Is the Seventh-Day Sabbath still in force?

Differences of Opinion Concerning the Supposed Repeal of the Seventh-day Weekly Sabbath.

CHAP. VI

Robert Burnside, 1825: WERE the sanctification of the seventh or last day of the week moral in the proper sense of the term, as a dictate of reason, and discoverable by the light of nature, it would not be repealable. For though an act usually moral may be dispensed with, or one of the contrary description be authorized or commanded occasionally by the Author and Preserver of those relationships on which morality depends, to answer some highly important purpose of which he alone can be the judge, (as the second marriage after the Creation - the attempted offering up of Isaac - and the connections formed by the prophet Hosea with different females,) yet it does not appear that these deviations could take place for a continuance, or that a moral disposition could be dispensed with in any instance whatsoever. But the law enacted in Paradise respecting the seventh day weekly Sabbath has been shown (as the seventh part of time, had that been sanctified abstractedly, would have been) to be a positive institution, and moral only on account of certain extraordinary circumstances in which it resembles a moral precept; it is therefore liable to a repeal.

It is proper, however, to observe, that there are several considerations which render it not a little improbable that it would be repealed. The Creation, the completion of which was the occasion of its institution, will last till the end of time. The institution celebrates a work interesting no less to every other nation than till the Jews; to people living under the Christian dispensation, than to those who lived under the Patriarchal and Jewish dispensations. It is a work most magnificent, extensive, and perfect, as originally made; splendid and beautiful, beneficial, and commensurate in duration with the present state of existence allotted to mankind, through an uninterrupted series of generations for several thousands of years. That an institution would be caused to cease many ages before such a work, the completion of which was the cause of it, and on account of which it had continued for four thousand years, or that that day should be set aside which is the only true and proper representative of the day on which the event took place whence sabbath derives its name, seems not very likely.

There is as much need since the Christian dispensation, as there was before, that man should be reminded weekly and appropriately, of nature's originating in something supernatural, and that this visible series of causes and effects was under the government and control of an intelligent, though invisible Being. Infinitely superior as Redemption is to Creation in difficulty, grandeur, and importance, it could not have existed without the other; and as it has two ordinances for its commemoration, there seems to be no necessity for that purpose to deprive the other of the only one which has been appointed for celebrating its origin.

The extraordinary sacrifices, which the Jews offered on the seventh day in compliance with the divine command, and the offering of which was the principal act of public religion by which they distinguished the sabbath from other days before the Babylonish captivity, plainly show, that attention to the Gospel is not unsuitable to the day: and most of the evangelical topics insisted upon by Christian ministers, relate as much to that day as they do to any other. In a word, there seems no utility in repealing the old sabbath to substitute another, since the latter would relieve from no burden, nor promote the ends of civilization, morality, and religion, better than the other.

Notwithstanding, however, these presumptions against a repeal of the seventh day sabbath, it is by no means meant to deny the possibility of such an abrogation. The contrary has already been distinctly admitted. The sole question, therefore, is respecting the matter of fact, whether the repeal has actually ever taken place. Here it will probably be asked, Who denies, or even doubts it? The Christian world at large has indeed for many centuries avowed that opinion. I cannot under this head, as under the former heads, produce authors of contrary sentiments among the observers of the first day, before or since the days of Constantine the Great [321 A.D.]. I cannot bring forward persons of this description, eminent for learning, piety, and station, in the Latin and Greek churches, or among the Protestants in the Establishment or out of it, who have called in question the reality of the repeal, much less denied it.

Yet the Christian world, though so generally in favour of the affirmative, has never been universally so: and though individuals belonging to various descriptions of religious people have not stepped forward to oppose the common sentiment, yet numbers of Christians, especially during the early ages, have ever opposed it in practice, and some, within the two last centuries, in writing.

Ever since the Reformation, if not long before, they have composed a body of themselves, and borne a distinct title; nor have they been without persons of considerable learning, piety, and property, though not so extensively known as those among their opponents.

The reader will perhaps perceive, without difficulty, that I refer to the Christians called Sabbatarians, of whom I now proceed to give the following short account; premising that to these people I think it my duty to attach myself.

