History of the
Seventh Day
Church of God





by Richard C. Nickels























COPYRIGHT 1977, 1987, 1994 by Richard C. Nickels

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Thanks to Raymond C. Cole, who asked me to write this book.  

I am grateful for research assistance from the New York City Public Library, Aurora College,
Midwest Bible College of Stanberry, Missouri and Floyd Turner, and Maranatha College of
Meridian, Idaho.  Thanks to many in the Church of God who answered my constant questions. 
Thanks to Ray Straub who encouraged me to copyright and distribute this book.

Thanks to my loving wife Shirley who retyped the original edition and ferreted out many
typographical errors.









"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."  Revelation 2:7, 11, 17,
29,  3:6, 13, 22.









Original Edition completed August 31, 1973.  Copyright  1977 by Richard C. Nickels.  Revised
Edition completed December 31, 1987.  Copyright  1988 by Richard C. Nickels.  Third Edition
completed December 31, 1993, copyright  1994 by Richard C. Nickels.




Distributed by:

Giving & Sharing, PO Box 100, Neck City, MO  64849
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION                                                   PAGE

I.   Introduction -- Controversial History   1

II.  The Messenger Party 4

III. The "Church of God" Controversy    9

IV.  The Question of Ellen G. White's Visions     13

V.   The Michigan Church of God    20

VI.  The Church of God in Marion, Iowa  39

VII. The Move to Stanberry    67

VIII.     Independent Church of God Splits -- 1905     77

IX.  Andrew N. Dugger and the Church of God Surge in the 1920's  85

X.   The Division of 1933 -- Stanberry and Salem  155

XI.  Two Groups:  Stanberry and Salem, 1933-1949  164

XII. The Merger: 1948 - 1949  177

XIII.     The Post Merger Period, 1949 - 1973     188

XIV. Analysis at 1973    221

XV.  The "Church Depression Period," 1974-1987    226

XVI. The 1990's:  Spiritual Abyss and Rays of Hope     236

APPENDIX  240

Church History Trees     243

FOOTNOTES 246

Topical Index  260

Additional Literature    261

Gilbert Cranmer
(1814 - 1903)
Founder of the Church
of God in Michigan


H.E. Carver, President
of Christian Publishing Assn.
Marion, Iowa, 1866 - 1873


Jacob Brinkerhoff
( ca. 1841 - 1916)
Advocate editor,
1871 - 1887 & 1907 - 1914


Early Church of God Leaders
Left to right, back row:
J.C. Branch, W.C. Long
Front row:
A.C. Long, A. F. Dugger, Sr., N.A. Wells

Andrew N. Dugger was the most famous Church of God leader in the twentieth century.  Born in
Bassett, Nebraska in 1886, Andrew N. Dugger's father, A.F. Dugger, Sr., had been an Advent
Christian Minister.  When commissioned by his church to do a study refuting the Sabbath, A.F.
Dugger instead became convinced that the Sabbath should be observed.  The result was a book he
later published, called The Bible Sabbath Defended.

For more than thirty-five years until his death in 1910, A.F. Dugger, Sr., was a leader in the
Church of God, Seventh Day.  His son Andrew, a schoolteacher and farmer, was in his early 20's
when his father died.

A bright light in the sky around him seemed to Dugger to be a sign from God that he should
follow his father's footsteps in the ministry.  A.N. Dugger immediately sold his large farm and
equipment, and went to the University of Chicago, where he majored in theology and public
speaking, mastering Greek, Hebrew, and German.
























Andrew N. Dugger
1886 - 1975



From time to time, Dugger returned to Bassett to visit his mother and Effie Carpenter
(1895-1980), a student of his whom he wanted to marry.  Although he first proposed to her when
she was sixteen, it wasn't until 1925 until they were married.  They shared fifty years together.

Soon after college graduation, Dugger was invited by the Executive Committee of the Church of
God to move to Stanberry, Missouri, to become editor of The Bible Advocate, a position his
father had held before being forced to retire because of ill health.  In 1914, Dugger arrived in
Stanberry to begin his work in the ministry.  For eighteen years he was editor, also serving as
President of the General Conference.  As field representative, he traveled widely, holding
evangelistic meetings and public debates.  The famous "Porter Dugger Debate," between Dugger
and W. Curtis Porter, a Church of Christ minister, was later published as a book of over 230
pages.  In 1919, Dugger wrote The Bible Home Instructor, which publicized the Seventh Day
Church of God, and substantially increased its membership during the 1920's.

Two of Dugger's most adamant doctrinal positions were:  a scriptural form of church organization
with leaders chosen by lot rather than election, and a world headquarters in Jerusalem, Israel. 
After visiting Israel for only a year in 1931-32, Dugger returned to live in Sweet Home, Oregon. 
In 1935, A.N. Dugger and C.O. Dodd published a book, A History of the True Church, which
traces Sabbath-keepers from apostolic times to modern days.  Dugger greatly influenced Herbert
Armstrong, who was for years affiliated with the Church of God, Seventh Day, but later formed
his own church, the Radio (later Worldwide) Church of God.  

Dugger remained pastor at Marion, Oregon until 1953, when he and Effie settled permanently in
Jerusalem, and launched the Mt. Zion Reporter.  His aggressive leadership resulted in thousands
of converts around the world.  Andrew N. Dugger died in 1975 at the age of 89.  Dugger's
son-in-law, Gordon Fauth, continued the Jerusalem work.



























John Kiesz (1903- ), one of the most remarkable ministers of the Church of God, Seventh Day,
greatly influenced the Church of God, Seventh Day, in the twentieth century.  The grandson of
Philip Kiesz, Sr., John grew up in a German Sabbath-keeping Church of God near Eureka, South
Dakota.  In 1898, a minister named Halbesleben accepted the Sabbath, and as a result, a number
of Seventh Day Adventist churches became independent Churches of God.  John's uncle Christ
Kiesz was converted with a large group of younger people in 1910.  It was not until 1923 that the
Germans came into contact with the Church of God General Conference at Stanberry, Missouri. 
John Kiesz was converted in 1924.

About 1925, John Kiesz became contributing editor of the German Bible Advocate.  He met his
wife-to-be, Katherine, at a camp meeting near Eureka in 1927.  They were married in 1929.  After
graduation from Arizona Teacher's College, they began to travel and sing gospel songs.  Their
unique style of singing brought them to over forty states and several Canadian provinces.  In
1931, John first came to Stanberry, where he served for two years as editor of The Bible
Advocate.

In 1934, the Kieszes went into full-time evangelistic work.  During the 1940's, Kiesz worked
closely with Herbert Armstrong.  The Kieszes lost their first two children, but their two younger
daughters, Pearl and Martha, assisted them in evangelistic meetings by singing, from 1940 to
1956.  From 1959 to 1963, Elder Kiesz was a professor at Midwest Bible College in Stanberry,
continuing evangelistic activity in the summer months.  For several years, John Kiesz pastored a
church in St. Louis, Missouri.  The Kieszes traveled widely, building up many churches around
the country.  Gaining funds from the sale of a record album of their gospel songs, the Kieszes
conducted a missionary trip to many foreign countries in 1971.  For many years, the Kieszes lived
in Canon City, Colorado.  Even in his later years, Elder John Kiesz was an excellent speaker, and
very knowledgeable of the Scriptures.  His faithful wife of sixty-four years, Katherine, died in
1993.


I.  Introduction -- Controversial History

The True Church

Is there a true church?  Did Jesus Christ of Nazareth form one distinct church, or body of
believers in Him, that as He stated in Matthew 16:18 would continue to the very time of His
return to rule this earth as Lord of Lords and King of Kings?  That church was prophesied to be a
small, despised little group, Luke 12:32, that would bear the name, "Church of God," the church
name used in the Bible more than any other, and used to denote a local church as well as the
church as a whole, the name used twelve times in the New Testament.  

If there is a true church, it would have to be one church, not divided into hundreds of disagreeing
denominations.  It would have to live by the Law of God.  And, just before Christ's return, it
would have to be proclaiming the gospel of Christ -- the good news that Jesus is soon coming to
rule this earth with His saints and make a utopia on earth.  This church would have to be
proclaiming this message to the world with power, as a witness to all nations, before Christ's
return.  If there is a true church today, it would have to be one group, alive with God's Spirit,
living by the very words of the Bible.  Where is the true Church of God today? 

Herbert W. Armstrong, a businessman of Quaker background, asked himself these questions in
late 1926 and early 1927 while he was living in Oregon.  The bottom having fallen out of his
advertising business in the Northwest, he was angered into a six month Bible study by the
adherence of his wife to an obscure Sabbath (Saturday) keeping church.  Reading the Bible from a
non-denominational viewpoint, he found that "both Catholic and Protestant teachings were, in
most basic points, the very opposite of the teachings of Christ, of Paul, and of the original true
Church!" Pouring through volumes of Biblical research material, and the denominational
publications of all religious groups, he found that the "Protestant denominations had emerged out
of Catholicism," and that the Roman Catholic Church was not the oldest, nor the original Church
of Christ and His apostles.  (See Footnote 1 at the end of the book.)

The very purpose of the Church, Herbert Armstrong discovered, was to preach Christ's gospel. 
But after carefully considering what this gospel was, how Christ and His apostles preached it,
Armstrong found both Catholics and Protestants "were not preaching the same gospel at all, but a
totally opposite message!"

So then where was the true church, the one Christ founded and the one He said would never stop
the Work He began? 

Using the two criteria of commandment-keeping, Revelation 12:17, and the name, "Church of
God," John 17:6-12, Armstrong narrowed his 1927 search down to one church -- "a little, almost
unheard-of church called the Church of God, which maintained a small publishing-house
headquarters at Stanberry, Missouri."

Yet he found "a church, which, compared to the large scale activities of the Catholic and big
Protestant bodies, was ineffective.  I could see it was imperfect.  It wielded no great power."  Yet
Jesus Christ said: "all power is given unto me, in heaven, and earth," Matthew 28:18.  If Jesus
was to be in His Church, guiding and directing it, and giving the church power to proclaim His
message, as He said, why wasn't the little Church of God from Stanberry, Missouri making the
whole world conscious of its existence and its power?  Further, Armstrong failed to see where this
church was bearing much if any fruit, and asked himself the question: "Could a fruitless church be
the one and only true Church of God on earth?"

