Organization-No. 8 by A. G. Daniells

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 21, 1907

Organization—No. 8

By A. G. Daniells

A Brief Account of Its History in the Development of the Cause of the Third Angel’s Message

In tracing the proceedings of the Council held in Battle Creek the latter part of September, 1860, in the interests of denominational organization, we have shown that an agreement was reached that the churches should be advised to organize, that a legal corporation should be organized to hold the Review Office and manage its affairs, and that a committee was appointed to form the corporation, and to act as the first trustees.

This having been done, the next step to be taken was to choose a name by which we as a people should be known. The report of the proceedings of this council as printed in the REVIEW AND HERALD tells just how this was done. This is the original report of those proceedings, and, so far as I know, it has never been reprinted since it appeared in the REVIEW in 1860. Believing that thousands of our people will at this time be interested to know just how the name we bear was suggested, discussed, and agreed upon, I shall venture to give the full report just as it was prepared for publication by Uriah Smith, the secretary of the conference.

It should be understood that there had existed a great deal of confusion and prejudice in the minds of our people regarding the use of a church or denominational name. The first, and strongest, and most oft-repeated objection to the proposal in behalf of organization was that this would lead to the taking of a name. The fear and prejudice of many at that time is revealed by a letter written by a brother to the editor of the REVIEW, requesting that his paper be discontinued, and giving the following as his reason:— Brother White has taken such a position about organizing churches, and also of making us a name, that I see no consistency in his former position. I do not wish to point out his former position, for all the brethren know what that was. I must say that a good many in this church have lost a great deal of interest in reading the REVIEW, as well as myself.—Review and Herald, Vol. XVI, page 148.

It will be remembered that the Council had adopted Elder Loughborough’s resolution advising church organization. It appears that after this was done, and after adopting plans for organizing an association to hold the Review and Herald property and manage the affairs of the Office, there still lingered in the minds of some of the brethren at the Council so much fear and uncertainty regarding the advisability of what was being done, that it was agreed to rescind the vote recommending the organization of churches. It was at this point in the proceedings of the Council that the discussion began regarding the name that should be chosen. The report of this discussion reads as follows:—

Brother [J. H.] Waggoner: “I have a matter of business as I stated last evening to bring before the conference. The vote of recommendation adopted by yesterday morning’s session was not unanimous; I therefore move that it be rescinded.” Carried.

Brother [E.] Brackett: “I now move that we adopt a name, as we must have a name if we are to organize so as to hold property legally.” Seconded.

Brother [E. A.] Poole: “The reason I should have against the adoption of a general name by the body is, that our influence would be hurt as a people; and our object would be likely to be to advance our denomination among the denominations, and not to advance the cause of truth.”

Brother [J. B.] Frisbie: “I have been opposed to a sectarian name; but to having a variety of names among us, I am equally opposed. There seems to be a necessity for a uniformity.”

Brother [Moses] Hull: “If we could have the churches designated by their locality I should like it better, or, as the church worshiping on the seventh day in such and such places.”

Brother [James] White: “This is a point in which I am extremely interested. I do not see how we can get along without some name. If we do not take one, we shall have a variety applied to us. And it is not possible for us to hold property without a name. The law specifies upon this point. As to being reckoned a part of Babylon, I have preached considerable about Babylon, but never found any fault with them because they have a name. I see nothing unscriptural in their having a name. But it is objected that we shall be classed among the denominations. We are classed with them already, and I do not know that we can prevent it, unless we disband and scatter, and give up the thing altogether.”

Brother [M. E.] Cornell: “There are three churches in Iowa, waiting to go forward immediately to build meeting-houses; but they are waiting the action

of this conference. Something should be done; it is expected. When the brethren speak of our going into Babylon because of the name, it seems to me they lose sight of the aid and assistance that God has given us as a people. The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, is a distinguishing feature between us and the other denominations; and so sure as they are Babylon, and in the enemy’s hand, the enemy will stir them up to war against us. It looks to me too that the gifts of the church are lost sight of, and are not held in so important a light as they should be, if we give way to so much fear of our becoming Babylon merely by adopting a name. There is confusion in the names already chosen; and if something is not done here, churches will go on choosing different names still. A general name will bring us into unity and not confusion.”

Brother [T. J.] Butler: “The objections which formerly had weight upon my mind, do not now have the weight they had. I think they may be surmounted. What do we profess to be here? Is it not a fact that we profess to be, and are striving to be, that lively material that the apostle speaks of, striving to be built up a holy temple, etc.? This being the fact, what does the Lord himself, the great Framer and Deviser of this building, declare it to be? This same building is declared to be the church of God. If God has named us as parents have a right to name their children, does it not denote a lack of modesty to try to slip out and take no name, or another?”

