But the Scriptures have placed the identity of antichrist beyond either guesswork or confusion. The Bible has clearly named the guilty one. John says that he denies that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." 2 John 7. Let this be the first mark of antichrist by which his identity will be placed beyond dispute. The verse does not say that antichrist denies that Jesus is come, but that he denies "He is come in the flesh." Far from denying the existence of Christ, the text suggests that antichrist teaches that Christ has come but teaches a doctrine about His coming which denies that "He is come in the flesh." If the Catholic Church is guilty, as the Protestant Reformers claimed her to be, then her teaching concerning the nature of Jesus in His incarnation into this world as a babe will reveal it. Let us examine that teaching in the light of the text before us.

The Bible teaches that Jesus was born into the world through Mary, who was a direct descendent of Adam. By inheritance she partook of Adam's nature. Adam's nature was mortal and subject to death as a result of the transgression of God's will in Eden. His flesh was by nature that of the "children of Wrath." Mary partook of this nature in all its aspects. She was a representative of the whole human race, and in no way different from others descended from Adam's line. She was "favoured among women" only because she was the one chosen of God through whom the "mystery of godliness was to be made manifest," and through whom Jesus was to be incarnated into the fleshly state of Adam's race. It was God's purpose that through a divine miracle Jesus should be brought from heaven, where He had been one with the Father in the Godhead, to be born into the human family, there to partake of all the temptations to which Adam's race is subject. This was possible only as He would partake of the nature of Adam's race. Of this Paul says, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.... Wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren." Hebrews 2:14-17.

If further evidence were needed the same writer supplied it. In 1 Timothy 3:16 he records: "Great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh." Here, he says, is the mystery of godliness, the ability of Jesus to come from heaven, suffer Himself to be manifest in human flesh, and yet to live sinlessly.

This latter fact antichrist was to deny. He was to deny that Jesus came in a divine manifestation which brought Him in all phases of His nature to partake of the weakness of Adam's race. He would deny that Jesus came "in the flesh," the same flesh as that of mortal men. On this first count, the denial that Jesus "is come in the flesh," the Catholic Church stands convicted of guilt and thus is identified by the marks of antichrist. Through the teaching of the "Immaculate Conception of Mary," that she was preserved from all original sin, they in theory provide "different flesh" from that of the rest of Adam's race to be the avenue through which Jesus was incarnated into the plan of salvation. To state their teaching with authority, it will be best to quote our evidence from Catholic authors.

Our first proof will be from the pen of Cardinal Gibbons in his book, Faith of our Fathers, pages 203, 204. He says: "We define that the blessed Virgin Mary in the first moment of her conception ... was preserved free from the taint of original sin. Unlike the rest of the children of Adam, the soul of Mary was never subject to sin."

Cardinal Gibbons has here clearly stated the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary. It is a teaching not taught in the Bible, but which has been introduced by Catholic teachers who claim to have authority even above that of the Scriptures, in matters of doctrine.

Here I would ask my readers, both Protestant and Catholic, to ponder carefully what this teaching does to the gospel plan. It means that if Mary was born without sin and was preserved from sin for the express purpose of bringing Jesus into the world, then Jesus was born of holy flesh, which was different from that of the rest of Adam's race. This means that He did not take upon Himself our kind of flesh and blood, and in His incarnation did not identify Himself with humanity. It means, too, that He was not tempted "in all points" as we were. It means that Paul was all wrong when he wrote the Book of Hebrews in which he declares that Jesus "also Himself likewise took part of the same" flesh as the rest of Adam's race, that "in all things" He was made "like unto His brethren" Hebrews 2:14, 17.

But above all this, if the Catholic teaching is true, then Jesus, not having come within reach of humanity by partaking of man's nature, cannot be the "one mediator between God and men." Nor can we "come boldly unto the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need" Hebrews 4:16. All this plays conveniently into the hands of the Catholic plan of salvation. It opens wide the door for the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the respective "saints," who form part of the papal mediatorial system. And moreover, it places in the hands of the priesthood the power to usurp authority which God in the Scriptures has never delegated to them- that of being controllers of the approaches to the throne of mercy.