In 1927, the Church of God (Seventh Day), or Church of God (Adventist), as it was variously
known, had scattered members probably numbering less than 2,000 mostly in rural areas, and only
a very limited number of local churches, none as large as 100 members.  Its ministers seemed to
be men of little education.  Yet, in the words of Herbert W. Armstrong, "Small and impotent
though it appeared, it had more Bible truth than any church I could find!"2

The history of the Church of God (Seventh Day), is the purpose of this book.  From its modern
crystallization in the 1860's to the present, this group of seventh day keepers has remained small,
and almost unheard-of.  The Church of God (Seventh Day) is one of "at least two hundred
independent religious bodies in the United States bear [ing] the name Church of God, in one form
or another."3

It is still a group which claims to be part of the "true church."


Controversial History

To enter into the presentation of the history of the Seventh Day Church of God is to enter a field
rife with religious -- and sometimes political -- controversy.  Today when the word, "Adventist" is
mentioned, it is automatically associated with the Seventh-Day Adventist church.  Yet
Seventh-Day Adventists are only one -- but by far the largest numerically -- of several distinct
church groups which trace their history through the Adventist movement.  There are three other
major Adventist groups extant today, the Advent Christian Church, the Church of God (Oregon,
Illinois), and the various factions of the Church of God (Seventh Day).  These groups all trace
their history from the Adventist movement, which William Miller began in the 1840's in the United
States.

That is what "official" history purports.  However, Seventh-Day Adventist history states that the
Church of God (Seventh Day) "was actually an early offshoot of the Seventh-Day Adventists."4 
But Church of God historian Andrew N. Dugger dogmatically contradicts this by stating that
Sabbath-keeping Adventists were originally known as "Church of God" people, and that those
who in October, 1860 formed the Seventh-Day Adventist church at Battle Creek, Michigan "are a
branch from [and withdrew from] the original church, 'The Church of God'."5  In other words, the
Seventh Day Church of God believes that the Seventh-Day Adventists withdrew from them, while
the Seventh-Day Adventists believe the Church of God withdrew from Seventh-Day Adventists! 
A modern Seventh Day Church of God minister and a Seventh-Day Adventist minister concur on
a more "liberal" viewpoint: in the early 1860's, the two groups parted their ways.6

Throughout the history of the Church of God (Seventh Day) and the Seventh-Day Adventists, the
two groups have been in diametric opposition to each other.  Thus the history of the Seventh Day
Church of God is largely controversial.  But considering the impotence of the Church of God, and
its almost total lack of growth (while Seventh-Day Adventists have grown to nearly four million
members worldwide), its history is obscure and hard to trace.  Only through its publications,
which somehow have been largely preserved intact (with some exceptions) since 1863, can
substantive history of the Church of God be traced.  The rest comes from less friendly sources.ê

II.  The Messenger Party


The Anti-White Party Before 1860

Seventh-Day Adventist history, especially J.N. Loughborough's Rise and Progress of the
Seventh-Day Adventists (1892), shows pre-1860 Sabbath Adventist history as entirely dominated
by Mr. and Mrs. James White, and presents the origin of the Seventh-Day Adventist church by
1863 as the natural outgrowth of the movement.  Some opposition to the visions of Mrs. White is
admitted, but such opponents are usually cast as ones who went out of the movement, went
insane, or fell into weird beliefs.  For the Seventh-Day Adventists, "those who went out from
them" met with "utter failure."1

Yet far from all Sabbath Adventists believed with their whole heart that Ellen G. White was a
"prophetess."  The most prominent group before 1860 opposing the Whites was termed by the
Whites as the "Messenger Party."


The Messenger Party:  Case and Russell

The so called "Messenger Party" concerned Hiram S. Case and C.P. Russell.  Case was a pioneer
preacher of the Adventist message in 1844 in New York.  He accepted the Sabbath and sanctuary
ideas from S.W. Rhodes in 1851 in North Plaines, Michigan.  Soon Case was out preaching in
Michigan, Ohio, New York, Illinois, and Wisconsin, and also writing articles.  He was the first to
preach the Advent message in Wisconsin, in the spring of 1851.  Waterman Phelps was among his
first converts in southwest Wisconsin, a state that was to be one of the key areas of opposition to
the Whites.2

In June 1853 at Jackson, Michigan there were held a series of Adventist meetings attended by
Loughborough and the Whites.  It appears that there was some dissension here in the church. 
Some members had bitter feelings against a certain church lady.  H.S. Case and C.P. Russell
strongly accused her and tried to make her confess her wrong doing, whatever it was.  Mrs. White
had a vision, and as a result reproved the lady and also rebuked Case and Russell for their
unchristian conduct towards the lady.  Case and Russell complained bitterly of the reproof. 
Previously they had believed in Mrs. White's visions, and now they became staunch opponents of
her.3

A few weeks later, Case and Russell got other "disaffected spirits" to join them and began
publication in the fall of 1853 of the Messenger of Truth at Jackson, Michigan.  This is the origin
of the "Messenger Party" according to the Seventh-Day Adventist historian Loughborough.  He
termed the paper a scandal sheet with "many falsehoods" in it.  The Messenger of Truth
apparently stirred the entire Sabbath Adventist movement as indicated by the strong rebuttals that
were given in the Review and Herald, from January 1854 to June 26, 1855.  

The opposition paper's stance has not yet been discovered because apparently all copies have been
lost.  It may have held other doctrines than those purported by the White Party.  


Whites Opposed by Messenger Party

By early 1855, James White and the Review and Herald were in serious financial trouble, possibly
due to the influence of the Messenger Party.  White was ill and sought to free himself from the
editorship of the paper but there was nobody to take his place.  He jumped at the opportunity to
move the paper to Battle Creek, Michigan where Adventist brethren agreed to finance the paper. 
Headquarters of the White Party became established at Battle Creek, where the Whites sought to
gain control of the entire Sabbath Adventist movement, and quell all opposition to the "Spiritual
Gifts" of Mrs. White.  

On June 20, 1855 the Whites, Loughborough, and Elder Cottrell held a meeting in Oswego, New
York.  During the meeting they were harassed by a man named Lillis who circulated some copies
of the Messenger of Truth -- termed "slanderous documents" -- among the people.  If this was
more than an isolated incident it appears that the White Party was facing considerable opposition.  

To quell opposition to her, Mrs. White conveniently had a vision in which "she was shown that if
we would keep at our work, preaching the truth, regardless of any such people as the 'Messenger
Party' they would go to war among themselves and their paper would go down, and when that
should happen we would find that our ranks had doubled."

Loughborough explains the origin of the Messenger Party and all subsequent opposers to Mrs.
White's visions by stating that "those who have been reproved for defects in character, for wrong
habits, or for some wrong course in their manner of life" were the ones that came out in
opposition to Mrs. White.  They felt hurt by the reproofs and protested that they were not as bad
as her testimony said, and as a result left the ranks.4

Within two years the paper was said to have died for lack of support.  It must have continued
though at least until 1858 when Loughborough states that the Messenger ceased to exist and the
Messenger Party split and withered away.  James White in his Life Incidents states that those who
left the White Party "purified" the church of "undesirable elements."5

One of the top leaders of the Messenger Party was said to have stopped preaching and became a
teacher.  In a fit of anger he pulled a revolver on a disobedient student; it snapped but failed to fire
and the teacher had to escape a lynching by fleeing to Canada.  James White reports that some of
the other leaders went out on their own and at least one became a Spiritualist.  To White's
knowledge, not one of the eighteen messengers continued as preachers and there was not a single
place left where the Messenger Party had a regular meeting.  Because they had rejected Mrs.
Whites visions, James White said they had rejected the Gifts of the Spirit.6


Wisconsin the Center of Further Opposition

The Messenger Party apparently believed strongly in the use of the name "Church of God." 
Nowhere is this more evident than in Wisconsin, where the Messenger Party was strong. 
Denounced by the Whites in their Review as "fanatics," Wisconsin Adventists were strongly
against Ellen G. White's visions.  

C.W. Stanley of Lodi, Wisconsin upon his resignation from the ministry in December of 1860,
said "I have so poorly filled the office of a good minister of Jesus Christ, in my ministration of the
third angel's message in the 'Church of God' during the eleven years past, I do this day resign holy
office."7  Stanley later was quoted in the Review as saying that he was acquainted with all those
that were in the "fanaticism" (term Whites used for their opposition) and that not a single one to
his knowledge adhered to Mrs. Whites visions.8


Stephenson and Hall Join Messenger Party

Associated with the Messenger Party were J.M. Stephenson and D.P. Hall, some of the first
converts of Adventist preacher J.H. Waggoner in Wisconsin.  Stephenson and Hall soon became
prominent Adventist preachers in their own right.  At a conference in Jackson, Michigan, in April
1855, they appeared to be against the Messenger Party and said they would go back to Wisconsin
to overcome the Messenger Party's opposition to the Review.  Yet later they came out for the
"age-to-come" doctrine, that of believing in a probationary period after Christ's coming.  

At conferences in Eldorado and Koskonong, Wisconsin on October 5th and 12th, 1855, they
denounced the Review as sectarian and resolved to withdraw support from it.  Soon Stephenson
and Hall began to write for the Messenger and associated themselves with the people they had
said they would oppose.  Yet in a few weeks, they gave up the Sabbath and opposed it,
attempting to form an "age-to-come" party with themselves as its leaders.  Later both Stephenson
and Hall were said to have become insane.9


D.P. Hall and the Hayfield, Pennsylvania 
Seventh Day Baptist Church

D.P. Hall figured prominently in the "sheep stealing" discord between Adventists and Seventh
Day Baptists, which lasted from about 1850 to 1880.  These years saw the aggressive growth of
Adventists and inevitable loss on the part of Seventh Day Baptists with much hard feelings as the
result.  

