The Doctors Disagree by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jul 8, 1886

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 12, No. 26.

The Doctors Disagree.

By Editor

THE Baptist Flag has been publishing some articles by one Dr. Dobbs, who claims that the ten commandments are not moral, and are not to be obeyed by Christians. This has called out an emphatic protest from Rev. W. A. Jarrel, author of "Old Testament Ethics Vindicated," who writes to the editor of the Flag as follows:—

"Permit me to enter my emphatic protest against the position of Dr. C. E. W. Dobbs, that the ten commandments are not the moral law, and that the Sabbath of to-day, is not the same Sabbath which was ordained in Eden, but now put upon the first day.

"Dr. Dobbs' position, while intended to meet Seventh Dayists, only plays into their hands. Besides, it positively contradicts the Baptist position, and is Campbellism. Campbellites argue as he does, while Baptists say of the Sabbath: it "is a positive, moral and perpetual commandment, binding on all men, . . . to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection was changed into the first day of the week," etc.—London Conference of 1689, chapter 22. The Scriptures are fearfully tortured into the support of Brothers Dobbs' and Smith's position. Had it not been to refute Seventh Dayists, no one would ever have dreamed of sawing off the limb we are all sitting on.

"Whenever I cannot refute heresy without destroying the Ten Commandments, I will, as the less of two evils, become the heretic. I have had much to do with debating with Seventh Dayists, and well know they are successfully met only by the old Baptist position, in the above quoted connexion. I have not now time to give my reason. But if, when I get some work off my hands, the Flag will give me room for a series of articles, I will do so."

Good! We hope Mr. Jarrel will cling to his determination never to attempt to refute heresy by destroying the ten commandments, and to accept any "heresy" that cannot be overthrown except by destroying them. We heartily thank him for his noble stand for the commandments of God, and for rebuking his brethren in the church who would treat them with contempt. But we are anxious to know how he reconciles this acceptance of the ten commandments with his observance of Sunday. We know him to be a gentleman and a scholar, one who does not believe in "torturing" Scripture into the support of any theory, and who is too wise to saw off the limb on which he sits. He is, moreover, a direct and forcible writer, and therefore whenever his work will allow him to write an article showing how first-day observance can be reconciled with the belief that the fourth commandment is a "moral and perpetual commandment, binding on all men," we will gladly give it a place in the SIGNS. We hope to hear from him soon. Meanwhile let it be noted that scarcely any two leading first-day writers are agreed as to the authority for Sunday-keeping.