At this stage of our review of the subject of antichrist, I believe all fairminded people will acknowledge that if the Papacy is not the antichrist it has been singularly unfortunate in being so like the scriptural description of him. In the papal claim that Jesus was born of one who had been "preserved from every taint of original sin" and who "unlike the rest of the children of Adam ... was never subject to sin," we find the first mark of antichrist indelibly implanted. The Papacy certainly teaches that Jesus Christ did "not come in the flesh."

Then came the General Conference at Battle Creek. According to the arrangements I was to report the proceedings of the Conference; and according to the arrangements, Brothers Prescott and Waggoner were not expected evidently to have even that much to do. But before the Conference actually assembled in session, there occurred that meeting in the Library room of the College Building, in which Sister White spoke on General Conference matters and organization, declaring that there must be "an entire new organization and to have a Committee that shall take in not merely half a dozen that is to be a ruling and controlling power, but it is to have representatives of those that are placed in responsibility in our educational interests, in our Sanitariums, etc., that there should be a renovation without delay. To have this Conference pass on and close up as the Conferences have done, with the same manipulating, with the very same tone, and the same order-God forbid! God forbid, brethren.... And until this come we might just as well close up the Conference today as any other day.... This thing has been continued for the last fifteen years or more, [1901 minus 15 takes us back to 1886], and God calls for a change.

"God wants a change, and it is high time-it is high time that there was ability that should connect with the Conference, with the General Conference right here in this city. Not wait until it is done and over with, and then gather up the forces and see what can be done. We want to know what can be done right now. "From the light that I have, as it was presented to me in figures. There was a narrow compass here; there within that narrow compass is a king-like, a kingly ruling power. God means what He says and He says, "I want a change here."

"Will it be the same thing? Going over and over the same ideas, the same committees-and here is the little throne-the king is in there, and these others are all secondary. God wants those committees that have been handling things for so long should be relieved of their command and have a chance for their life and see if they cannot get out of this rut that they are in-which I have no hope of their getting out of, because the Spirit of God has been working and working, and yet the king is in there still. Now the Lord wants His Spirit to come in. He wants the Holy Ghost King.

"From the light that I have had for some time, and has been expressed, over and over again, not to all that are here, but has been expressed to individuals-the plan, that God would have all to work from, that never should one mind, or two minds or three minds, nor 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 one or two or three in regard to this broad field that we have.

"And all the work all over our field demands an entirely different course of action than we have had; that there needs the laying of a foundation that is different from what we have had. ... In all these countries, far, and near, He wants to be an arousing, broadening, enlarging power. And a management which is getting confused in itself-not that anyone is wrong or means to be wrong, but the principle is wrong, and the principles have become so mixed and so fallen from what God's principles are.

"These things have been told, and this stand-still has got to come to an end. But yet every Conference has woven after the same pattern, it is the very same loom that carries it, and finally it will come to nought."

She declared that God wants us to take hold of this work, every human agency. Each one is to act in their capacity in such a way that the confidence of the whole people will be established in them and that they will not be afraid, but see everything just as light as day until they are in connection with the work of God and the whole people.... All the provision was made in heaven, all the facilities, all the riches of the grace of God was imparted to every worker that was connected with the cause, and every one of these are wholly dependent upon God. And when we leave God out of the question, and allow hereditary and cultivated traits of character to come in, let me tell you, we are on very slippery ground.

God hath His servants-His church, established in the earth, composed of many members, but of one body; that in every part of the work one part must work as connected with another part, and that with another part, and with another part, and these are joined together by the golden links of heaven and there is to be no kings in the midst of all. There is to be no man that has the right to put his hand out and say: No you can not go there. We won't support you if you go there. Why, what have you to do with the supporting? Did you create the means? The means comes from the people. And those who are in destitute fields-the voice of God has told me to instruct them to go to the people and tell them their necessities, and to draw all the people to work just where they can find a place to work, to build up the work in every place they can.