In the winter of 1855, eight years before the Seventh-Day Adventist General Conference was
organized, Elder D.P. Hall arrived at the Seventh Day Baptist church at Hayfield, Pennsylvania,
and challenged all comers to a rousing debate.  "Though he had no specific authority from the
Adventists to do this, he presented what were supposed to be Adventist views.  His work resulted
in a split of the Hayfield church, with harsh feelings on both sides."10

In 1879, James White alluded to the Hall incident in Pennsylvania in the following vein: "We
deeply regretted the havoc made in some of the Seventh Day Baptist churches in Pennsylvania,
more than twenty years since, by men who do not now stand with us.  For while that work
weakened the Seventh Day Baptists, it brought but very little strength to our cause."11

White introduced a resolution relative to this incident, to the 1879 Seventh-Day Adventist
General Conference, which passed unanimously:

Whereas, Certain preachers, who professed to be Seventh-Day Adventists, at an early date in our
brief history, did seek their field of labor in the localities where there were Seventh Day Baptist
churches, and did weaken some of their feeble churches, and blot out others, resulting in harm and
only harm, to the great grief of the Seventh Day Baptists, there . . . Resolved.  That . . . we deeply
regret the injury done . . . about twenty years since, by those men whom we could not control,
and who have since done Seventh-Day Adventists tenfold the injury they did the Seventh Day
Baptists, resulting in weakening and grieving both denominations . . . we ask not to be held
responsible for that which we have no power to control.12


Messenger of Truth the Predecessor of the Hope of Israel

Since almost the entirety of the available information on the Messenger Party comes from the
White Party, it is difficult to arrive at a true picture of their beliefs and actions.  The Messenger
Party is important in that it was a direct, if not organic, precursor of the Church of God (Seventh
Day).  The press used to print the Messenger of Truth was the very same one which began the
printing of the Hope of Israel, the first paper of the Church of God.  

And the Messenger Party was further important in that it brought to the fore the two key issues
which created the division of Sabbath Adventists into the Seventh-Day Adventist church and the
Church of God:  (1) the church name -- Church of God versus Seventh-Day Adventist, and (2)
the question of the visions of Ellen G. White.ê


III.  The "Church of God" Controversy


Sabbath Adventists and the Name "Church of God" 

Ellen G. White and her followers -- the White Party -- were distinctly against the use of the name
"Church of God."  Loughborough reports that she had a vision that the movement should be
called "Seventh-Day Adventist" and that to use the term "Church of God" would be to excite
suspicion, conceal absurd errors, and be a mark of fanaticism.1

But apparently the White party themselves used the name Church of God in several instances. 
Ellen G. White used the name frequently in her spiritual gifts.2

James White published a hymn book in 1855 called "Hymns for those who keep the
commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus."  The preface to the hymnal read "this work is
prepared for the use of the Church of God scattered abroad . . . .  To the Church of God waiting
for the coming and kingdom of Christ, is this book commended."3

That the Sabbath Adventists were originally termed Church of God is shown in a December 18,
1860 article in the Advent Review and the Sabbath Herald (page 40): S.W. Rhodes of
Habbardsville, New York announced his resignation as a minister to Sabbath-keeping brethren,
"in my ministration of the 'Third Angel's message' and the Church of God, during eleven years
past . . . ."4

This would mean that Rhodes began his ministry for the Church of God in the year 1849.  

Joseph Marsh, in the Voice of Truth, May 21, 1845, objected to the 1845 Albany Conference of
Adventists "because the proceedings as whole looked like forming a new sect under a sectarian
name, instead of coming to the order of the New Testament under the name there given to the
true church . . . ."  James White wrote a commendation at the end of the article, when it was
reprinted in the August,  1850 Advent Review, showing he agreed with Marsh's sentiments.5

Roswell F. Cottrell wrote in the May 3, 1860 Review, "I do not believe in popery; neither do I
believe in anarchy; but in Bible order, discipline, and government in the Church of God."6


Waterman Phelps Contends For the Name Church of God

The White Party heaped ridicule upon those who supported the name Church of God.  The pages
of the Review became the battleground for the church name around 1860 when the Whites
fostered an organizational drive.

Here is a typical presentation of the reasons for the use of the name Seventh-Day Adventist:
"From Green Springs, Ohio . . . .  We receive the name Seventh-Day Adventist, because it
contains the two leading principles of our faith: First, 'the second coming of our Lord', and
second, it sets forth the 4th commandment.  On the other hand, the name 'Church of God' is not
appropriate, because there are several churches by that name, and so many by the same name
would make confusion."7  Waterman Phelps, previously mentioned as a convert of H.S. Case in
Wisconsin, strongly supported "Church of God" in the Review:

 . . . I think it is not difficult to determine what name they will have, when we consult Rev.  14:1,
'having his father's name in their foreheads.'  Chapter 3:12, 'I will write upon them the name of my
God.'  And with this agrees the apostle in all his epistles.  They are addressed to the Church of
God.  Acts 20:28; I Cor. 1:2; 10:32; 11:22, 15, 29; Gal. 1:13; I Tim. 3:5.  Now if we have the
right to depart from the simplicity of the gospel in one instance have we not in another? . . .   If
so, what does their confusion consist in? . . .   If so, can we as a people do the same and not
become a member of the same great family . . . one of the harlots?8

Phelps stated that he accepted the Law of God in 1850, and in 1851 identified himself with the
"Review Adventists."  After making a study of the "visions" of Ellen G. White, and the
organization they went into, he could no longer support them.9


Changing the Church Name

The high pressure campaign led by the Whites to organize Sabbath Adventists under the name
"Seventh-Day Adventists" was ostensibly conducted with the purpose of holding church property
in a corporation instead of being deeded to individuals.  Michigan had recently passed a law
allowing churches to organize, and an "official" organization was said to be an encouragement for
increasing the membership.10

The Battle Creek, Michigan Conference on legal organization, on September 26 October 1, 1860,
officially chose the name "Seventh-Day Adventist" and rejected "Church of God."  It was decided
to legally organize as a church with the covenant as follows: "We the undersigned hereby
associate ourselves together as a church, taking the name Seventh-Day Adventists covenanting to
keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ."

It was at this point that the separation of Sabbath Adventists into two opposing groups became
permanent.  On the one side were those supporting the visions of Ellen G. White and the name
Seventh-Day Adventist.  And on the other side were those opposing Mrs. White and adhering to
"Church of God."


Ohio Objections to Church Name Change

Some Adventists did not go along with the change of the name from "Church of God" to
"Seventh-Day Adventist."  Ohio appeared to be a leading center of objection to the White Party. 
The Review and Herald of April 9, 1861, in the article, "Secession," reports the following:

Brother Smith: We conclude from present aspects that the name, 'Seventh-Day Adventist,' is
being made obligatory upon our brethren.  Without further light Ohio cannot submit to the name
'Seventh-Day Adventist' as either a test, or an appropriate name for God's people.  Being
appointed a finance committee at the last conference, and having now on hand means for carrying
on the cause in Ohio, we could not conscientiously expend those means in any other than the
advancement and extension of the truth and the 'Church of God.'  If such means are expended
otherwise it will be necessary for the churches in Ohio to assemble in conference, and to give
instruction to that effect, and to choose some other committee to make the disbursements.
(Signed) J. Dudley 
L.E. Jones 
J.P. Flemming
Finance committee of Ohio

James White replied in answer to the Ohio "secession" as follows:
  
The Battle Creek Conference October 1, 1860, voted that we call ourselves 'Seventh-Day
Adventists.'  . . . The brethren as far as we can learn are adopting the name, and we never heard
of, or thought of, its being made a test until we read the above from Ohio . . . .  We will here add
that as a friend from Gilboa complains of the non-publication of an article from Gilboa [Ohio]
setting forth the evidence in favor of the name Church of God, we wish to say that at the time no
one connected with the Review office objected to the name.11


Iowa Church of God

In Southern Iowa, a Brother Bartlett sought to organize the Adventist churches under the name of
Seventh-Day Adventists.  But one independent Iowa church was divided over the question.  Half
the church acceded to the pressure to go along with the majority; the rest, contending that the
church was originally organized under the name Church of God, refused to break off from their
original beliefs.  Bartlett labeled those who held to the original faith as dividers because they had
rejected the "Gifts of the Spirit" -- Ellen G. White's visions, which, he believed, was essential to be
a part of God's end time work.12

Since there was as yet no Church of God organization, opposers to the White Party were with
ease labeled "secessionists" and "offshoots."  Yet the facts are that Church of God groups
preceded Seventh-Day Adventists by at least a decade.ê

IV.  The Question of Ellen G. White's Visions


Beliefs in Visions Made a Test of Faith

Adventist preachers such as Bartlett sought to overcome anti-organization sentiment by uniting all
the churches to Battle Creek and the Whites.  But, until legal organization, the necessity of
accepting Ellen G. White's visions was not emphasized.  Then the visions were indeed made a
test.  

In 1862, Uriah Smith, a leading Seventh-Day Adventist writer, wrote an article in the Review
captioned "The Visions a Test."  Smith clearly states that to have union with the true church, you
must believe in the visions:

The perpetuity of the [spiritual] gifts is one of the fundamental points in the belief of this people
and with those who differ with us here we can have union and fellowship to no greater extent than
we can have with those who differ with us in the other important subjects of the coming of Christ,
baptism, the Sabbath, etc. . . .   It is a fact that those who reject the gifts do not have true union
with the body.  From the very nature of the case, they cannot have it.1
 
Thus is succinctly stated the real, major reason why Sabbath Adventists split into two groups: the
real issue was the visions of Ellen G. White.


Reason for Mrs. White's Visions

According to the Seventh-Day Adventists, Mrs. White's visions were to "perfect the church and
bring them to the unity of the faith Ephesians 4:13."2  The visions were said to correct members
from wrong practices or beliefs.

Early opposers to the Whites, including the Church of God in Marion, Iowa, saw the visions in a
different light: they were primarily feigned to enable the Whites to gain control of the church.  

