.

Signed E. J. Waggoner, David Paulson, Percy T. Magan.

W. T. Knox: I move the adoption of the majority report.

D. E. Lindsey: I second the motion.

The Chair. Now, if it is the wish of the delegates, this report may be read through entirely; or, if you desire, it can be taken up one section or article at a time. If this be the mind of the delegates, the secretary may read the first article.

P. T. Magan: The congregation will all see that the minority report deals only with certain general vital principles, which we believe are transgressed in the proposed new constitution; and therefore, in order that that matter may be brought before the house, as it is the vital thing in the consideration of the whole subject, I move that the report of the minority be substituted now for consideration in place of the report of the majority.

E. J. Waggoner: I second the motion.

The motion was put, and was lost.

E. J. Waggoner: l hope you will beforehand do us the kindness to think that we are not captious or desirous of obstructing the work of the house, or lightly bringing in some difference for the sake of differing.

My dissent from the report of the majority of the committee is on two lines. I will give those two lines as briefly and concisely as possible, and dispassionately. The first objection I have to the report is that it is fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the principles of organization as set forth in the Bible, and as, up to the present time, adhered to in the main by this body. This being so, I regard the report as revolutionary and inconsistent. Now why and wherein?

I think we are all agreed in this, that the church, the local body of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, in any place is the unit of organization and the standard. Thus in any company of believers, wherever they may be, in whatever city, we have there the epitome of the whole body of believers throughout the world. Whatever name you give to the larger body, whether conference, or session, or what not, the fact remains that that large body is the church. The local companies, also known as churches, are simply constituent parts of the body as a whole; but the life and principles of the whole are manifest in every part. Whatever position, whatever principles, whatever features, are true of the church as a whole, are true simply because they are true locally of the bodies composing the one universal body. And to carry the analysis still further, whatever is true of that body of believers is true simply because it is true of the individual members composing that body, and I hold these truths to be self-evident propositions. Therefore whatever organization, and, consistently with the Scriptures, cannot have any other form of organization than the local church has.

Now, I am sure that my brethren will agree with me in this statement, that those who are called to lead out in the larger body, whether in a state or in a country or in the world, by whatever name they may be known as leaders, whether president, vice-president, or what not, occupy the same relation to that large church that the elder of the local church does to that smaller portion of the body.

Our brethren everywhere are familiar with church organization. All of our ministers have had more or less to do with that. We read of it frequently that a church was organized

there; and when we regard a church as organized, ready for aggressive work, aggressive gospel work in the world, what do we have?-A company of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, with certain persons in the body recognized as called of God to instruct the people, or to guide in the administration of affairs.

I maintain that this proposition ought to be self-evident to every person, that if that is complete organization, then that same thing obtaining in the larger body is complete organization. If a church can be organized for all the work that God has designed that the church shall do on this earth, with that simple condition that is set forth in the Bible that elders shall be ordained in every city, and that other persons shall be recognized as called of God to do whatever work may be necessary, as in the case of the seven who were appointed to administer the distribution of funds in Jerusalem,-I say if a church is fully organized under that condition, then the church as a whole must be fully organized under the same condition; and that to carry on the work without any fixed creed or constitution does not tend in the least to disorganization. Further, if that be complete for the organization of the local church, if more than that would be contrary to the Scriptures, and thus to that intent tending to disorganization under the form and name of organization, then the same thing in the larger body tends essentially to disorganization, and not to true organization; so that we have this report calling for this organization, and this specifying what shall be done, and just how it shall be done under every circumstance, is not according to the counsel established by God.

Now the movement, although I am sure unconscious and unintentional on the part of the brethren, toward the adoption of this report does essentially lie in the line of the adoption of a creed; and that, although the churches of the world regard as essential to organization, we who know the Scriptures and know the falling away that came in in the early days and has been perpetuated until this present time,-we know is essentially disorganization.

I know that the brethren will say that there is no intention of narrowing down, and I am sure they are sincere in that statement, that there is no intention of placing some above others; I am sure they are agreed in that, and are just as much opposed to that in principle as I am. Yet, that being so, why tie our own hands? Now, it is impossible for me to understand how I can so tie myself up that I cannot untie myself; how I can tie myself so tightly that I cannot move. But you say: "This does not do that. This does not tie us up. We can amend this at any time."

Well, I grant it. I cannot understand, then, how I can tie myself up, or how anybody can so tie his hands, that he cannot untie his hands, or make any movement, until the expiration of a fixed time limit. I cannot understand how that can be done. But every man is free. If any person, or any number of persons, in the body felt that they could not trust themselves or the brethren without tying their own hands, without tying themselves, then they should be free to do so; but they should not hold others bound by that tying.

The Bible organization is opposed to the exaltation of any person over others. Now the question will arise and be presented to me: "Why, then, do you sign this report, which recommends that we maintain the present constitution? If you feel and believe that the church as a whole needs no constitution, does not need to tie its hands, can be perfectly free, under God, to move here and there, just as the Spirit of God shall move, then why have any constitution?"

I am not inconsistent. My second objection is to this constitution itself, which, in some of its particulars, I regard as the worst constitution ever devised among Seventh-day Adventists. But those particulars I will not speak of now.

Two years ago a constitution was formed in harmony with instruction given, as nearly as might be. I myself have done no little work in the formation of constitutions. I was one of a committee, some twelve or fifteen years ago, which drafted that constitution that was kept alongside of us until two years ago, in its main features. But, while I did not vote for this last constitution, nor have I voted for any constitution for the last ten years, yet I would not oppose the adoption of that, because, inasmuch as it was milder, had fewer provisions than any other constitution. I regarded it as better than anything we had ever had. It was a step in the right direction, and I hailed it with joy, as a movement toward the time to which I am just as sure we will come eventually as I am that I stand here, when all these things will be left aside, as the toys of childhood.

Now, that is the main reason. The brethren, I know, who have not given this matter, perhaps, the thought in the same line that I have, regard it as essential that something of this kind shall be adopted, in order that we may regulate our work, and have it unified, and have it harmonious. How are we going to the world to carry a message which is to call out of the world a people and unite them in one body by the power of the Holy Ghost, when we have not enough confidence in the Holy Ghost and in our own loyalty to the Spirit to trust it to lead us into that unity, and to keep us there? Will not our testimony be weakened just to that extent, if we cannot trust ourselves to be led by the Spirit of God to do whatever may seem necessary to do under the circumstances? That is just as when Saul was met by the prophets, and the Spirit of the Lord came unto him, and he was turned into another man; then the advice of the prophet was, "Do as occasion serves." Can we not come to such a yielding to the Spirit of God that we, as a body, or as individuals, can do as occasion serves, under the leading of the Spirit?