The Sabbatarians derive their appellation from the peculiar tenet held by them concerning the Scriptural weekly sabbath, as being the last day of the week since our Lord's resurrection, as well as before it. They make their appearance in the history of the Church, as early as their Christian brethren who are of a different opinion from them in this particular. Their sabbath is said by the historians Socrates [380-439] and Sozomen [ca. 440] to have been kept, in conjunction with the first day, every where among the Christians, except at Rome and Alexandria, for upwards of three centuries. (See Morer's Dialogues on the Lord's Day, p. 188,189.) Accordingly the seventh day and the first day are called Sisters by Gregory Nyssen [335-395]. Strong remonstrances were made against not keeping both days by St. Ignatius [?-107, spuriously] and others, and penalties were ordered, by the Councils of Trullo [692 A.D.] and Laodicea [364?], to be inflicted on clergymen who did not observe both days as festivals. (See Morer's Dialogues on the Lord's Day, p. 188, 189.)

At length Constantine, the first Christian emperor, issued a proclamation about A. D. 321, in favour of the first day solely; (According to Eusebius, Constantine ordered, in the same decree, the observance of the other days consecrated to Christ, to the Saints, and to the Martyrs. This he did, not as executing the decree of a council of which he was president, but without even calling one. - Bampfield's Inquiry, H.D. 1692, p. 97); which was followed by several others similar to it. In consequence of these edicts, which strictly enforced the observance of the first day, without making the smallest provision for the seventh day, that had hitherto been upon an equality with the other, the Sabbatarians, like all other religious bodies that found themselves aggrieved by imperial and ecclesiastical mandates, seem to have retired into Abyssinia; for there, as Scaliger, and Brerewood, the professor of astronomy, inform us, they still remained in the time of Queen Elizabeth [1600].

(According to Dr. Buchanan, in his Christian Researches, the Armenian Christians have always kept the seventh day sabbath, and still keep it. [This appears incorrect.])

(It likewise appears, from his testimony, that the Armenians, are a very numerous and respectable body of Christians. "Their general character," says he, "is that of a wealthy, industrious, and enterprising people. They are to be found in every principal city of Asia, and all the principal places of India, where they arrived many centuries before the English. Wherever they colonize they build churches, and observe the solemnities of the Christian religion in a decorous manner. They have one church in each of the three capitals, viz. Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. They have preserved the Bible in its purity; and their doctrines are, as far as the author knows, the doctrines of the Bible. Of all the Christians in Central Asia they have proved themselves the most free from Muslim and Papal corruption. The Pope assailed them for a time with great violence and but little effect. It is marvelous how these Christians have preserved their faith, equally against the vexatious oppression of the Muslims and their sovereigns, and against the persuasions of the Roman Catholic Church, which for more than two centuries has endeavoured by Missionaries, Priests and Monks to attach them to her Communion. It is impossible to describe the artifices and expenses of the Court of Rome, to effect this object; but all in vain." - Am. Pub.)

(There were, however, traces for many centuries in the Latin and Greek churches, of the sacred regard once paid by Christians in general to the seventh day sabbath; as appears from the Magdeburg Centuries, and from Lucius's Ecclesiastical History. See Bampfield's Inquiry, p. 90 Bampfield also refers to Brerewood and others to prove these facts. So late as A.D. 678 a general council was held at Constantinople, at which the Emperor presided, and Legates were present from the Pope. The seventh day was ordered to be kept as a festival, agreeably to the tradition and custom of the Church; and if any one in the Church of Rome fasted on that day any more than on the first day, it was ordered that he should be deposed or excommunicated, according as he was a clerk [priest] or a laick [laity]. p. 104.)

Whither they retired in Europe, after the decrees of Constantine, does not appear. But most probably, like many other bodies of people who could not in conscience accede to all the decisions of princes and councils on religious subjects, they took refuge in the valleys of Piedmont.

(Mosheim mentions two sects of Sabbatarian Christians among the Waldenses, &c. of the Alps and Lombardy, in the 12th century. There were many, also, in Transylvania in the 14th century. - Hubbard.)

From these they emerged, it would seem, about the beginning of the Reformation; since, according to Bishop White, history associates them, in the time of Luther, with the people called Anabaptists, in Germany.

Their state in England, during the seventeenth century, was sufficiently important to draw the attention of Professors Brerewood and Wallis, who wrote against them; as also did White, Bishop of Ely, by the direction of Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury.

There were Sabbatarians among the Refugees who came over to this country from France. A century or two ago, there were several congregations of Sabbatarians in London, and also congregations of them in many of the counties in England:

(According to Hubbard, (an American writer,) there were nine or ten churches in England about A. D. 1668, besides many Sabbatarians that were not members anywhere.)

but their state in this country at present is very low.

However, in the United States of North America, whither some of them went from England during the reigns of the Stuarts, they have greatly increased within these few years. One of their churches has nine hundred members. Another of them, in the year 1820, received an accession of one hundred and forty members in the space of seven months. Among their communities are two churches, the foundations of which were laid by persons from Germany and Scotland; from the former in 1720.