D.M. Canright, an early Seventh-Day Adventist, was a close associate of the Whites.  Canright
left them in the 1880's because he saw that "Elder and Mrs. White ran and ruled everything with
an iron hand.  Not a nomination to office, nor a resolution, not an item of business was ever acted
upon in business meetings till all had been first submitted to Elder White for his approval. . . . [and
Mrs. White's] revelations always favored Elder White and herself.  If any dared question their
course, they soon received a scathing revelation [based on a vision] denouncing the wrath of God
against them."  Canright painted a picture of a "coldly legalistic" Seventh-Day Adventist church
governed by the fear of going against the "divine testimonies" of its "prophetess."3

Canright too was the victim of its iron rule, forced to confess that he had been "blinded by Satan"
for opposing the Whites' will.  For years, Canright maintained, in the late 1860's, the main
business at important meetings was the complaints of Elder White against leading ministers.  

Jacob Brinkerhoff, a Church of God leader, one time editor of the Bible Advocate, expressed a
less critical view of the reason for her visions: they were the product of an unhealthy mind and
body.4

From her childhood, when she was struck in the head by a rock and was in a coma for days, until
later life, Mrs. White suffered nervous and physical disorders.  Later, when her health improved,
her visions were less frequent and not as intense.  

Regardless as to the cause -- and the source -- of Ellen G. White's visions, their content naturally
led to controversy.  The content of many of them was to prove a constant source of
embarrassment, and potential source of opposition to Seventh-Day Adventists.  And even more
were Mrs. White's visions a source of conflict among Sabbath Adventists in the 1850's and 1860's
by those who never accepted them in the first place but were subjected to extreme pressure to
accept the "gifts of the Spirit" from a woman "prophetess," or be forever out of the "true Church"
and bereft of salvation.5


Only One Church -- Hers

Ellen G. White's visions consistently held that God was working only through her and her church
group.  And as for others, "Satan has taken full possession of the churches as a body."6

Her church was the only true church, and it was the end time church of the Laodiceans: "The
Laodicean church is the church of Christ for the period in which we live, and He has no other. 
Those who renounce membership in the Laodicean church place themselves outside the fold of
Christ."7


Shut Door Later Opened

For several years, the White party taught that after 1844 the time of salvation for sinners was
past.8

Ellen G. White's visions supporting the shut door idea were later explained away and altered, to
make the way open for increases in church membership.  Yet once again, because of diametrically
altering their position, both occasions supposedly due to the result of visions, the White party left
themselves open to opposition and skepticism.  


1844 Error Never Admitted

Though other Adventist groups admitted the gross error in assuming that October 22, 1844 was
the date of the return of Christ to the earth, the group that later developed into Seventh-Day
Adventists never recanted, but instead changed their interpretation of what happened
prophetically on that date.  For them, on October 22, 1844, Christ cleansed the heavenly
sanctuary and began His work of "Investigative Judgment."  This was based on the vision of
Adventist Hiram Edson in 1844, quickly accepted by the White group.  

The "Sanctuary Question" was openly opposed by many within the Sabbath Adventist movement,
and later continued to be a source of controversy between Seventh-Day Adventists and the
Church of God.  

The most obvious point advanced by opponents of the Seventh-Day Adventist position is that the
Day of Atonement for 1844 was on September 23, not October 22.  So whatever their supposed
interpretation of prophecy in 1844, Seventh-Day Adventists have the wrong date to start with, for
the supposed cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is tied by them to the Day of Atonement.  

The Adventist Sanctuary position can be outlined as follows: "Christ did not make the atonement
when He shed His blood upon the cross.  Let this fact be fixed forever in the mind."9

Until October 22, 1844, Christ was in the first, or outer, compartment of the heavenly sanctuary. 
Man's sins, represented by the blood of Christ, were transferred to the heavenly sanctuary's
second compartment -- the holy of holies -- thus defiling it.  Christ's blood was then defiling the
heavenly sanctuary.  And, on October 22, 1844 (the supposed fulfilling of Daniel 8:14, "Unto
2,300 days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed") Christ entered the second compartment in
heaven and cleansed it, and began His Investigative Judgment preparatory to His return to cleanse
the earth with fire and take the saints to Heaven.10

Numerous obvious objections were raised against the White Party's interpretations of prophecy
from the earliest days of their movement.  Based as they were, and supported by, Ellen G. White's
visions, rejection of the 1844 prophetic beliefs led naturally to a rejection of Mrs. White's visions.  

One of the more notorious examples of Mrs. White's dubious quotation of scripture, is found in
her most famous work, The Great Controversy.  She quotes only part of Isaiah 24:6 to "prove"
that at Christ's coming, all the wicked will be destroyed on the earth, leaving the earth desolate
during the millennium, while the saints are supposed to be taken to Heaven.  Yet the rest of the
verse states that there will be a few men left.11 

These and other objections have continually been raised by many who have confronted
Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine.  


1856 Vision Proven False

Ellen G. White wrote in her Testimonies for the Church that "At the General Conference at Battle
Creek, May 27, 1856, I was shown in vision some things which concern the church generally; . . .
I was shown the company present at the Conference.  Said the angel, 'Some food for worms,
some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be
translated at the coming of Jesus'."12

All of the people alive at that conference have died, presenting a serious question as to the
authenticity of Mrs. White's visions.  


Meat, Milk, Butter, Cheese, Eggs Condemned

The health ideas of the White Party did not come to be clearly expressed until 1860 and the
formation of the Seventh-Day Adventist church.  They too were based upon visions
("testimonies") and were rigidly stressed, at least in the early days of the movement.  

Mrs. White's visions gave "positive testimony against tobacco, spirituous liquors, snuff, tea,
coffee, flesh-meats, butter, spices, rich cakes, mince pies, a large amount of salt, and all exciting
substitutes used as articles of food."13

Yet she was said to have eaten butter and meat for at least twenty years after she wrote this
(1872).14

In her testimonies, she stated that cheese should never enter the human stomach, and that "eggs
should not be placed upon your table."15


Marriage Discouraged

Besides the discouragement of meat and milk products, and eggs, Mrs.  White's visions
discouraged marriage.  

"In this age of the world," she stated, "as the scenes of earth's history are soon to close, and we
are about to enter upon the time of trouble such as never was, the fewer marriages contracted, the
better for all, both men and women."16

The food and marriage issues bring to mind Paul's prophetic statement in his letter to Timothy:
"Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving
heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their
conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats
which God has created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the
truth," I Timothy 4:1-3.  


Other Controversies Surrounding the Visions

Mrs. White's visions supported the idea that Christ was crucified on a Friday and resurrected on a
Sunday, despite the fact that this idea weakened the Seventh-Day Adventist pro-Sabbath stance
and is contrary to the Bible.

Visions further supported the idea of a Trinity, which early American Sabbatarians, and the
Church of God, rejected.  

Because Mrs. White was originally a Methodist, she was probably led to continue the practice of
observing communion quarterly.  The Church of God observed it once a year, on the Jewish
Passover.  

These and other doctrines of the Seventh-Day Adventists have been hotly disputed by the Church
of God (Seventh Day).  


Visions a Test -- Opposers Labeled Fanatics

Since 1860, being a Seventh-Day Adventist has virtually been synonymous with adhering to the
visions of Ellen G. White.  In the first Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, published in 1932,
one of the twenty-one questions ministers were to ask every candidate for baptism and
membership was: "Do you believe the Bible doctrine of 'spiritual gifts' in the church, and do you
believe in the gift of the Spirit of prophecy which has been manifested in the remnant church
through the ministry and writing of Mrs. Ellen G. White?"17

Visions were -- and are -- a test.  Those who refused to accept them in the 1860's and earlier were
labeled by the Seventh-Day Adventists as "fanatics."  In the early years of the Church of God, the
visions were perhaps the major issue of dispute.  


"Fanatics" From the White Point of View

Throughout the 1850's and 1860's, the Whites mentioned in their publications the existence of
opposers to them.  Even the Whites had to admit that far from all of the Sabbath keeping people
accepted the visions and their form of organization.  The opposition was not localized, but spread
from New England to western New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois.  

James White reports that he and Mrs. White faced opposition from "fanatics" when they traveled
to Johnson, Vermont in May of 1850.  Libbey and Bailey were outspoken against the visions. 
Bailey was reported as stating: "The Lord does not want your testimony here.  The Lord does not
want you here to distract and crush his people!"  White reports that upon this denunciation, the
"power of God filled the room," and Bailey fell over backward, and the opposers left the meeting
house.18

In the fall of 1853, during several conferences of believers in New York, Vermont,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, the Whites noted numerous elements of "strife and rebellion"
against them.19  It was about this time that the Messenger Party came into being with its firm
opposition to the Whites.  

Shortly after the 1854 failure (another date set by some Adventists), Mrs. White wrote that "a
spirit of fanaticism has ruled a certain class of Sabbath-keepers [in the East] . . . .  Some are not in
harmony with the body . . . [and have] fanciful views."20

Still before the 1860 name change, in the spring of 1858, the Whites visited Ohio.  A certain man,
H. (it was a common practice of the Whites in their publications not to give the full name of their
opponents, but only their initial), was reproved by Mrs. White in a vision.  He had said he believed
in her visions, but that she was influenced by others in writing them.  This she stated was warfare
against the Holy Spirit.  Many in Ohio were rejecting the Whites.  "The brethren in Ohio have
been encouraged to look with distrust and suspicions at those who are in charge of the work at
Battle Creek, and have stood prepared to rise against the body, and stood independent.  Further
west, a certain brother and sister R. were said to have the spirit of the Messenger Party."21


Wisconsin Opposers to Visions

In her early written Testimonies, Mrs. White gave reproof of brother G. in Wisconsin, the chief
leader of "fanaticism" in that state.  After the 1860 "organization," Wisconsin opposition to the
Seventh-Day Adventists was still strong, especially in the northern portion of the state.  A Review
article stated that "This strange fanaticism in Wisconsin grew out of the false theory of holiness,
advocated by Brother K., -- a holiness not dependent upon the Third Angel's Message, but
outside of present truth."  Sister G. had received this theory from K., who carried it to others as
well.  