The Bible organization recognizes leaders; most certainly it does. Whomsoever God appoints as leaders ought to be recognized, and will be recognized, by the body, if they are leaders indeed; for authority rests in the individual and his relation to God, and not in the position to which he is elected. And truth is truth, though it be spoken by one who has no standing or official position. And error cannot be made to be truth, or mistakes cannot be made to be right, because promulgated by some one in official position, or even by the whole body; and we should recognize, and we must educate ourselves and the people to recognize, the truth of the Bible, and to be recognized by the Bible and the Spirit of God, so that whenever any case comes up for decision we have that one thing to guide us.

The apostle Peter, who was an elder, said, let the elders take "the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;" I Peter 5:2, and then he said, "Ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility." I Peter 5:5. Now there is the principle in the church that Christ is the Head of the church, because He is the Head of every man. Now, I have no fear that loyalty to that truth, that adherence to that principle, will work disorganization in the body. It can never be, while I recognize Christ as my Head, and myself amenable to Him, and not to anybody else. I also recognize the fact that God can teach my brother just as readily as He can me; and I admit, and will always admit, that God is leading him, as well as leading me. And, that being the case, in the economy of God all are kings. In the kingdom of God, which is the church of God, there is no office recognized lower than king; for God is "King of kings;" and God made man, and made him king; and in the church, which is the body, which brings us back to the primitive standard, every one is to be king and to have authority.

"But," you say, "if all have authority, who is going to rule?"-Nobody is going to rule. I am king; but I recognize that other man as king, and I will submit to his authority, under God, and the other man will recognize the other man's authority, under God when he stands under relationship to God; and I will recognize the whole of them, and they, in turn, will recognize me; and there is mutual reigning, absolute sovereignty, on the part of each individual, and, above all, submission on the part of each to one another and to the whole.

The apostle Paul has set forth that principle of organization, where we have it in Ephesians, the whole building "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." Ephesians 2:20-21. He also speaks later on in the same epistle about our holding the Head, that all, fitly framed together, speaking the truth in love,-the unity not of resolutions or fixed laws, but the unity of the faith, "maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." Ephesians 4:16. And he speaks against those who, not holding the Head, do not make such increase and growth.

Now I dare say that we have not come to the time when we are ready for this. I presume that brethren who will admit, as it seems to me every one must admit, that every principle that I have laid down here this morning is Scriptural and sound, brethren who will admit that will say, "That is all right in theory, but we have not come to the time yet when we can do that." That, to me, is a woeful confession, that we have not yet come to the time when we can stand on bedrock principles. I am sure that a recognition of these principles, and an adherence to them continually, would work a reformation in the body; would work life, would work power; and it would work to the development of talent, the development of spiritual experience on the part of the individual; and it is because such a report as this militates against these fundamental principles, that I am conscientiously bound to dissent.

Now, so averse am I to even differing from my brethren, that I think very likely if Mad not been in the position of being on the committee, I might have let this constitution go along without making any protest of this kind, simply some of my constitutional crankiness, and would pass it by with mild leniency. But having been placed upon that committee, without my request and without any expectation that anything of this kind would come up, I could not, in disloyalty to the principles which I hold, and which I see as clearly as I see the daylight, and which I have been teaching for many years, I could not, in consistency, let my name go tacitly as upholding, as recommending, this thing. And that is why I have taken this stand.

Now, I desire you to think, and to believe, that it has not been captiousness, that there is any lack of brotherly love. If this constitution shall be adopted,-as from my experience in the past I am almost forced to expect it will be,-why it will not make a particle of difference in my love for the brethren. I do not see how we could think that it can. One thing that hurts me very much is even to imply fear on the part of somebody that a difference-I will not say of opinion, but of view-in a case like this kind can lead to differences between us. I do not see how we could ever entertain the thought for a moment that it can. I will not admit that it can, on my part; and I shall not let it; and I shall love my brethren just as much; for whatever they may say on this floor, and whatever position they may make; and they may carry it out--I love them just as much. And I will say this also: that it will not in the least curtail my freedom. I can work just as freely, so far as I myself am concerned, as though the old constitution were retained, or as though we had no constitution, as far as I am concerned.

I maintain that any man who admits, or who implies that he is bound, or that he is tied, and his freedom is curtailed, simply confesses that he does not mean variance, does not mean that I propose to start off on a tangent anyway, but that I simply propose to maintain my work, adhere to my work, to as faithfully teach the Word of God as I know how. That is all. I do maintain this, that the constitution as a whole, any constitution, and this one in particular, does tend to the limiting of freedom, not of individual action, if the individual knows the Lord, but of the results of his action; and therefore I most earnestly hope that the time will speedily come, if it does not come this day, when all these artificial bands shall be broken asunder, and all these childish toys-for I will say, with the utmost kindness, and utterly dispassionately, that consideration of constitutions, of things of this kind, are painful to me, so utterly foreign to the line of study that I have followed, that it is really a bit of torture for me to sit and listen to them, and I find freedom in reading my Bible while the thing is going on. But, childish as I hold them to be, I hope that the time will come speedily when all these things, these artificial things, that we build up for ourselves,--to say that we will go this way a little while, and we must go so, and that we cannot walk a certain distance unless we first lay down a plan, we cannot build a machine without having a plan before us.--I hope the time will speedily come when they will be swept aside and left behind.

To him who thinks it is a necessity, it is a necessity. But there is this difference between the master workman and the apprentice: The apprentice must have a plan; he must first chalk out the way in which he is going to go; he must have a pattern. The master workman has the plan, goes ahead, and does the work. Now, the master workman is God, and the Spirit of God is given to lead us into all truth, not simply into what is unfortunately known as theological truth, or, better, spiritual truth, to guide in personal conduct and morality, but given to guide us into all truth, as to administration. However many administrations there may be, there is only the one Spirit, and therefore when we have that master Workman given to guide us, why shall we not voluntarily, gladly, and rejoicingly, yield to the Spirit of God, for Him to work in us all, and trust that that one Spirit can bring us back into perfect harmony and keep us there?

Meeting adjourned to 2 P.M., even date.