The discussion on this subject was prolonged till eleven o’clock, when it was voted to adjourn one hour.

Meeting opened by prayer by Brother White and the Chairman. The question was again brought before the meeting, “Shall we adopt some name?” Some who had previously been averse to such a step, here signified their change of opinion, and their readiness to co-operate with their brethren in this course.

Brother [C. W.] Sperry: “It looks to me that it is perfectly right and pleasing to the Lord, if we are not in harmony on this subject, to talk the matter over in the Spirit of the Lord. I have this confidence in the Spirit of the Lord that it will lead us into the same mind and judgment. And these brethren who can see the matter clearly, are prepared to enlighten us who can not see it so plainly. I believe that when we touch the right thing, and move in harmony with the Spirit of God, his blessing will follow our action. My mind was enlightened somewhat this forenoon in regard to it. My prejudices have been great; but in order to get light, I wish to lay my prejudices on the subject on the altar. I hope we shall not be hasty in the matter, but help each other on these points as we did last night. I believe God will give wisdom. I understand that at some time God’s people will have a name; for John saw them having their Father’s name on their foreheads.”

Brother [S. T.] Belden: “Going without a name, would, in my opinion, be like publishing books without titles, or sending out a paper without a heading.”

Brother White followed with remarks apologizing for some of his brethren who seemed to be afraid of a name. He had been in the same position once. In times past when we were comparatively few, he did not see the necessity of any such steps. But now large bodies of intelligent brethren are being raised up, and without some regulation of this kind will be thrown into confusion. He then gave a review of the past, mentioning the opposition which had been manifested by some all the way along, first against publishing a paper, then against issuing pamphlets, then against having an office, then against the sale of publications, then against church order, then against having a power press. It had been hard to bring the minds of some of the brethren to the necessity of these things; but they had all been essential to the prosperity of the cause. He thought the opposition to the steps proposed of the same nature precisely.

The question, “Shall we adopt a name?” was then called for. The motion was put and carried. None dissented, though a few declined to vote.

Brother Ingraham remarked that though he did not feel perfectly clear, he was so far inclined to the position taken, that if compelled to vote, he should vote in favor of a name.

Having voted to adopt a name, the discussion now turned on what that name should be. The name Church of God was proposed and zealously advocated by some. It was objected that that name was already in use by some denominations, and on this account, was indefinite, besides having to the world an appearance of presumption. Brother White remarked that the name taken should be one which would be the least objectionable to the world at large. The name Seventh-day Adventists, was proposed as a simple name, and one expressive of our faith and position. After some further remarks, Brother Hewitt offered the following resolution:—

Resolved, That we take the name of Seventh-day Adventists.

This resolution was freely discussed, but was finally withdrawn to make room for the following from Brother Poole:—

Resolved, That we call ourselves Seventh-day Adventists.

After a somewhat lengthy discussion, the question was called for, and the resolution adopted, Brother Butler dissenting, and Brethren Lawrence, Sperry, Andrews, and Ingraham not voting. On explanation that this resolution had reference only to those present, Brother Sperry gave his vote in favor of the resolution, and Brother Andrews signified his assent to the same.

Moved, by Brother Hull, that we recommend the name we have chosen to the churches generally. Carried, Brother Butler dissenting.—Review and Herald, Vol. XVII, pages 178, 179.

This decision settled the question that had troubled the leaders for a long time; namely, whether or not this people should be designated by some name, and if so, what that name should be. The name selected — Seventh-day Adventists — seems to have been made, coined, or invented during the Council. This is the first time it appears to have been used by any of our people. It can not be found in any of our papers nor other literature previous to the publication of the report of these proceedings. From the minutes, it would seem that Elder James White suggested the name.

The spirit of prophecy bears this testimony in behalf of our name which was chosen as described above:—

I was shown in regard to the remnant people of God taking a name. . . . No name which we can take will be appropriate but that which accords with our profession and expresses our faith and marks us a peculiar people. . . . The name Seventh-day Adventist carries the true features of our faith in front, and will convict the inquiring mind. Like an arrow from the Lord’s quiver, it will wound the transgressors of God’s law, and will lead to repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.—“Testimonies for the Church,” Vol. I, pages 223, 224, first published in 1861.

A. G. DANIELLS.