On August 3, 1861, Mrs. White had visions about the "divisions" in northern Wisconsin.  "Some
receive a part of the message, and reject another portion.  Some accept the Sabbath, and reject the
Third Angel's Message.  They are not responsible to any one.  They have an independent faith of
their own."  Further, it was apparent, they were drawing followers away from the Whites, to the
Age-to-Come idea.22


Washington, New Hampshire -- Ball's Opposition

At Washington, New Hampshire, the site of the original group of Adventists who accepted the
Sabbath, considerable opposition to the Whites persisted, led by a brother Ball.  Mrs. White states
in her written Testimonies that Ball had been "strengthening the hands of our enemies by holding
the visions up to ridicule, and publishing bitter things against us in the Crisis [Advent Christian
magazine] of Boston, and in the Hope of Israel [Church of God, or Church of Christ], a paper
issued in Iowa."  In 1867 at Washington, Mrs. White reproved Ball, who tearfully confessed he
had been a backslider and had been influenced by Satan.  

Ball's confession, published in the July 7, 1868 Review, gave his revised feelings about
Seventh-Day Adventists: "Who are the most humble, devoted self-sacrificing, godly persons to be
found among Sabbath-keepers?  Do they comprise that class who are doubting, halting, . . .
disbelieving, and fighting the visions?  Certainly not.  This class are noted for their selfishness,
their worldly-mindedness, and their lack of consecration to God and his cause.  They are
lukewarm, the half-hearted, the backslidden class, among Sabbath-keepers.  This fact alone should
teach us that God is in this work, and no weapon raised against it can prosper.  My own sad
experience has taught me that it is spiritual death to doubt or oppose any part of this work.  God's
hand is set to the work, and it is destined to triumph, although men and devils may oppose."23

Ball had been a chief opponent, but now had recanted.  Yet even in Michigan, where Seventh-Day
Adventists had organized, a group of Sabbath-keepers who never accepted the visions and who
held to the name Church of God continued to exist and oppose the attempt of the Whites to take
all of the Sabbath Adventists with them.  The title of their paper, which began in 1863, showed
the difficulty of their task and the smallness of their power: it was entitled, The Hope of Israel.ê


V.   Michigan Church of God

On August 10, 1863 a paper was launched at Hartford, Michigan entitled the Hope of Israel. 
Enos Easton was Resident Editor, and Gilbert Cranmer and John Reed were Corresponding
Editors.  Some of its founding principles were stated to be "that the Bible, and the Bible alone"
contains the whole moral law and all necessary precepts to govern God's people in every age,
without the addition of any human creed or articles of faith; that "sin is the transgression of the
law," and that the law by which sin is known is the law of the Ten Commandments; that death is
the total extinction of being; that God is about to set up His Kingdom on the Earth, that Christ as
King will sit upon David's throne, the twelve apostles on the twelve thrones judging the twelve
tribes of Israel; and that the reward of the righteous, as well as of the wicked, will be on the
Earth; and finally, the earth will be restored to its Edenic glory and beauty.1

The supporters of the little paper, which began with less than forty subscribers, were known
variously as "Church of Christ," "Church of God," and Church of the Firstborn."


Origins of the Hope of Israel

It appears that the Hope of Israel was a direct successor to the Messenger of Truth, an earlier
anti-White paper published in the later 1850's.  According to A.N. Dugger, Church of God
historian, the Church of God brethren who did not accept the name change at the 1860 Battle
Creek Conference met the following year at Battle Creek and began publication of The Remnant
of Israel, which was later changed to Sabbath Advocate, and still later, to Bible Advocate. 
Possibly he had the wrong name, and the Remnant of Israel was in actuality the Hope of Israel; or
possibly the Remnant was changed to the Hope of Israel in 1863.  

Dugger further reports that the Michigan Church of God brethren obtained a charter with the
following names on the document: L.A. Munger, A.E. Case, Seth Munger, Will Slater, and John
Campbell.  In the 1930's, the Michigan Church of God brethren were said to still have the original
charter.2

The leader of the Michigan Church of God, termed by his stepson, M.A.  Branch as "the founder
of the Church of God in Michigan" and "the first president of the Church of God conference," was
Elder Gilbert Cranmer.3


Life of Gilbert Cranmer

Born in Newfield, Tompkins County, New York (near Ithaca) on January 18, 1814, Gilbert
Cranmer died December 17, 1903.  His father died when Gilbert was eleven.  At age 17 he joined
the Methodists and was asked by them to preach.  Two years later he left them because he felt
they were wrong about the God head (he probably rejected the Trinity).  He then joined the
Christian Church, received a license to preach, and for three years was an itinerant preacher,
mostly on foot, in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, southern Indiana and Canada.  

Moving to St. Joseph, Michigan around 1840, Cranmer was promised by the Christian Church a
$150.00 yearly salary, but in the end only received $13.00.  "I then resolved I would never engage
again to preach for a salary and never have."

In the 1840's, when William Miller's "end of the world" Advent doctrines were sounded, Cranmer
"carefully examined" Miller's calculations and interpretations of prophecy, and in 1842 was
convinced they were correct.  Personally witnessing a meteor shower, Cranmer was convinced
this was the fulfilling of the "falling of the stars from heaven," Matthew 24:29.  He later wrote
that he "sincerely believed" that the Advent was near, although his wife did not.  On October 22,
1844, he and other Advent believers met in a school house, expecting the return of Christ. 
Cranmer faced the bitter "Great Disappointment," and the taunts of those who jeered "Well, I
thought you were going up last night," without losing his Christian faith, as some did.  

The Sabbath question was said to have come to his attention in 1843 through the Midnight Cry
(Millerite publication), in an article by J.C. Day of Ashburnham, Massachusetts.  S.C. Hancock of
Forestville, Connecticut also advocated the doctrine at the same time.  Cranmer was not fully
convinced of the Sabbath until 1845, when Joseph Bates came to Battle Creek, advocating "the
whole Law, the gifts of the Spirit, and many other glorious truths." Cranmer and David Hewett of
Battle Creek began keeping the Sabbath the same day.  At this time, Cranmer was living at
Comstock, Kalamazoo County, Michigan.  

Cranmer worked with those who later became Seventh-Day Adventists, but was disappointed in
that he never knew of any being healed.  He was further disappointed in that the "gift of
prophecy" seemed to be wholly confined to a woman.  As a Sabbath Adventist preacher, Cranmer
raised up several little groups in western Michigan.4


Development of Cranmer's Opposition to the Whites

Cranmer, in dictating his life story to his stepson M.A. Branch, documented his disillusionment,
and eventual break, with the White Party.  

"The shut door doctrine formed a part of the doctrine of the church, that is Mrs. White and had
seen in vision, that the door of salvation for sinners was past and those that fully believed in her
visions as coming from God also accepted that doctrine.  I did not believe it nor teach it [emphasis
mine], no lines had been drawn in the church up to this time and the visions had not been made a
test . . . ."5

Upon examining Mrs. White's visions, Cranmer concluded,

I became suspicious that I had got a board the wrong ship.  I then commenced giving her visions a
thorough  investigation.  I found they contradict themselves, and they also contradict the Bible. 
My doubts concerning the visions I made known to the brethren.  At once they gave me the cold
shoulder, and I was held at bay.  Not knowing any people I could unite with, I remained with
them for years, hoping they would get sick of the visions of E.G. White, and that we could yet
walk together in unity of spirit.6


Otsego Incident 
White Viewpoint of the Beginning of the Church of God

On the weekend of December 19 and 20, 1857, Elder and Mrs. White held meetings at Otsego,
Michigan.   Elder Gilbert Cranmer, according to the Seventh  Day Adventist historian, J.N.
Loughborough, was also there.  During the meetings, Mrs. White was given a vision, during
which Elder Cranmer examined her and said he was satisfied she knew nothing of what happened
about her, and that he believed the visions were of divine origin.  When she came out of the
trance, Mrs. White told Cranmer, whom she reputedly had never seen before, that he was afraid
to engage in family worship because of opposition from his family, and instead retired to his barn
for prayer.  Further, her vision had told her that Cranmer secretly used tobacco, while at the same
time professing to his brethren that he had quit.  If Cranmer repented of these two sins, only then
would he be qualified to teach the truth to others.  Loughborough reports that Cranmer confessed
that Mrs. White had told the truth, and went home saying he would carry out the reforms she
suggested.  

Six weeks later (January or February, 1858), Cranmer came to Battle Creek and applied to Elder
White for a license to preach.  White asked him if he had reformed; he said no, and was refused
his certificate.7 

Soon Cranmer was again out preaching, complaining that he had been refused a license because
he did not believe in Mrs. White's visions. 

Loughborough reports that Cranmer gained a few followers, and soon undertook to resurrect the
defunct Messenger, giving it the title Hope of Israel.  Another Seventh-Day Adventist historian,
Spalding, states that the Hope of Israel began in 1863, ran for two years before it died for lack of
support.  

Seventh-Day Adventists continued to depict Church of God people as "fanatics" who opposed the
visions because they had been reproved by them and refused to alter their sinful conduct. 
Loughborough reports that a Seventh-Day Adventist who attended one of Cranmer's meetings
said many of Cranmer's followers smoked.  


Cranmer's Account of the Otsego Meeting

In his autobiographical sketch, Cranmer included a statement signed by Joseph J.  and Louise H.
Perkins, members of the Otsego Sabbath-keeping church at the time.  It reported that Cranmer
came there to preach, and stated that he had no evidence whatever that the door to the sanctuary
was closed in 1844.  At the Perkins' house, Lester Russell questioned him about this.  Stating he
had proof that the door had been closed, Russell drew from his pocket a copy of Ellen G.  White's
book of visions.  Cranmer replied, "perhaps Mrs. White's visions are proof to you, but they are
not to me."

A general church discussion resulted, and a number of pro-White Adventists got rather excited. 
George Leighton went from Otsego to Battle Creek to confer with Elder James White on the
problem.  On his return, Leighton said that Elder White told him not to let Cranmer preach at the
Otsego church.  Cranmer requested an investigative meeting and apparently that is when the
Whites came to Otsego to confront Cranmer.  And that was when Mrs. White conveniently had a
vision to rebuke Cranmer.  Cranmer states that the whole purpose of the Whites' coming to
Otsego was to bring him into subjection to the visions, and when he refused to yield, he was led
to a clean break.  