H. W. Cottrell, Chairman.

H. E. Osborne, Secretary. (General Conference Bulletin 1903, pp.146-149.) General Conference Proceedings

The Chair. Unless some member would prefer to speak to the question to adopt as a whole, perhaps it might be well to do as suggested this morning, read the constitution section by section.

P. T. Magan: I would like the privilege, Brother Chairman, of speaking to the matter as a whole.

H. Shultz: I move that, as the time is short, and considering the amount of business we have before us, that every speaker be limited to five minutes.

A. D. Field: I second the motion.

The Chair. I would suggest that while on general principles that might be wise, on a question like this, even though our time is short, I rather dislike personally to see such restriction where persons have deep feeling over the question. However, the question is open for remarks.

A. T. Jones: It seems to me that it is rather late to begin to talk of calling time, under the circumstances. Here is before us the most complicated situation, in many ways, that this General Conference has ever seen; and it is a matter that concerns the whole cause. And every delegate has inalienable rights to be heard on the subject, and to be heard at whatever length he may have material to present pertinent to the question; and this thing be presented, and brought before us almost the last day, in the afternoon, and then to pass a motion restricting every speaker to five minutes, will make a good deal more complexity.

I want to speak on the question; but if I am allowed no more than five minutes, I may not say anything more than I am saying now, because there are things in this complication, and with reference to this proposed constitution, that should be discussed at whatever proper length may be needed. I know that it is late in the session, and therefore it is late to bring in such a report as this in such a complicated situation. How could it be expected by anybody that such a report as this, involving such important things as this does, should be brought in and simply swept through. Why, even the first thing has not yet been done on a constitutional question in all matters of a constitution. There has been presented to this Conference for adoption a constitution, when we already have one, and I have not heard a single word as to why the one we have is so altogether defective that we have got to have a new one, and it be so open on its face that everybody shall simply say, Amen, and let it go. I have never learned of any such proceeding as that on a constitutional question from the day of the Magna Charta until to-day.

So there are things in this that need attention, and I will say to you, You cannot afford to shut this thing off with five-minute speeches, even if every delegate in the convention wants to speak on it. You may say that would consume all our time. Better do that, and know what we are doing, than to shut the thing off, and do something that you would be sorry for before next General Conference. So I hope this motion will not carry.

A. J. Breed: It rather seems to me that this is not the best thing to do. There are quite a number here that are well qualified to speak on the principles of this question, and I think they ought to have more than five minutes' time.

A. G. Daniells: I should be very sorry to see this motion pass. I think that the brethren,--those who have a burden and a desire to speak,--should be left untrammeled. I think we can save time in another way, and by a better means, and that is to be careful not to repeat arguments and facts on questions that we are fully agreed on. When a matter is thoroughly and clearly presented, then if we would be careful not to consume time reiterating the same thing, we may save a good deal of time. But I would not want to see this motion passed.

The Chair: Brother Magan made a request to speak on the question as a whole. If there is no objection, his request will be granted.

P. T. Magan: I fully appreciate the gravity of this situation, and I have absolutely no intention of in any way filibustering or trying to use a little time in which to say nothing.

As a member of the minority of the Committee on Plans, and as a man, if I had not been on the Committee on Plans at all, I am conscientiously opposed to the proposed new constitution. I have always felt that the hardest place that any man could be put in in this life is to have to stand conscientiously opposed to what the majority of his brethren believe to be right. To me it has always appeared to be a much easier thing to stand in a position of opposition to the world, and even to have to face a court of justice in the world, for your faith, than to have to face your brethren for your faith. And therefore I shall say to-day, as briefly and modestly as I know how, what I have to say.

The minority report expresses in a word the feelings which actuated the minority in making the report, because we believe that the constitution proposed by the majority of the committee appears to us to be so subversive of the principles of organization given to us at the General Conference of 1897 and 1901. Those principles were given to us by the Spirit of God. In my judgment, and in the judgment of the minority of the committee, this constitution is absolutely subversive of those principles.

Further: The proposed new constitution reverses the reformatory steps that were taken, and the principles which were given, and which were adopted as the principles of reorganization, at the General Conferences of 1897 and 1901, and which were incorporated in the constitution of 1901.

Now, I am not here for a moment to state that the constitution of 1901 is a perfect one. To my mind, in many respects, it is very imperfect. To my mind, in many respects it is very clumsily drawn. But I have learned this, that all reforms come gradually; and in that constitution, clumsy though you may call it, defective though you may mark it, there are principles of reformation and reorganization for the head of this work which are right; and those principles are absolutely subverted and swept aside in the proposed new constitution.

It may be stated there is nothing in this new constitution which is not abundantly safeguarded by the provisions of it; but I want to say to you that any man who has ever read "Neander's History of the Christian Church," Mosheim's, or any of the other of the great church historians,--any man who has ever read those histories can come to no other conclusion but that the principles which are to be brought in through this proposed constitution, and in the way in which they are brought in, are the same principles, and introduced in precisely the same way, as they were hundreds of years ago when the Papacy was made.

Further: This whole house must recognize this, before we are through with this discussion, that the proposed new constitution, whatever improvements may be claimed for it, whatever advantages it may be stated that it contains, that, in principle, as far as the head of the work is concerned, it goes back precisely where we were before the reformatory steps of two years ago. I do not deny for a moment but what improvements have been made in the distribution of administrative power. I am heartily in favor of all that has been done in regard to Union Conferences, but I say that, as far as the head of the thing is concerned, as far as the general administration of things is concerned, though not couched in the same word, though not hedged about with the same identical language, they are precisely the same principles which governed us up to two years ago; and that moment you vote this constitution, which I do not believe you are ready to do, yet, when you understand this, the moment you vote it you vote yourselves right back where we were two years ago and before it.

Another point: It is a fact which I do not believe any one in this house will deny, but that for many years every General Conference that we have come to has been more or less of a crisis over the question of the progress of the General Conference and the General Conference administration. Beginning with the General Conference at Oakland, fifteen or sixteen years ago, whenever it was, and passing through Minneapolis down through one or two Conferences at Battle Creek to the General Conference held at College View, and then to the last General Conference held in Battle Creek, every one we have come up to has involved, to a greater or lesser extent, a crisis over this question. It is true that in some of these Conferences that has not come to the surface as prominently as in others. It is equally true that in others of these General Conferences this question has come to the surface most prominently, and been the chief thing for discussion and the burden of thought at those Conferences.