Upon that instruction and much more to the same effect in that talk you and Brother Prescott and others took hold of the matter pertaining to the then pending General Conference [1901], set aside entirely the old order of things, and started it new. At the opening of the General Conference, April 2, Sister White spoke briefly to the same effect as in the College Building the day before. Brother Irwin followed with a few words; and then you spoke a few words and introduced a motion that the usual rules and precedents for arranging and transacting the business of the Conference be suspended, and the General Committee be hereby appointed ... to constitute a general or central committee, which shall do such work as necessarily must be done in providing the work of the Conference, and preparing the business to bring before the delegates. Thus the new order of things was started.

The night of that very first day of the Conference, I was appointed to preach the sermon. Since I had been appointed to report the proceedings I expected to have no preaching or other work to do. Therefore when I was called to preach that one time during the conference, and have me do it at the beginning, so that I could go on afterwards unmolested with the reporting. I spoke on Church Organization. When that meeting was over, I supposed that my preaching during the Conference was done. Therefore, I was surprised when only two days afterwards-April 4, you came to me at the reporter's table and said we want you to preach tonight! I said I supposed that my preaching was over, since I have the reporting to do. I can not do this and preach often. You said to me, "You have light for the people, and we want them to have it." I consented and preached again on the subject of Church Organization, developing the subject further, and on the same principles precisely as on the night of April 2.

In that Conference [1901] the General Conference was started toward the called-for-reorganization. All understood that the call was away from a centralized order of things in which one man or two men or three or four men or a few men held the ruling and directing power, to an organization in which, all the people as individuals should have a part, with God, in Christ, by the Holy Spirit as the unifying, and directing power. Indeed, the day before my second sermon on organization, Sister White had said, April 3, we want to understand that there are no gods in our Conference. There are to be no kings here, and no kings in any Conference that is formed, "All ye are brethren."

"The Lord wants to bind those at this Conference heart to heart. No man is to say I am a god, and you must do as I say. From the beginning to the end this is wrong. There is to be an individual work. God says, "Let him take hold of My strength that he may make peace with Me and he shall make peace with Me."

"Remember that God can give wisdom to those who handle His work. It is not necessary to send thousands of miles to Battle Creek for advice, and then have to wait weeks before an answer can be received. Those who are right on the ground are to decide what shall be done. You know what you have to wrestle with, but those who are thousands of miles away do not know." Bulletin 1901, pp 69, 70. And on the very day of my second sermon, April 4, she said in a talk at 9:00 a.m., this meeting will determine the character of our work in the future. How important that every step shall be taken under the supervision of God! This work must be carried in a very different manner to what it has been in the past years-Bulletin 1901, p. 83.

In this understanding an entire new Constitution was adopted; and that such was the understanding in adopting this Constitution is plainly shown in the discussions. Under this Constitution the General Conference Committee was composed of a large number of men, with power to organize itself by choosing a chairman etc. No president of the General Conference was chosen; nor was provided for. The presidency of the General Conference was eliminated to escape a centralized power, a one-man power, a kingship, a monarchy. The Constitution was framed and adopted to that end in accordance with the whole guiding thought in the Conference from the beginning in that room in the College Building.

Shortly after the Conference ended, you suggested during the meeting at Indianapolis that my sermon on organization ought to be printed in a leaflet so that our people everywhere could have it for study in the work of reorganization. Your suggestion was agreed to and I was directed to prepare it for printing. I did so and it was printed at General Conference direction in Words of Truth Series No. 31, Extra May 1901.