Cranmer thereupon wrote to Battle Creek requesting a decision on whether or not he could
continue as a minister.  He was denied a license because he held that the visions were not inspired. 
"The visions were made a test of fellowship from that time," he stated.  A number of the Otsego
church refused to go along with the White Party, and Cranmer's independent work apparently
began with eleven from this church.8

In the first issue of the Hope of Israel, August 10, 1863, Cranmer records his break with the
White Party:  "At last I made up my mind I would not belong to a church that was ruled by a
woman any longer.  From that time the Bible has been my creed, with Christ as the had of the
Church.  I started alone, with my Bible in my hand.  God has blessed my labors beyond my utmost
expectations.  We have some eight ministers, and some hundreds of members in the State of
Michigan.  God has manifested His power among us in a wonderful manner."9 


Michigan Churches

Prior to the 1860's, it appears that Cranmer and his following grew considerably in Michigan.  He
raised up churches in Waverly, Alamo, Gobles, Bloomingdale, Hartford, Casco, Kirby's,
Hamilton, West Olive and elsewhere.  

In Trowbridge Township Cranmer organized a small church among whom were C.S. Bullock and
wife, Isaac Catt and wife, the Galord family, and Edwin Stockwell and wife.  

The Alamo, Michigan, church included Daniel Tiffany and wife, A.S. Tuttle and wife, Joseph
Perkins and wife, and Mr. Gadsbee.

Waverly, for a time the home of the church paper, contained nearly 100 members, including H.S.
Dille, John S. Staunton, Hiram Goble, Henry Whelpley and his two brothers Sam and Wesley,
George Howland, old Mr. Strong and Sylvester Baker.  

The Bloomingdale, Michigan church was raised in 1859, and included Greenwood Wait and wife,
Matthew Munn and wife, M. Remington and wife, John Wait and wife, and H. Davids and wife.10

Casco was "quite a large church also," with brethren such as Cronk, Steller, Fabun, J.P. Parish,
their wives, and many others.  

Cranmer held meetings at Bangor, Michigan, and gained many converts there.  Hallet Greenman
and wife, James Watkins and wife, John McNitt and wife, Charles Kelley and wife, Levi Watkins
and wife, and James Greenman and wife are the names mentioned.  

From Bangor, Cranmer went to Hartford Village, where a series of meetings resulted in the
conversion of Job Dunham and wife, Joseph Stoten and wife, Isaac Hogeboom and wife, Erastus
Branch and wife (parents of M.A. Branch), Enos Easton, Azer Hawks and wife, R.W. Hastings,
Zelia Hastings, Polly Baldwin, Moses Baldwin and wife, Charles Gibbs, Amanda Kemp, and
others.  Cranmer faced some heckling and opposition at Bangor, and was met with rotten eggs
and a pail of water.  


Cranmer's Associate Ministers

Among his early supporting ministers were John Reed, James Jackson, Philip Strong, Newton
Wallen, and John Fabin.  Elders Strong and Jackson soon denied the faith, the former uniting with
the Seventh-Day Adventists.  John Reed was said to be an excellent speaker, especially on
"prophetic time," using "charts illustrating his position."

Other early ministers, reported by Dugger, were R.V. Lyons of Niagara Falls, New York, Philip
Howe and Luther Kerr of Canada, and Thomas Howe of Michigan.11


Organization of the Church of God

Cranmer reports that organization was effected in 1860, the same year the Seventh-Day Adventist
name was adopted at Battle Creek.  A.N. Dugger reports that it was in 1861 at Battle Creek that
the group organized and began their paper.12

Another source states that the organization took place in 1865, when some Adventists in
Michigan under the leadership of Elder Cranmer "organized in protest on some points of doctrine
held by the main body of Seventh-Day Adventists." They refused to acknowledge the divine
inspiration of Ellen G. White, and declined to use the name adopted in 1860, but instead clung to
"Church of God."13

But the Michigan Historical Records Survey, which leans heavily on Dugger, states that the
organization was in 1863, and the session minutes from 1863 to the present are in the custody of
the Michigan Church of God secretary.14

Cranmer reports that quarterly meetings were held by the different churches until "a general
meeting in which attendance would be present, was held." Cranmer is reported to have been
selected the president of the first conference.15


Beginning of the Hope

Conferences in the spring of 1863 at Waverly and in June of the same year at Bangor, Michigan
established the decision to publish a paper.  The Hope began with less than forty subscribers,
possibly first published in Cranmer's home.  H.S. Dille became the office editor who assembled
and printed the paper, while Cranmer spent most of his time in the active ministry.  By November
30, 1864, the Hope circulated in eighteen states and Canada West (Ontario).  


Several Scattered Sabbath Groups

The Hope of Israel from its beginning appeared to be supported by scattered groups from
Vermont to Missouri.  In the east, the supporters usually referred to themselves as the "Church of
the Firstborn," while those in Michigan used the term, "Church of Christ" more frequently.  In
Wisconsin and Iowa, "Church of God" was the most common appellation.16

Correspondence and occasional exchange of delegates were the main ties between the scattered
Sabbath-keepers until 1884, when the Church of Christ in Michigan united in a General
Conference with the Church of God in Missouri and Iowa as the "General Conference of the
Church of God." It appears that support in the east dwindled and was never effectively revived.17

What tied the scattered Sabbath groups together in the early days appeared to be various
doctrines such as conditionalism, age-to-come doctrine, and opposition to Mrs. White's visions.18


History of the Hope of Israel in Michigan

In the first issue of the Hope of Israel, August 10, 1863, is a letter from Samuel Davison of Iowa. 
[Note: Samuel Davison was a Seventh Day Baptist pastor of the Marlboro (Salem), New Jersey
Seventh Day Baptist church from 1844-46, and of Shiloh, New Jersey from 1846-49.  He visited
the Snow Hill German Seventh Day Baptist community in 1847.  This may have been the same
Samuel Davison, who appears as the Church of God leader in the 1860's.] Elder H.S. Dille had
written V.M. Gray, leader of the Marion, Iowa Church of God, on the state of the Churches of
God in Michigan.  Davison found "very interesting" that "unknown to each other," isolated bands
in different states "have believed the same things, taken the same position, set out to seek the
same objects, by the same means; and, so far as now appears filled with the same spirit, and
having the same hope of inheriting the Kingdom of God . . . ."  Davison noted that the Churches
of God in Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa and Michigan believed essentially the same things, and called
for a general conference so they could all get together.19

The Michigan brethren, as the "Church of Christ," met in a three-day Conference at Elder John
Fabins' at Casco, Michigan, beginning Friday, August 21.  

They agreed for a general meeting to be held at Alamo, Kalamazoo County, for three days,
beginning Friday September 25.  All those who "love the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ"
were invited to come.  Preachers from Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa were expected to be there,
including Elders Waterman Phelps, E.S. Sheffield, Samuel Davison, and E.W. Shortridge.20


H.S. Dille

H.S. Dille (or Dilly) was chosen editor at a conference held in Bangor, Michigan in June of 1863. 
He was an experienced printer, and served along with Enos Easton for a time.  He resigned as
editor on April 15, 1864, but continued to run the press, receiving $4.00 a week.21


Hope Moves to Waverly

The first six numbers of the paper were published at Hartford, Michigan.  Then the address of the
paper was changed to Waverly, Michigan, where it remained until the last Michigan issue of
October 18, 1865.  Thirty-nine issues of the Hope of Israel were issued from Michigan.22


Brandywine Corners Conference

On April 15, 1864, a conference was held at Brandywine Corners, Michigan attended by Phelps,
Davison, Niel A. Perry, E.N. Fuller, V.M. Gray, and others.  The elders met together to "settle
any differences of opinion that may exist," and to "form a union, firm, sacred, and never to be
broken."23

Gilbert Cranmer was elected to the chief editorship position, Dille was kept on as printer, and an
executive board was chosen, with John L. Staunton, President, H.S. Dille, Secretary, and Hiram
Goble, Treasurer.  The first quarterly report listed $52.15 received.  Other ministers were added
until there were a total of twelve in Michigan.24

The union discussed at Brandywine Corners apparently did not erase all differences of opinion. 
Waterman Phelps continued to support the Hope in Wisconsin, although he differed materially on
some points with the Michigan brethren.25


Eastern Sabbath-Keepers

Eastern "free Sabbath-keepers" wrote to Samuel Everett of Union, Iowa, in 1864, stating that
nearly one-fourth of the Sabbath-keepers of New England did not fellowship with the Review and
White Party.  They were looking for a paper in which they would express their views, and
Davison told them of the Hope of Israel.  This appeared to open the line of communication
between the Hope and eastern Sabbath Adventists.  The eastern brethren had held a conference at
North Berwick, Maine in February, 1864, resolving to contact brethren in the West.  Another
conference was planned for May 5 at Portland, Maine.  They were given the addresses of Samuel
Davison, Norris, Illinois; V.M. Gray, Marion, Iowa; and W. Phelps, Busseyville, Wisconsin, as
people to contact for further information on the western Sabbath-keepers.26

J.C. Day of Chelsey, Massachusetts wrote Dille expressing gratitude for the paper as a means of
communication to their western brethren by "those who have been cast off because they have
dared to express their doubts as to the inspiration of E.G. White's visions."27

It appears that Samuel Everett was personally acquainted with numerous Sabbath-keepers in the
East.  


East-West Cooperation

The Portland, Maine conference of May 5 authorized S.C. Hancock and J.C. Day to correspond
with the Michigan brethren, calling for a General Conference of the two groups at a point
equidistant for both.  Further, they called for a minister to come from the West to work with
them.28 A letter addressed from the Portland conference to the Hartford Conference (held June
17-19) in Michigan further stated: "in associating ourselves into a church, as begotten by the
'firstborn from the dead,' we have adopted the name of the 'Church of the Firstborn' and we
recognize the last invitation, in the parable of the 'supper,' Luke 14:23, as being now given."