Now I want to say, in all candor and sincerity, this afternoon, that this question will never, and can never be, settled until it is settled right. This whole new constitution may pass this body, I do not know, but that will not settle it. This thing will keep on coming up until the principles of the gospel, approximated and aimed at in the last constitution, are given their full and free place in this church. And any human device that may be adopted to forestall that thing will fail as utterly of forestalling it as did the attempt on the enemy to forestall Christianity by crucifying Jesus Christ.

I do not know that I need to take much more time now, as I, of course, will have the right which every other brother has, as the different items are considered, to state my views on each item as it is considered. I simply wanted to make that point clear and plain in principle, and it will come out in detail as we go along in the consideration of the constitution,-this one point that the adoption of this means the rejection of the principles of organization given us by the Spirit of God two years ago, and the discussion of each provision of this, and of the major provisions of this, will abundantly reveal that that is so, when read in connection with the writings given at that time, and with the discussions of that period.

Now, it makes no difference whether the different things in this are brought in in a different form to what they were previously, it is the same old idea of the world-wide administration of a few men being able to form a quorum, to carry out what they think is the mind of the whole. It is a merger in principle of the Mission Board work into the General Conference work, and is the overshadowing, in that respect, of all other branches of the work by one branch of the work. It means, in effect, that the affairs of this Conference and of the whole general lines of work of the cause will be carried on by fewer men than I believe the Testimonies of the Spirit of God have any idea that they should be carried on.

In closing, I will state that for years this thing has been up. For years there has been dissatisfaction upon the part of certain lines of the work, and a growing dissatisfaction at this, and we are now brought face to face with the crisis, either that all lines will have the fullest freedom and the fullest recognition, and peace and harmony will prevail, or they will not have it, and this kind of thing will go on.

A. T. Jones: I will call attention to the talk that was referred to a few moments ago, that there has been presented to this conference, so far as I have discovered, no reason why the present constitution is not workable, and that is a very important thing. When we are asked to sweep that away without any reference at all, just as though there were no constitution, and this was original, without any work of reference whatever to it, any reasons given as to why it shall be swept away and this put in its place, that is a serious defect, and I hope for some sort of explanation before we go very far in the discussion of the constitution when it comes.

I believe with the minority report that this proposed constitution is subversive of the principles of organization given to us at the General Conference of 1897 and that of 1901. I believe that it reverses the reformatory steps that were taken, and the principles which were given and adopted as the principles of reorganization in the General Conferences of 1897 and 1901, and are embodied in the present constitution, and this is stated. I believe that this is being done before that constitution or the organization according to it has ever had any adequate trial, before it has been tested as a General Conference constitution.

It might be well to call attention to the principles of organization that were given to us in 1897 and 1901. One word that came to us in 1897, which the General Conference accepted, and upon which it acted in that Conference, and which has become a constitutional principle, was spoken in these words: "It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference;" and the new constitution does propose that very thing. Now, that came to us in 1897, and it was accepted by the Conference. The committee, of which I happened to be a member with others, acted upon it, and you know that we brought in a report of that committee, and the Conference adopted it, of having three presidents instead of one. You know the reasons that were given in Conference for it. This providing one man as president of the General Conference is bigger now than it was in 1897, is just that much more a reversal of the principle to which God was calling us, and that much more of an emphasis of the principles from which He was calling us, as could be. So much for 1897.

In 1901 this principle was given to us, and these are the principles on which we acted in 1901, which were accepted by the Conference, which were before the Committee when this constitution was adopted which we have, which was their guide in the formation of that constitution, and which the Conference embodied in the constitution, and accepted by adopting that constitution. One of the principles announced there is this: "Never should one mind, or two minds, or three minds, or four minds, or a few minds, I should say, be considered of sufficient wisdom and power to control and mark out plans, and let it rest upon the minds of only one or two or three in regard to this particular part of the field that we have." And the present constitution as it is provides that any five members can be a quorum when the president is present, and those five, acting as a quorum of the committee, will take steps that will involve the whole twenty-five. How could there be anything more subversive of the principles that were given to us, of the very first one given to us, which was embodied in that constitution, which was a guide in making the constitution, and which the constitution stands for? Their reasons given for the statement are stated in that pan of the sentence, I read:

"The state of things that has existed in the Conference is not clearly understood by some who occupy positions in the Conference or by others who bear responsibilities in other lines of the work. The work has been increasing; it has been growing. The light that I have had from the Lord has been expressed over and over again, not to as many as there are here to-day, but to different individuals. The plans upon which God wishes us to work have been laid down. Never should the mind of one man, or the minds of a few men, be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and say what plans shall be followed. The burden of the work in this broad field should not rest upon two or three men." We are not reaching the high standard which, with the great and important truth we are handling, God expects us to reach.

"Over and over again men have said, 'The voice of the Conference is the voice of God; therefore everything must be referred to the Conference. The Conference must permit or restrict in the various lines of work.' As the matter has been presented to me, there is a narrow compass, and within this narrow compass, all the openings to which are locked, are those who would like exercise kingly power. But the work carried on all over the field demands an entirely different course of action. There is need of the laying of a foundation different from the foundation which has been laid in the past. We have heard much about everything moving in the regular lines. When we see that the 'regular lines' are purified and refined, that they bear the mold of the God of heaven, then it will be time to endorse these lines. But when we see that message after message given by God has been received and accepted, yet no change has been made, we know that new power must be brought into the regular lines. The management of the regular lines must be entirely changed, newly organized. There must be a committee, not composed of half a dozen men, but of representatives from all lines of our work, from our publishing house, from our educational institutions, and from our sanitariums, which have life in them, which are constantly working, constantly broadening."

"I have been shown the fields which should have been opened in America. But where in California or Michigan, the two great centers of the work, is aggressive work being done? Where is seen the wrestling in new fields?"

"God desires that His work shall be a rising, broadening, enlarging power. But the management of the work is becoming confused in itself."

Notice particularly the next sentence: "Not that any one wishes to be wrong or to do wrong; but the principles are wrong." Then follow the words: 'These principles are so foreign to God's principles that God cannot bless those who work upon them. What must be done is to bring in other minds. Those who have been at work in the same channels for years have been discouraged and confused. We cannot entrust to such as these the tremendous responsibilities which are now to be handled."

Two years ago we were called away from following wrong principles that were followed before 1901. The constitution proposed to-day simply carries us back to these wrong principles; for in the constitution proposed is incorporated the principle that one man shall be president of the General Conference; and then it is so arranged that a few men shall have a voice in molding things, and acting for the whole people.

