Mr. Armstrong Again by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Aug 10, 1882

Mr. Armstrong Again.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

MR. ARMSTRONG's Sunday book has already received, in the SIGNS and elsewhere, all the notice which its merits deserve, and possibly more; but there are in it certain demerits that have not been publicly noticed. These are noticed now, not because there is any argument in them, or because there is much danger that anybody will be led astray by them, but because the book is pretentiously called, “A Refutation of Sabbatarianism.” It may open the eyes of some to the comparative merits of the Sabbath and the Sunday, when they see to what lengths the advocates of the latter institution are driven to find something to say against the Sabbath. This book, it must be remembered, is indorsed by the Methodist denomination. A few passages only will be noticed. On page 75 we read as follows:—

“Not long ago, wishing to test the love of truth in a leading Sabbatarian debater, by letter I asked the following question: Suppose Congress should pass a law changing the secular weekly cycle, and making it commence on Monday instead of Sunday, what effect would it have on your people? Would you keep the seventh day? (Sunday.) After much evasion he absolutely refused to answer. I fear he loved his Sabbath hobby more than he loved truth.”

I fear that this last remark is applicable to Mr. Armstrong himself. No Sabbatarian would have the least hesitation in answering such a question. The prompt answer would be: The action of Congress would not affect the matter in the least. We should keep the Sabbath just as we now do. The Sabbath was instituted by God, the creator of heaven and earth, and not by act of Congress. The Sabbath commandment is part of the law of God, and beyond the jurisdiction of earthly powers. No one would pretend that Congress has any right to tamper with any law of the Czar of Russia; much less has it any right to modify in any manner the law of God. Armstrong himself, although arguing for the observance of any day that follows six consecutive days of labor, says that “the sacred cycle would not be affected by anything that rulers would do.” To this we agree.

Again, on page 108 we find the following:—

“I doubt whether Sabbatarians would conform to the seventh

day where [ever] they went. In the latter part of the last century France became infidel, Christianity was proscribed, and the priests murdered and banished. The weekly cycle of seven days ceased, and in its place appeared decades of days. Had there been Sabbatarians there, what would they have done? Would they have kept the seventh day? They could have done this, but it would only have come once in ten days,[!] and the commandment would have had to be altered. We could not say, ‘six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work.’ This historical fact should open the eyes of these people, and heal the schism in the church. True, in France, hid from public view, in garrets and secret places, there was another seventh day that still existed —there was still a week including labor and rest, but this week was our sacred cycle, beginning with Monday's labor, and ending with Sunday's rest. One of these seventh days must have been adopted by Sabbatarians. To accept the first would have abrogated the Sabbath, to accept the second would have been keeping Sunday.”

We have quoted the entire paragraph, in order not to convey any wrong impression. Truly such astounding logic should entitle the author to add D. D. to his name. See Isa. 56:10. “The weekly cycle of seven days ceased, and in its place appeared decades of days.” Mr. A. has evidently learned a new way of counting. He can count ten without finding seven. If the tenth day could be identified, there would be no trouble in finding the seventh. If anybody had attempted to keep the seventh day “it would only have come once in ten days!” There were some, however, who kept a seventh day, but they had to do it on the first day! So here we have no seventh day at all, and yet two seventh days, one on the first day, and the other on the tenth day! No comments are needed. Such argument (?) is worse than puerile.

Mr. Armstrong says: “We could not say, ‘Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work.’” Why not? As a matter of fact, it was said during all that period. The action of infidel France could not abolish the law of God, any more than it could keep the earth from performing its daily revolutions. Both of these things would have had to be done, in order to make Mr. A's words true.

Again on page 110 we read:—

“There are also countries where there is no seventh day. Dr. Hull tells us that China is one of these. What is to be done there?”

What is to be done? Why, keep Sunday, of course. You can always find Sunday whether the seventh day comes once in ten days or not at all.

No seventh day in China! This is news indeed. Does the cycle contain only six days? If so, seven of these cycles would make six cycles of seven days each. Or does not the sun rise and set in China, making one long day? What the writer evidently means is that the Chinese pay no attention to any rest day, but work on all days. “What is to be done there?” Why, keep the Sabbath the same as anywhere else. The Israelites kept the Sabbath, when they were surrounded by heathen; why can it not be done now? It is done. There are many Sabbath-keepers in China, who find no difficulty in keeping the Sabbath “according to the commandment.”

Using Mr. Armstrong's form of expression, we might say: “There are also countries where there is no God. China is one of these.” That is, not only in China, but in India and Africa, the true God is unknown. But, as is not the case with the Sabbath, they have a substitute.

“What is to be done there?” Shall all the missionaries who go there fall down and worship gods of wood and stone? Would Mr. A. counsel the Methodist missionaries to do so? Does he believe that they do? Of course not. They go there to carry the knowledge of the true God. And although the Chinese pay no regard to any day as a day of rest and worship, these missionaries have no trouble in keeping Sunday, neither have seventh-day missionaries any trouble in keeping the Sabbath.

But it would be a waste of time to dwell longer on such absurdities. It is true that “great men are not always wise,” but it is not possible that Mr. Armstrong is so ignorant as to believe that there is any sense or argument in such passages as we have quoted. He could not even hope to mislead anybody by them, except as he confused them by darkening counsel, “by words without knowledge.” We leave the book alone as being a wall feebly daubed with such exceedingly untempered mortar that it will fall of itself. Eze. 13. E. J. W.