The Day Star Invitation

The June, 1864 Hartford Conference also considered a proposition from P.E. Armstrong of
Celesta, Pennsylvania to merge his paper, the Day Star of Zion, with the Hope of Israel.  The
Michigan brethren turned down the invitation, preferring to keep the paper in Michigan.28

Armstrong appeared to have some differences with the way the Michigan church governed
themselves.  He wrote, "We step right out on simple faith in God, and cast all human machinery of
creeds, conference voting and appointing, to the winds.  And I am sorry to see you trying to know
the will of God through a conference."29


Bangor Conference -- Hope Expanded

August 17-19, 1864, saw another Michigan conference, this time at Bangor.  Elders Fabun,
Wallen and Cranmer spoke, and a letter from the east was read.  The eastern brethren requested
either Phelps or Cranmer to come to their next conference in Portland, Maine and stay for a while. 
Cranmer was chosen to go to the east, while John L. Staunton, Dille, and Hiram Goble remained
as President, Secretary, and Treasurer, respectively.  

A North Berwick, Maine conference on August 4 had sermons by elders Weston, Howard and
Hancock.  C.S. Hancock exhorted the Michigan brethren to join in raising up the little paper to a
larger size and circulation.  

Soon the paper was expanded, and an attempt was made to publish it weekly.  The subscription
price was $1.00 for 26 issues.  The masthead of the Hope for October 7, 1864, said it was
published by the "Church of Christ." A monthly children's paper, "The Little Preacher," was
advertised at 25 cents a year.30


Cranmer Travels to New England

Gilbert Cranmer, sent east by the Bangor Conference, attended the Portland, Maine conference of
the Church of the Firstborn on November 3, 1864.  He traveled three days and nights by rail.  

Cranmer reported that he found the people there a "consecrated company of Advent believers." 
Instead of staying for a while, apparently he shortly returned to Michigan.31


Publishing Problems of the Hope

With the November 2, issue, the page size of the Hope was considerably reduced.   The editor
stated: "The Hope will hereafter be published in its present form, and fair print.  Its prospects
were never so bright."

But the November 30, 1864 issue contained an article by H.S. Dille, entitled "Shall the 'Hope'
Live?"  Dille told how he had labored to publish and print the Hope of Israel for the past 3 1/2
years, after leaving a better paying job.  The financial situation of the work was so severe that he
had thought of ceasing to publish the paper.  The August, 1864 Bangor Conference had decided
to continue the paper, yet sufficient funds were not coming in to support it.  He made an appeal
for financial support.  

M.N. Kramer of Dry Creek, Linn County, Iowa (four miles west of Marion) replied in December
with a pledge of support.  John Reed, a minister and associate of Cranmer in Michigan, quit using
tobacco, saying he would send in the money he formerly used for the "filthy stuff" to support the
Hope.32

By April of 1865, Dille, as office editor, was nearly broke.  His $4.00 per week wages were
$60.00 to $70.00 in arrears, his board bill was unpaid, and he needed rest because of ill health. 
Dille quit his post, with the final offer that if the brethren would raise $400.00 to buy a press and
materials for enlarging and improving the Hope he would lead the efforts and publish another
issue.  

It was two months until the next issue.  In the meantime, a conference had met at Waverly, June
9-11, 1865, deciding to continue the publishing work.  Samuel Everett was made editor, Hiram
Goble, Treasurer, and Dille, Publisher.  A new policy was instituted: the paper was no longer to
be a free oracle for divergent views, as it had been in the past.  In August, Dille became both
editor and publisher, worked without pay, and continued to exhort the brethren for support.  

A supporter from Lunenburg, Massachusetts, Charles Burlingham, wrote in the November 16,
1864, Hope urging support of the paper: "Like every publication which has attempted to advocate
vitally important truth, the 'Hope' is very unpopular and hence, must be supported, if at all, by the
generous contributions of the despised few who are waiting for the coming of the bridegroom."

M.N. Kramer of Dry Creek, Iowa pledged $10.00 cash if thirty others would join annually to keep
the paper alive.  Apparently others did not join.  During June and July of 1865 each issue of the
Hope was only 336 copies.  The last issue from Waverly, Michigan was dated October 18,
1865.33


Divergent Doctrines Expressed

The publishing policy, as set forth in the June 15, 1864, issue, was that the church ordered that
the paper "be open for communications from all candid enquirers."

Real unity seemed to be lacking among the scattered Sabbath-keepers.  This appears to be the key
reason for the failure of the Hope of Israel in Michigan.  Until June of 1865, the paper was open
to many divergent views.  Each church was independent, and different views were expressed and
argued.  On the name question the lack of unanimity was readily apparent.  


Name Question in Hope Party

In the original issue, Enos Easton used the term, "Church of Christ."  But in the early issues
anything from "Advent people," to "Advent bands" were descriptive titles.  Phelps used the term
Church of God for his Wisconsin followers, as did Davison for those in Iowa.  

A committee of Cranmer, John Reed, Joseph Perkins, Daniel Tiffany and Philip Strong, Jr.,
supervised the publication of a hymn book of 105 hymns, published in 1862, and entitled "Hymns
for the Church of Christ."  The use of the term, "Church of Christ" in Michigan may be connected
to the fact that, until 1842, Cranmer was in the Christian Church.34

Eastern Sabbath-keepers who addressed Samuel Everett in Iowa called themselves "free
Sabbath-keepers," and organized as the Church of the Firstborn."

C.S. Bullock in an 1864 letter to editor Dille noted that the Hope of Israel company were
derisively called "Cranmerites."35


Everett's Stand on Christian Unity

The November 2, 1864, issue contained an article by Samuel Everett on Ephesians 4 and Christian
unity.  In it he stated that there is one body, and the church belongs to God, with Christ as its
head.  "As far as the name is concerned, 'The Church of God, -- The Church of Christ,' are
scriptural names of the people of God taken collectively . . . .  We should beware of all sectarian
parties and divisions."36


Portland Conference Supports "Church of the Firstborn"

The November, 1864 Portland, Maine conference wrote a letter to the rest of the brethren
supporting the name, "Church of the Firstborn."  The letter was signed by J.C. Day, O. Davis, and
strangely enough, G. Cranmer.  

The letter noted that different groups were called "The Church of God", "Church of Christ",
"Christians", "Disciples", "Seventh-Day Adventists", and other names.  The differences of names
led to confusion, and "Church of the Firstborn" was an appropriate name "that all may be free to
unite under" because it pointed to the Head of the Church, Christ, who was the firstborn from the
dead.37


Further Suggestions on a Church Name

V.M. Gray of Marion, Iowa wrote a letter dated January, 1865, stating his support for the name,
"Free Seventh-Day Adventists." Their church name, he stated, "should be indicative of our faith."
Further, "It matters not what name we take, we are in fact Seventh-day Adventists . . . ."

Samuel Everett apparently wrote an article which concluded, "Let us be living members of the
church of God . . . . being GATHERED 'into the general assembly and church of the firstborn'."

Luther L. Tiffany of Lansing, Iowa wrote a vehement article in the March 22, 1865, issue, against
adopting any name at all for the saints.  He wrote against Gray's suggestion, and denounced the
Advent people for adopting a name in 1860 and following years.  

E. Rowley of Leicester, Dane County, Wisconsin also wrote against adopting a name for God's
people.  

Editor Dille's position on the name issue was the "Christians need no party names to distinguish
them from brother Christians."

Finally, Polly G. Pitts of Union, Rock County, Wisconsin wrote on April 5, 1865 wrote that "For
years I have felt that the name, 'Church of God,' had a power in it that no sectarian name ever had,
or ever could have.  And I feel there is no name so appropriate."38


Name Not Yet Decided

Apparently the Hope of Israel did not officially adopt a name while in Michigan.  Examination of
the church charter in Michigan and the original issues may give more information on the name
issue.  In 1866, when the paper moved to Iowa, there was still no general name, and "Church of
God" appears but little.  There were no letters nor articles on the church name issue in the first
issues from Iowa.  


Doctrinal Views of Cranmer Party

Cranmer believed that the Judgment will last for 1000 years (Age-to-Come doctrine), and that
Christ's kingdom will be set up on this earth upon His coming.  The second and third angel's
messages he believed to be still future.  Seventh-Day Adventists continued to believe that they
were sounding the Third Angel's Message.39

The August 24, 1863 issue of the Hope contains an article stating that the doctrine of the
immortality of the soul has its origins in Plato and pagan philosophy.  

The "earth's restoration, reign of Christ, restoration of Israel, When Abraham . . . with all the
righteous dead, will possess the new earth," were doctrines heartily supported by the editorship of
the Hope of Israel.40


Healing Emphasized

Cranmer was disappointed at the lack of healings when he was associated with the White Party of
Adventists.  His work seemed to be abundantly full of reports of healings, as well as casting out of
demons.  In his autobiographical sketch, Cranmer reports that he early learned that God will heal
the sick through prayer, as stated in James 5:14-15.  He said he experienced many miracles.41

Cranmer wrote, "God has manifested His power among us in a wonderful manner.  The eyes of
the blind have been opened; the deaf have been made to hear; and almost every disease incident to
the climate, has been cured through faith, to the number of about one hundred cases."42

An associate of Cranmer, Elder Wallen reported that, while he was preaching, two young ladies
were seized with convulsions.  One of them said that the eyes of a certain Spiritualist had fixed
upon her previously.  The demons were reputed to have been cast out.43

In a May 26, 1864, letter, printed in the Hope, Cranmer reported that at his meeting at
Trowbridge, he had preached four sermons, baptized one, and gained eight or ten Sabbath
converts.  He also reported a miraculous healing of a Sister Carter of Otsego, who was attending
the meeting.  Unable to speak for a long time previously, her speech was perfectly restored.44


Conscientious Objectors During the Civil War

One clear indication of the beliefs of the Hope of Israel supporters generally was their
conscientious objection to participation in the Civil War.  