Now after all this, it was not long before the whole spirit and principle of the General Conference Organization and affairs began to be reversed again. This spirit of reaction became so rife and so rank that some before the General Conference of 1903 at Oakland, Calif., two men, or three men, or four men, or a few men I should say, being together in Battle Creek or somewhere else, and without any kind of authority, but directly against the plain words of the Constitution, took it absolutely upon themselves to elect you president, and Brother Prescott vice-president of the General Conference. And than that there never was in this universe a clearer piece of usurpation of position, power and authority. You two were then of right, just as much president and vice-president of Timbuktu as you were of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference.

But this spirit did not stop even there. The thing was done directly against the Constitution. This was too plain to be escaped. And it was just as plain that with that Constitution still perpetuated in the coming General Conference, this usurpation of position, power, and authority could not be perpetuated. What could be done to preserve the usurpation- Oh, that was just as easy as the other. A new Constitution was framed to fit and to uphold the usurpation. This Constitution was carried to the General Conference of 1903 at Oakland, Calif., and in every unconstitutional way, because in every truly constitutional government the constitution comes in some way from the people, not from the monarch. Thus the people make and establish a Constitution. The monarch grants a Constitution. When the people make a Constitution the people govern. When a monarch grants a Constitution he seeks to please the people with a toy and keeps the government himself. This difference is the sole difficulty in Russia to-day; and the difference is simply the difference between monarchy and government of the people; and between oppression and freedom. The people want to make a Constitution. The Czar wants to grant them a Constitution, and have them endorse anew his autocracy and bureaucracy by adopting the Constitution that he grants.

And this is just the difference between the General Conference and its Constitution of 1901 and the General Conference and its Constitution of 1903. In 1901 the monarchy was swept aside completely, and the Conference itself as such and as a whole made a new Constitution. In the General conference of 1903 the usurpers of monarchial position and authority came with the Constitution that fitted and maintained their usurpation, and succeeded in getting it adopted. And how?- None of the people had asked for a new Constitution. The General Conference delegation asked for it. In behalf of the usurpation it was brought before that Committee and advocated there, because, in very words, "The Church must have a visible head." It was not even then nor was it ever, favored by that Committee. It was put through the Committee, and reported to the Conference, only by permanently dividing the Committee,- a minority, of the Committee, opposing it all the time, and-a thing almost unheard of in Seventh-day Adventist Conferences, a minority report against it. And when at last it was adopted by the final vote, it was by a slim majority of just five. And it was only by the carelessness of some of the delegates that it got through even that way; for there were just then downstairs in the Oakland Church enough delegates who were opposed to it, to have defeated it if they had been present. They told this themselves afterwards. But they did not know that the vote was being taken, and by their not being in their places, the usurpation was sanctioned; the reactionary spirit that had been so long working for absolute control had got it; the principles and intent of the General Conference of 1901 was reversed; and a Czardom was enthroned which has since gone steadily onward in the same way and has with perfect consistency built up a thorough bureaucratic government, by which it reaches and meddles with, and manipulates, the affairs of all, not only of the union and local conferences, but of local churches, and of individual persons. So that some of the oldest men in active service to-day, and who by their life experiences are best qualified to know, have freely said that in the whole history of the denomination there has never been such a one-man power, such a centralized despotism, so much of the Papacy, as there has been since the Oakland Conference [of 1903]. And as a part of this bureaucracy there is, of all the incongruous things ever heard of, a Religious Liberty Bureau-a contradiction in terms.

Now when I was opposed to this thing before and in the General Conference of 1897, and before and in the General Conference of 1899, and before and in the General Conference of 1901, and before and in the General Conference of 1903, why should you be perplexed that I have not fallen in with it and helped to make it a success since 1903? Why should I in 1903, abandon all the principles and teachings by which I was right in opposing it, until and including 1903, when I was in the right all these years in opposing it and doing all that I could to keep it from succeeding, Why and upon what principles should I have swung in and favoured it just because at last in a most arbitrary, unconstitutional and usurping way it did at last succeed?