C. Santee: Brother Chairman, the section that was read in regard to the five members was not read correctly. I would call for the reading of it again. It does not say that those five shall form a quorum.

A. T. Jones: (Reading): "Any five members of the Executive Committee, including the president or vice-president, shall constitute a quorum."

C. Santee: But there is no period there. Read the rest of the sentence.

A. G. Danlells: May I suggest, Brother Chairman, that brother Jones is speaking on the general question, and is not discussing the features of the new constitution?

The Chair: He is speaking on the general principles involved.

A. T. Jones: In response to this question, I will say that the whole committee would have to outline its work for a certain length of time in order to fulfil the requirements of this constitution, and this simply cannot be done for this vast, vast field that we are in charge of. But let that go. I am not discussing the constitution; I am calling your attention to what was the idea of the constitution that we have.

And now, why was the constitution made as it was? What is the constitution that we have? Read Article 4 of your constitution: "The Executive Committee of this Conference shall be twenty-five number, and shall have power to organize itself, by choosing a chairman, secretary, treasurer, and auditor, whose duties shall be such as usually pertain to their respective offices."

There was no president of the General Conference, you see. There was only a chairman of the committee. That was still further in the direction of what was said at College View, that one man should not be president of the General Conference. Then, in place of that, there were departments; there was the Medical Missionary Department, put in charge of a committee, a board; there was the Educational Department, put in charge of a board to conduct that part of the work; there was a Religious Liberty Department, a Publishing Department, and so on around. These were departments, and these departments were to conduct that work, and as workers in the work; and the committee was only the committee when the committee were in session. The committee would meet in session, and would together study the work,-all the related works and interrelated works of the different departments. Then they would be the committee. Then they would separate, and each department of the work carry out that work for all that it could possibly push the work forward. But the committee was not in session. That was that arm of the committeethe educational, or otherwise, it might be.

Then, by this means, there were men in charge of each department that were what we might sayI do not mean technically, but using the word-experts in that phase of the work; and they, being called of God to that work, whether educational or medical missionary, would be qualified to push that phase of the work more efficiently, more strongly, than a set of men, however large or however smalland especially however smallcould do in trying to push the whole work as one.

In Brother Butler's speech yesterday, he called attention to the defects in the effort, or in the plan, by which the General Conference Committee shall try to run all these departments from itself. That brings me to state that the constitution which we have has never been operative. It is not claimed at all, so far as I have heard, that it has been operative as it is; but operations were conducted under this constitution more after the old plan. As has been said, we have been operating without any constitution for two years, because this one did not apply, some way, in the plans of the one who spoke.

Now, please bear in mind, I am not in any sense calling attention to any fault, or trying to, or raising any reproach whatever against the brethren who have been at headquarters, and who have acted as a few, no more than the testimony that I read found fault with those who were there before, and went into wrong courses, because it is simply the principle that is wrong. I do not think we have any worse men, or have had the last two years, than we had the six or eight years before. I do not believe we have had any better man as president than we had as president of the General Conference from 1897 to 1901, or than we had from 1888 to 1897; but the president who was there from 1888 to 1897 landed where this says because the principle was wrong. And he who was president and those who were the committee from 1897 to 1901 came to the same point precisely as this points out, not because they were wrong, not because they were bad men, because they were good men, but following a wrong principle; and a good man can go to perdition on a wrong principle. A man can pray himself into perdition on a wrong principle. And that is what is pointed out,-not that anybody intended to be wrong, or that any one, in that sense of the word, was wrong; but the principle was wrong, and this principle carried that man wrong; it carried the committee wrong; and it carried the whole General Conference wrong; and it came to that place where the testimony of the Lord said: "The management of the work is becoming confused in itself," and that, if continued, would come to naught.

The principle of that testimony that brought us to the present constitution, that was the guiding of the making of the present constitution, is the principle of self-government. Each church, each man, indeed, governs himself, with God, with Christ, as his own personal Head, and with no conference as his head, no church elder as his head, no Union Conference president, or any other, as his head. Jesus Christ alone is his Head; and when these form themselves into a church, Jesus Christ is the Head of that church, and the elder is not.

And that is where our organization has always been defective. We have always ordained an elder in the church when the Scriptures have called for elders in the church. Our organization will never be right, never be Scriptural, until we come to the Scripture, and ordain elders in every church. Then you have at least two elders; and who is the Head? Jesus Christ alone, of that church. But you know the difficulty we have got into in our choosing but one elder, and he has made himself head in the place of Christ.

The objection has often been made, when I have suggested that there should be eldersat least two, as elders of the church; when I have asked that elders be chosen, the objection made is: "Oh, they would never agree; they could not get along together. Which one would be the one?" That has been the objection that has been presented to me, more than once, in answer to that Christian thing; and that shows us where our organization is wrong. That opens the way for one man to be the head of a church, and it never can be right. Jesus Christ alone is the Head of a church, and if you have one man there, he can put himself in the place of Christ; but if you have two, even with that ambition, each will be a check upon the other.

But another reason why there should be two, at least two, elders. We are commanded in the Scripture, "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church" James 5:14, and in the nine-tenths of the churches it is impossible for anybody to call for the "elders" of the church, for there is but one elder. He can call for the elder; that is not what the Scripture says"Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord." Why elders?Because, "Where two are agreed on earth as asking anything, it shall be given them." And when we get our organization to that point where it shall be Christian and Scriptural, elders of every church, and the members put their faith in God, and call these elders, when they are sick, we shall have the presence and the power of God in our organization, and Christ will have a chance to be the Head. So much for the church organization.

Then a number of churches of this kind organize themselves into a conference, and that conference is to govern itself, and not the churches. Self-government is in the conference committees. But the trouble has been to get them back to this old order of things, that the conference committees wanted to control the churches and everybody in them, and then the General Conference wanted to control the conferences, and everybody in the world. Nothing could be done on the other side of the earth unless they must first write to Battle Creek and get permission of the General Conference Committee. You know it went that way. But God called us away from that. And now, just as in the church, if one man is there, it is possible for him to be a one-man power; and just as certainly when there are two it puts a check on that thing; so certainly, if you have a one-man president of the conference, it is possible for there to be a one-man power. And if you do not have a one-man president of the General Conference, you make it impossible; and that is what I want. I would not trust any man on this earth with that which actually puts it into his power to be a one-man power. I want our constitutions to read so that it shall be impossible for that to be so. I would trust any of you sooner than I would trust myself with any such power.