It appears that some Advent groups attempted to buy exemption from the draft for their male
members.  Eli Wilsey of the Hartford "Church of Christ" spent at least four months in prison "for
refusing to fight with carnal weapons."45

Frequent news articles on the progress, and staggering costs, of the war were published, with the
exhortation to the brethren to have nothing to do with the "war, revenge and murder."46

One news report was that brother William Cronk of Casco was drafted, passed examination, "but
was declared exempt from field service on account of his religious principles.  He is in the
government service in the hospital."47

N. Wallen and R.C. Horton reported in a letter dated January 16, 1865, from South Haven,
Michigan that the brethren of Hartford and Casco were going to try and raise $300.00 to clear all
the brethren who may be drafted.  

The April 23, 1865 issue contained a quote from the Harbinger expressing sorrow at the death of
President Lincoln, thanking God that Lincoln made laws to deliver Christians from participating in
war.  

John L. Staunton, a one-time president of the Michigan Conference, enlisted in the Union army,
and the Waverly church disfellowshipped him, maintaining that only non-resisters could be in their
church.48


The Issue of Tobacco

As reported before, Seventh-Day Adventists claim that the "Cranmerites" in Michigan contained
several tobacco users, among whom was Cranmer himself.  

On the other hand, the Church of the Firstborn, in the east, was apparently strictly against the use
of tobacco.  In a letter to the Hope dated December 15, 1864, S.C. Hancock states, "as far as the
use of tobacco is concerned, I am happy to say the Church of the Firstborn, at the East, regard it
as a dirty, loathsome, expensive, unhealthy practice, from which every disciple of Christ should
abstain . . . ."  Editor Dille replied in the Hope that he didn't use it, and never had, contrary to
false reports.49

John Reed wrote a letter to the Hope, dated Allegan, Michigan, January 8, 1865, stating that,
with God's help, he had quit tobacco, and resolved to give his "tobacco money" to the work.50

Niel A. Perry of Colomo, Wisconsin, in a letter dated March 12, 1865, likewise stated he had
given up smoking almost a year ago.  He noted that the Review stated that Cranmer used
tobacco.51

The tobacco issue continued to exist in the Seventh Day Church of God history.  In 1928, an
unnamed brother in Arkansas wrote the Church of God paper stating that some brethren who said
they were too poor to pay tithes were nevertheless heavy tobacco users.  The editor, A.N.
Dugger, replied that "The Church of God stands on record opposing the use of tobacco in every
form, and our ministry is constantly teaching the people their duty along this line."52


Wine, Testimonials, Date Setting

One of the Hope editors, in the third issue (1863), in reply to a letter against the use of fermented
wine, stated that it is all right to use wine for medical uses.  The "wine question" has long been an
issue discussed in the Church of God.  

John Kiesz, Church of God historian, states that the pioneer members "believed in what they
called social or testimony services."53

James Watkins, who preached at Bangor, Michigan, wrote in the November 15, 1863 issue that
the 1335 days of Daniel 12:12-13 reached until 1873 (beginning at 538 A.D., which he supposed
to be the Abomination of Desolation).  The year 1873 he stated would be the "end of the world . .
. when Jesus will come the second time . . . ."54  Again, it is important to note that different views
were allowed to be expressed in the Hope, and the editors did not claim responsibility for the
different views expressed.  


Three Days and Three Nights

In a late 1864 issue of the Hope, for the first time appears an article on the time element of Jesus
in the tomb.  Written by Luther L. Tiffany of Lansing, Iowa, it shows that Jesus was in the tomb
for three days and three nights.  

The November 16, 1864 issue contains another article on this subject, written by Horace
Cushman of Flushing, Michigan.  He stated Christ was crucified on Thursday, resurrected about
one hour before sunrise Sunday morning.55


Passover Question

The issue of when to observe the "Lord's Supper" has been another constant issue of dispute in
the Church of God, Seventh Day.  A passing mention of a January, 1865 observance of
communion in the Hartford and Casco churches is the only communion record so far discovered
of the early Michigan period.  


Phelps Corrected on Time of Sabbath Observance

In number 12 of the Hope (1864), E.S. Sheffield notes that there was a difference as to when the
Sabbath should be commenced.  Those who became Seventh-Day Adventists originally observed
the Sabbath beginning at 6:00 on Friday evening.  But Sheffield was part of a little band of
brethren at Koskonong, Wisconsin, that began keeping the Sabbath before 1854 through the
labors of Waterman Phelps.  No one had bothered to explain to them exactly when to begin the
Sabbath, and in their simplicity, they had begun it at sunset.  Phelps became convinced that he and
all those supporting the Review began the day at the wrong time.  Several of the Wisconsin group
wrote articles on the subject, but the articles never appeared in the Review because the White
Party at that time refused to accept a sunset-sunset Sabbath.56


Some Seventh Day Baptists Join Church of God

E.S. Sheffield of Leicester, Wisconsin reported in Volume I, Number 13 (1864) that some of his
Wisconsin brethren were once members of the Seventh Day Baptist church at Albion, Wisconsin. 
Sheffield apparently preached among some Seventh Day Baptists, convincing them of
conditionalism and life eternal only through Christ.  The Seventh Day Baptist church expelled
Sheffield's converts on the ground of heresy for denying the natural immortality of the soul.  Elder
Sheffield further reported that some of the elders connected with the Review denounced him and
his Wisconsin followers because, though professing to keep the Sabbath, they did not develop
moral characters.  However, the White Party failed to define just what their immorality consisted
of.57


Ministers in Michigan

An October, 1865 issue of the Hope lists the regularly ordained elders in the state of Michigan:58

     Gilbert Cranmer          Galesburg, Kalamazoo County-- Daniel Tiffany           "
     H.S.Case            Hartford, Van Buren County--  Samuel Everett           "
     Enos Easton                   "
     Erastus G.  Branch            "
     James Watkins       Bangor  --     Isaac Catt                    "
     Newton Wallen       South Haven --John FabunNew Casco, Allegan County--

Later History of Cranmer and the Michigan Church of God

Erastus G. Branch worked hand in hand with Cranmer in the ministry until his death in 1873.  Of
twelve early Michigan ministers, all died in the faith except two: R.C. Horton joined the
Seventh-Day Adventists, and James Watkins was disfellowshipped (possibly for joining the army). 
 Gilbert Cranmer outlived them all, and was in his later years affectionately known as "Father
Cranmer."

In the winter of 1869 Cranmer made a trip to northern Michigan.  At Denver, Newaygo County,
he preached for a week and organized a "band" of twelve members, with six more members
several miles away.  In Ottawa County, Cranmer preached among Seventh-Day Adventists,
showing the imperfections and errors of the visions of Mrs.  White, and "their unscriptural mode
of church government."  Six to eight converts were gained here also.  The remnants of his trip to
northern Michigan appear today in several churches in the area and the Sweet family.59

The Hartford, Michigan church was at one time very large and active.  Several other churches
were mentioned by Cranmer's life sketch.  One was at Hamilton, Allegan County, where W.E.
Field and wife were converted.  Another was at Salem, Michigan, where Brother Howe and wife,
and A. Walker and family, were members.60

In 1879, Cranmer married Sophia Branch, his fourth wife (the previous ones died), thus
cementing his ties with the famous Branch family.  

Gilbert Cranmer died December 17, 1903, at the White Cloud Sanatorium.  Elder L.J. Branch
spoke at the funeral, and a song that Cranmer wrote was sung.  Preserved in the modern Church
of God hymnal, the song has the words, "When we get in the world to come, Farewell to fears
and woe . . . ."61


Branches and the Seventh Day Baptists

The four sons of Erastus G. Branch, Mortimer A., Charles R., Erastus G. and Adelbert, were all
made step-sons of Cranmer when their mother married him in 1879.  

Adelbert Branch's pamphlet, "The Backward Look," published in 1937, sheds some light on the
development of the Church of God in Michigan in the later 1800's.  Adelbert remembers as a boy
the fear that Christ would come in 1873.  Apparently a number of Michigan brethren believed in
this date.  

He refers to the beginning of the Church of God General Conference in 1884 as the union of two
conferences, the Church of Christ in Michigan, and the Church of God in the West.  Dissension
among western members forced out W.C. Long as conference president and editor in 1905,
creating a stir in Michigan.  

Branch attended the Stanberry General Conference as a delegate from the Michigan Conference
for two years, probably early in the 1900's.  He became dissatisfied with the General Conference,
and the Michigan Conference voted to withdraw its support and membership in the Church of
God General Conference.  The Michigan state conference continued to be independent until 1917,
when it voted to be united with the Seventh Day Baptists.  

The Branch brothers had moved from Hartford to White Cloud, Michigan on April 16, 1884. 
M.A. Branch became elder of the church there.  Cranmer visited the church there occasionally, as
did L.J. and J.C. Branch, other Branch relatives.  Cranmer and Sophia sold the Hartford church
buildings and moved to White Cloud in the later 1880's.  And between 1888 and 1893, a church
building at White Cloud was erected.  Others joined to make the White Cloud church very strong. 


Previous to the union of some of the Michigan Church of God with the Seventh Day Baptists, the
Branches had become acquainted with Rev. D.B. Coon, pastor of the Battle Creek Seventh Day
Baptist church.   The union was effected on September 27-30, 1917.62

The Churches of God which joined the Seventh Day Baptists were those of White Cloud, Bangor
and Kalkaska County.63


Independent Churches and "Have Love Attitude"

Throughout the "Michigan period," and indeed, most of Church of God history, local churches
seem to have exercised a great deal of local autonomy.  The Waverly, Michigan Conference of
June 9-11, 1865 resolved that each church conduct its own local business, unless corrected by a
church conference.64

Real union was lacking, and obviously this was a key reason behind financial difficulties of the
group.  

Instead of boldly presenting what they believed to be the truth, the Hope of Israel had the "spirit
of love and meekness," towards the White Party and others of disagreeing views.65

As a result, confusion and disunity became typical.  A ministerial conference at Hartford,
beginning on June 29, 1866 withdrew fellowship from H.S. Dille, who had previously left the
Church of God for the Mormon church.  Dille, former editor and publisher of the Hope for years,
and who seemed to keep it going despite financial difficulties, said he was at heart a Mormon even
before his connection with the church in Michigan, and left only when he felt those who disagreed
with him had permanently gained the upper hand.66ê