Again in the General Conference of 1901 you yourself said that in the principles of organization that I preached I had "light for the people." Those principles were the ones that prevailed in that Conference; and at your own suggestion these principles as preached in my first sermon, were published for the help of the denomination in the work of reorganization. But the principles and the form of organization of 1903 were directly the opposite of this that in 1901 you said were "light for the people." If my second sermon in the General Conference of 1901 had been printed along with the first, the people would have been able to see more plainly how entirely the course of things in 1903 was the reverse of that in 1901. And anyone can see it now by reading The General Conference Bulletin of 1901, pp. 37-42, and pp. 101105.

Now brother, were those principles light in 1901? If so, then what did you do when you exposed the opposite of them in 1902, 1903? Or were those principles light in 1901, and darkness in 1903? Or were those principles really darkness in 1901 when you said that they were light. Or are they still light today as they were in 1901? And if in the General Conference of 1901 you were not able to distinguish between light and darkness what surety has anybody that you were any more able to do it in 1902-1903? Or is it possible that in 1902-1903 you were not, and now are not, able to see that the principles and the course of action of 1902- 1903 are not the same as those of the General Conference of 1901? In other words, is it possible that you can think that certain principles with their course of action, and the reverse of them are one and the same? I know that the principles that in 1901 you said were "light for the people" were then really light, and that they are now light and forever more will be light. They are only plain principles of the Word of God. I hold these principles today exactly as I did in 1901 and long before, and shall hold them forever. For this cause I was opposed to the usurpation and unconstitutional action of 1902-1903 that were the opposite of these principles; and shall always be opposed to them.,

In view of all these facts again I ask, Why should you think that I should abandon all, just because you and some others did? I think that it was enough for me to keep still these three years. It is true that I have had no disposition to do anything but keep still about it. For when the General Conference of 1903 made their choice that way, I have no disposition to oppose it in any other way than by preaching the gospel. Indeed the strongest possible opposition that can be made to it is the plain, simple preaching of the plain gospel. There is this about it, however, that now the plain simple preaching of the plain gospel will be considered disloyal to the General Conference, disloyal to the organization, etc. Nevertheless, I am going to continue to preach the plain gospel, and that gospel is in the Word of God. For when the General Conference and the organized work put themselves in such a position that the plain preaching of the gospel as in the Word of God is disloyalty to the General Conference and the "organized work," then the thing to do is to preach the gospel, as it is in the Word of God....

In 1901 the General Conference was turned away from a centralized power; a one man or two men, or three men, or four men, or a few men power, a kingship, a monarchy; because the instructions was in very words, the principle is wrong. It will not do to say that in 1902-1903 circumstances had changed. For whatever change may ever occur in circumstances, principles never change.

I stated that the present order of the General Conference affairs is a thoroughly bureaucratic government. Not every section of it is called a bureau; but that is what in practice every section is, whatever it may be called; and the title of the Religious Liberty Bureau is expressive of the whole.

I stated that the phrase "Religious Liberty Bureau" is a contradiction in terms, on every principle that is the truth. There are many words of our language that are the result and expression of invariable human experience through ages.

The result of human experience through ages has in certain things been so invariable that a word tells it, and tells it so truly, when that word is used, that a certain order of things is described; and when that word is espoused, then we have in certainty the situation and order of things which the word expresses. Bureaucracy-Government by bureaus-is one of these words: and the definition, which is but the expression of ages of invariable experience is as follows:

"Bureaucracy: Government by bureaus: specifically, excessive multiplication of, and concentration of power in, administrative bureaus. The principle of bureaucracy tends to official interference in many of the properly private affairs of life, and to the inefficient and obtrusive performance of duty through minute subdivisions of functions, inflexible formality, and pride of place." Century Dictionary.

"A bureaucracy is sure to think that its duty is to augment official power, official business, or official numbers, rather than to leave free the energies of mankind."-Standard Dictionary.