M. C. Wilcox: How about Union Conferences and State Conferences, Brother Jones?

A. T. Jones: If the General Conference can set the right example, the Union Conference and State Conference will have something to follow. But that is not before General Conference constitution, General Conference affairs are before us now.

Watson Zeigler. Is not the General Conference constitution, as a rule, the local conference constitution?

A. T. Jones: A model, to be sure. Now, following that a little further, the conference committee is a self-governing committee. It counsels for itself and governs for itself. It does not counsel for the other man. The General Conference Committee cannot get together in Oakland, for instance, and counsel for somebody in Fresno. It will get together and counsel for ourselves alone, and let the man in Fresno alone. If we get around where he is, we will counsel with him, but never counsel for him, or assign something for him to do when he does not know anything about it. The conference committee governs for itself, acts for itself, attends to its own business, and lets other people's business alone. The Union Conference committee itself is a self-governing committee. It governs itself, not the conferences, not any of the churches, nobody in the conference. The General Conference Committee is to be a self-governing committee, not to govern any other conference, or anybody at all but itself. And this constitution opens the way for the committee-I do not say that the members intend it-it opens the way for them to encroach and govern somebody besides themselves. What I am after is that we shall have a constitution that shall everlastingly make that thing impossible; and the present constitution does it, for it is a committee, and elects its own chairman.

Another thing: Brother Magan said something about church history. Please remember that was the first organization of the church. The elders met as equals. One was chosen chairman, and simply making the chairmanship perpetual is what bred the Papacy. That is the historical truth. It is proper to have a presiding officer, proper to have a chairman of the meeting; but when you perpetuate that thing, and that officer begins to claim it as his right, and, if you don't elect him chairman next time, feels that you have dropped him, and so on, you have the spirit of the Papacy, though it is not yet developed. So I say again, that is the way the church began the chairmanship only of assembled elders, for here were a number of them; and the making of that chairmanship perpetual is what bred that which is to-day the Papacy. I don't say that these brethren mean that, but I say simply what this testimony said,-in this there are things that the responsible ones have not realized and do not realize, and we want to learn it and look it in the face, and not put ourselves in the way where it will be possible to have this thing repeated.

Last year the Pacific Union Conference organized; at the same time the Pacific Union Medical Missionary Association was organized. The Pacific Union Medical Missionary Association took these very principles I am calling your attention to, and which were set before us in the Pacific Union Conference. It took those principles as the model for the organization of the Pacific Union Medical Missionary Conference. And the "Testimonies" speaking to us on the medical missionary work touched this same principle, and required that there should not be a ruling power in the medical missionary work, but each individual should be free, and each institution free.

Then that, swinging back as instruction for General Conference affairs, tells us that each department of this cause shall be free, not bound, even to the Mission Board. I have no objection to the General Conference Committee being the Mission Board, or some department being the Mission Board, and so on. But when this thing comes, that the whole Conference is the Mission Board, and then the Mission Board is to be made of a few to carry on the work all the time, and one man is president of that board, then you swing back to one or two or three men, or a few, to have the molding of this vast field that is before you.

I believe there should be no one-man power in the medical missionary work; and I believe when our constitution makes it impossible for that thing to be done in conference work, we had better let that constitution stand, and not swing it back to where we were called from by the Lord.

"To the leaders in the medical missionary work I must say that no one is to claim kingly power over God's heritage in the medical missionary work." I say, Amen; you say, Amen, for the medical missionary work.

Voices: Yes, or for any other work.

A. T. Jones: Now that is best for all the Conference, so come along. God's people are to be under Him, and Him alone. There is one Shepherd, and He has one flock. "The

Lord knows the future." Of course we can trust the brethren who are here now, because we are here now. But there are people coming afterward. God sees the future. He is calling us in another direction from the way this new constitution is proposed; and what I ask for is that we shall keep our eyes and our steps and our faces in that direction, and not turn back to Egypt and Babylon, which this testimony points out. Think of it, on the road toward a kingly power, "confused in itself," kingly power in the church!

That testimony that came to us from the Lord, that called us away from the other thing, and made our present constitution, and called us to better things, as it tended again to the Papacy and to Babylon, and, if it went on, it would come to nothing. We don't want to go in that direction. We don't want to take any step that will make it possible to go in that direction. "The Lord knows the future. He is the One to lead, and trusted in to guide, to guard, and direct in the future development of the various branches of His work. For several years I have been warned that there is danger, constant danger, of men looking to men for permission to do this or that, instead of looking to God for themselves." And when you make it so that it is impossible for them to do that, without going clear out of their way, then we are in the right direction; and when you make it so that it is possible for them to come and grow up this way, we are started in the wrong direction. Thus they become weaklings, bound about with human ties that God has not ordained.

"The Lord can impress minds and consciences to do His work under bonds to God, and in a brotherly fraternity that will be in accordance with His laws." "Each institution is to stand in its own responsibility." Then why is not each phase of the work, the medical missionary work, the educational work, the publishing work, to stand in its own individual responsibility, and all be unified under bonds to God in a brotherly fraternity that will be in accordance with His law?

"They will increase in strength and influence if they follow the light God has given ... It is best for every sanitarium to stand in its own responsibility." Other things are included in the next paragraph: "The kingly power formerly exhibited in the General Conference is not to be perpetuated." Then we cannot afford to have a constitution that looks toward or makes it possible for that to be done by mistake. The principle, we are told, is wrong. Not that the men are willfully wicked at all. They are our brethren; but we have had that twice repeated, and God calls us away from it. I do not want to risk it a third time, even with one of my brethren.

"The kingly power formerly exhibited in the General Conference is not to be perpetuated. The publishing work is not to be a kingdom in itself. It is essential that the principles that govern the General Conference affairs should be maintained in the management of the publishing work and the sanitarium work."

Very good. What are the principles of the sanitarium work?That each institution, each part of it, shall stand upon its own individual responsibility, under bonds to God alone, and all working together in a brotherly fraternity, according to God's law.

This present constitution organized us in departments, and that same principle, carried back through medical missionary work to General Conference affairs, says that each department shall stand upon its own responsibility, and they will be coordinate branches, departments, each one carrying on the work that God has given to it, and that has been distributed to it; and that is working together in a brotherly fraternity that will be according to God's law. And there will be more unity; there will be more harmony; there will be more good cheer; and there will be infinitely more work done in that way than ever has been done or ever can be done by this other method.

If that constitution had been followed strictly in the spirit, and as it was intended, and as these principles call for, we would have been far more than two years, I say, we would be far ahead of where we are to-day.

Now the question was asked a while ago: What is the committee for? What is its work? Its work is to work, and not try to boss somebody else that is at work, whether conference committee, Union Conference Committee, General Conference Committee, or what not, and not try to superintend somebody else at work, but to work, so that, when the committee meets, we meet as a committee; state conference, we meet as a committee. We study the work; each one comes in from his field, and in committee he reports the conditions in his field, reports the needs of that field, and then all report. We study it together, and discuss it together,-our own work, and not somebody's else. Then, when the committee is adjourned, we go out to carry on our own work, and not try to see whether somebody else is doing his work right. And when one of the committee men out in the field meets a crisis, he does not sit down and write up to somebody at headquarters, and ask him what he shall do. He calls in responsible men in that place, in that community, who are upon the ground, and counsels with them, brings them into the work, and gets them interested in the work, and carries on the work there with the men who are there.

Now I am not talking at random. In my ignorance I thought that this constitution meant what these principles of organization called us unto, and because of that ignorance, and being brought into conference work over here. I did not know any better than to go ahead and do my best to carry them out. And, whatever you may think, whatever credit anybody may be ready to give to anything that has been done in California for spreading abroad the work in other fields, please give the credit to the principles contained in that document; for I have used it from the first day that I began official work in this conference two years ago. The first thing I did was to get together the people and read to them that. Then, just as soon as possible, we got all the workers in the conference together, and held a convention of five weeks, and I read that to them. Then we made it our study, and the guide in our work, in our councils, in committees; and in that convention we took up the conference work first, and the educational work, and the medical missionary work, and the business affairs of the conference, all the business of the institutions in the conference; and we all studied it together.

Now there is a defect, that which Brother Cady asked for in the educational work, that the educators should meet and consider all together the work to be carried on in the educational line. That is good, if we cannot get anything better; but it is far better to have the conference workers, and the medical missionary department, and the publishing department meet with the educational department, and to have all the departments meet together, and study the educational work, and then study the medical missionary work and the publishing work-all to work together. Then, when they separate, all can work together, though they be ten thousand miles apart.

This is the principle of this document I hold before you, and we read and studied over and over, and this it is that has given to us the success we have had in the work in California.

Some one may say, "Are you not the president of the California Conference?" Yes, and No, too.

Allen Moon: How many of the presidents of conferences have ever had that document in their hands?

A. T. Jones: Probably you can all answer, possibly none. I do not know, but in the providence of God I had it in my hands, and so have used it all the time.

Allen Moon: I never saw it or heard it before.

A. T. Jones: It was spoken there. It is not for me or the committee to publish it. It was for the author of it to publish it, and so we cannot lay any blame to anybody for that.

Now, brethren, these are some of the things wherein the present constitution is better than the one that is proposed; only give it a chance. And by two years' practise, by two years' application of it, by two years' study of it, I can certify, and so can the brethren in this conference, so can the college brethren, the sanitarium brethren, all can certify that it is a splendid success, if you will only give it a chance. That is why I would be with the minority of the committee not to sweep that constitution clear out of the way before it has had any adequate chance to have a place and be put in operation throughout the field in General Conference work.

W. C. White: You have your treasurer. He is a man who handles from half a million to a million dollars a year. He gets money from all over the United States and the world; and I feel that that man should be selected by the people, and not by the Conference Committee of twenty-five. And with reference to chairman: I believe whether you call him president, or call him chairman, it matters not to me, but I do believe that it is consistent for the whole delegation to select that man. Now in the reorganization two years ago, I will say that at that time I did not advocate this principle, or this policy, or this proposition, that the chairman should be selected by the committee. I know some brethren have brought this up now within a day or two, that that was my proposition, but that was not. You may read the "Bulletin" through, and you will find it was not my position at all. I was occupying the chair when the proposition was brought up. A statement was read, just as Brother Jones read here today: "It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference." I never had read that, and did not know the connection. I made no argument that was against it, but as soon as I could find the statement I read all that pertains to it, all that the article deals with, and I want to read a little more of it here to you this afternoon:

"It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference. The work"[now, why?]"the work of the General Conference has extended, and some things have been made unnecessarily complicated. A want of discernment has been shown. There should be a division of the field, or some other plan should be devised, to change the present order of things. The president of the General Conference should have the privilege of deciding who shall stand by his side as counselors-" That statement follows the one above. Now, I judge from that that the thought is that there will be a president of General Conference, but that the field will be divided up so that he will not have the large burden of details that have been failing upon him. That is the thought I got from it. Then it goes on and tells of his work, and how it should be, and lays it out; and then it goes further:

"I have the word of the Lord that presidents of conferences,"state conferences; and taking it all the way through, so far as I can see, it recognizes all the principles of organization that this people adopted away back forty years ago. And as I understand it, the instruction was to decentralize responsibilities and details, and place them in the hands of a larger number of men. Now, in our work of reorganization, this is just what we have endeavored to do. Instead of having the details of General Conference organization centering at Battle Creek, we have been trying all the year to push them out, back on to the Union and local conferences, where they belong, and to put departmental work in the hands of committees especially appointed for that purpose. And so the General Conference has practically become an advisory mission board. I believe that it is just as natural as the rising of the sun, and I see no violation of these principles. If I could see it, I am sure, as my heart feels, I would rise up against it.

Now, since this question has come up, I have been reading somewhat in the instruction that is given to this people regarding organization. And, as far as I can see, the line we have been moving on in this work of reorganization is in perfect harmony with the principles of organization brought out forty years ago. And I still say further, brethren, I do not see that the general idea of organization and reorganization of two years ago set aside, or set at naught, one principle of organization that was given to this people years ago. It did undo some of the complications that came in, because we failed to adjust our affairs as our work grew. But the principles are left intact. Now, here I read: "With Seventh-day Adventists organization was not so much a matter of choice as of necessity. It was first entered into very cautiously, by some, and reluctantly by others. And as numbers have increased, and missionary fields have opened before us, we have all come to prize our simple, and, to human view, complete organization... The permanency of the cause and united effort of all our people to push the work forward, depend upon the establishment and maintenance of order. And this can not be done without proper organization. But organization exists only in form when the offices of such organization are trampled underfoot. Our General Conference is the highest earthly authority with our people, and is designed to take charge of the entire work in this and other countries." Thus, away back there, at the very beginning, the idea was that the General Conference should be a mission board primarily, that should take charge of the work in all countries. Again I read:

"Evil does not result from organization but because of making organization everything, and vital godliness of little moment. When form and machinery take the preeminence, and a laborious task is made of carrying on the work that should be done in simplicity, evil will result, and little will be accomplished in proportion to the effort put forth. The object of organization is just the reverse of this; and should we disorganize, it would be like tearing down that we build up." "The system of organization has proved grand success. Systematic benevolence was entered into according to the Bible plan. The body has been compacted by that which every joint supplieth. As we have advanced, our system of organization has still proved effectual. In some parts of the work, it is true, the machinery has been made too complicated."

Now, two years ago we endeavored to simplify the machinery, and to leave out some of the parts, just in harmony with this statement here and the instruction that came to us; but it did not do away with any of the vital features, or overthrow any of the real principles of organization that we have.

"The business of our Conference sessions has sometimes been burdened down with propositions and resolutions that were not at all essential."

Now, that is a thing that the conferences must remember. When our General Conference becomes the Mission Board, they are not to keep dragging into the General Conference details of business that belong to our Union Conferences. So we will reform according to this instruction:

"Let none entertain the thought, however, that we can dispense with organization. It has cost us much study, and many prayers for wisdom."

[Later in that meeting...]

The Chairman: On what particular point are you speaking at present?

K A. Sutherland: On the representatives.

The Chair. Very well; if you confine yourself to the question of the representatives, it is all right.

E. A. Sutherland: When the question was up two years ago of six representatives from the Medical Missionary Board being on the General Conference Committee, Sister White, in her talk on that subject, twice stated that she was heartily in favor of Resolution 7. You will find it in the "General Conference Bulletin." Some of the brethren questioned it, and she stated twice that she was in favor of that particular resolution.

Delegates: Six members of what?

E. A. Sutherland: In the "General Conference Bulletin" of 1901, page 201 of the proceedings, when the report was brought in concerning the General Conference Committee, how it should be made up, the following was presented as Recommendation 7. "That the General Conference Committee consist of twenty-five members, six of whom are to be chosen by the Medical Missionary Association and nineteen by the General Conference."

Different brethren spoke on this, among them brother Prescott and brother W. C. White, and then Sister White talked. Her remarks are to be found on pages 202- 205 of the "Bulletin." She says: "I am ready to say to you today that I am in harmony with this resolution. Many who have been more or less out of line since the Minneapolis meeting will be brought into line. God will help those who love the truth, who give themselves, heart and mind and strength to Him. "A little later on in the same talk, she said, "I am fully in favor of this resolution, because I know that medical missionary work is the gospel in practise, and, as the Lord has declared, is never, never to be separated from the gospel ministry."

Another point on Section 2: I notice that the Foreign Mission Department is not mentioned; and I should understand, from what has been said, that this plan would mean that the General Conference is practically to be the Foreign Mission Department. Is that true? (Delegates: Yes.) This is what I understand. The chairman of the General Conference stated in his report that, since the General Conference had been broken up and the responsibility had been distributed, there was very little else for the General Conference to do. And I remember, two years ago, the plan was that the General Conference Committee should be advisory, and not executive.

It seems to me that the Foreign Mission Board has practically swallowed up the General Conference Committee, and the chairman of the Foreign Mission Board, or the president, has an advantage over any other department of the work. It gives the one in charge of the Foreign Mission Department an opportunity to work the territory and to turn means into the channel in which he is especially interested. So that other departments will suffer. And during the last two years this thing has been done. The chairman of the General Conference Committee has been chairman of the Foreign Mission Board. He is intensely interested in the foreign mission work; God has put that burden upon him. But mistakes have been made in swinging everything so heavily toward the foreign mission work that other departments of work have suffered; and I know that what I am saying is true. Because we have been told this.

Now it seems to me that you are laying down a plan that will work great harm. If this plan should be followed, and a man should be appointed as president of the General Conference who was altogether in favor of medical missionary work, then he would take the General Conference Committee, and use it for that work. Other departments would suffer. I believe the General Conference should have an interest in all departments, but should not be worked for any one department, because injury will be done the other departments.

There is just one thing more that I desire to bring before you: The testimony has come to us telling us that the work of reorganization that began two years ago was correct: that the trouble has been in men not humbling themselves, and in not carrying out that work as it should have been carried out. The reorganization, as begun, was correct. And it has been stated several times that the plan that was laid for the General Conference work has not been fully carried out. I believe, brethren, the thing to do is to go back where we were two years ago in the matter of reorganization, and take it up, and carry it out, and give it a fair trial, because those who have been in the responsible places have admitted that they did not carry out the letter of that, because they did not believe that it was possible. I believe that it is possible.

G. B. Thompson: I rise to protest against one thing that seems to be coming in, and that is to clothe this old constitution with inspiration. I do not believe that this old constitution is inspired because God called for reorganization two years ago. Neither am I prepared to accept the alleged fact that this constitution is an exponent of the principles that were laid down two years ago. I have noticed that that has crept into a good many speeches; and we are left with the proposition before us that, unless you vote for the old constitution, you are going back on inspiration. I do not believe we ought to place it in that way before the delegates.

I want to call attention to the fact, and that is this, that in the old constitution the very things that are clamored for here are not brought out. In this section, where it says there are twenty-five men to be chosen. It does not say that a single one of them shall be from this or that department; it simply states that there should be twenty-five men chosen. And the proposed constitution says that all these branches of the work shall be represented.

It seems to me that if either of them is an advanced step on the plan of reorganization, the proposed constitution is nearer than the other.

W. C. White: I am thankful brethren for the opportunity that these discussions give to consider facts and principles. The last speaker but one asked some questions which we may refer to later on. But I understand the most important point brought out by him, in my estimation, was the idea that the missionary work for this people is a departmental work, coordinate, or standing alongside of other departmental work.

Now, brethren, is it not a fact that our one and only commission is to go and preach to all nations? And the medical work is the right arm; the educational may be the left arm; the publishing work may be one of the legs; I do not know. I would not attempt to go into anatomy. But these departments are limbs. The body itself is the missionary work. (General Conference Bulletin 1903, pp. 149-155,160,169.)