With respect to their religious principles, so far as is known, they have always been, and still are, connected with that description of Christians, which in this country bear the name of Protestant Dissenters, and more particularly with that denomination of them called Antipedobaptists, or Baptists. But they do not all hold the same doctrinal tenets, either here or elsewhere, any more than the other descriptions of Christians. Those to whom I belong are styled Particular or Calvinistic Baptists. Their creed may be found in the doctrinal Articles of the Church of England, and in the Assemblies' Catechism.

Having given this short account of the Sabbatarians, I proceed, in their name and in my own, respectfully to state my reasons for differing from the Christian public on the question relative to the repeal of the seventh day sabbath.

Though the possibility of such a repeal cannot justly be denied, since a weekly sabbath can only be, properly speaking, a positive institution, yet the considerations already adduced in support of its improbability are so strong, in my opinion, that it ought to be well substantiated, before it is supposed that the old sabbath can be quitted with propriety and safety.

Let it not be said that a repeal was unnecessary either for Jews or Gentiles; unnecessary for the Jews, because their obligation to keep the seventh day ceased of itself [This is incorrect! The Mosaic covenant and the Sabbath Covenant of Exod. 31 are still in effect.] when they ceased to "dwell alone," to be the peculiar people of God, and to enjoy extraordinary privileges, civil and religious; unnecessary for the Gentiles, as never having been subject to the law, and as requiring only the non-existence of an injunction to keep it. In opposition to such an objection, I have already shown that the Jews were bound to keep this law prior to its being given to them at Mount Sinai, and even if it had never been given to them at all; or if they had never been distinguished from other nations by peculiar marks of the divine favour.

I have also shown that the Gentiles were never exempt from subjection to it, since it was enjoined upon our first parents and all their posterity at the Creation. They were, therefore, obliged to keep it, as well as the Jews, except they were told to the contrary by proper authority; and (as was said before) there was no need of the apostle's exhorting them to it, as there would have been in the case of a new duty, especially as there were subjects of far greater importance to them to be insisted upon. With respect to their ignorance or forgetfulness of this duty, the institution recorded both in Gen. 2:2,3 and in the Fourth Commandment, which they would find on searching the Old Testament, (as they were ordered to do,) and which the Jews everywhere supported by their example, was abundantly sufficient to remind them of it. Nor did they ever show any reluctance to comply with their duty in this respect, so far as can be judged from the Acts of the Apostles.

Neither could the repeal be reasonably inferred from the repeal of other laws at the close of the Jewish dispensation. [None were repealed! But administrations and applications changed.] For, though the law relative a the seventh day sabbath was positive, it was not ceremonial. It had no reference whatever to Christ [!! - Here is an obvious connection: the Sabbath is our rest, and Christ is our rest. Matt. 11:28] and therefore did not, like the law of sacrifices, and many other institutions, terminate by his sufferings and death [which, of course they didn't!]. It was not, like circumcision, binding only upon the natural descendants of Abraham, and consequently did not end, like it, when the Jews ceased to he the people of God exclusively. [But circumcision, physical for the Jews, spiritual for the Christians, has not ceased!] In short, a distinct, specific, and separate repeal is wanted, for the abrogation of the seventh day sabbath.

I now proceed to consider those passages in the New Testament which are thought to imply the repeal in question. [These are much better discussed at Christian Holy Days and The Weekly Christian Worship Day.]

The text which has most the appearance of it, is Colossians 2:16. ["Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"] If, however, the word sabbaths in that verse is to be understood universally of all sabbaths, without exception, it must include the sabbath of those who oppose the Sabbatarians; for this sabbath must have existed at that time, supposing it ever to have existed by apostolic authority. If, on the other hand, the observers of the first day consider the limitation of the term not inadmissible, the Sabbatarians have an equal right to consider the limitation of it not inadmissible.

(The object of the Apostle seems to be, to relieve the Gentile converts from a burden. [Actually, in Colossians Paul is not condemning sabbath and festival observance as commanded by God to Israel, but those false teachers who try to regulate them by ascetic practices. These were imported from demon-influenced human traditions. Col. 2:22] But how is the observance of the seventh day, in the manner inculcated by Christ, a greater burden than the observance of the first day would have been? Neither is the seventh day sabbath more a shadow than any other medium of divine grace, compared with the blessings conveyed through that medium, or than the first day is. The institution of the seventh part of time is truly shadow, of which that of the seventh day is the body.)

In fact, both parties do limit it: the former confining it to the sabbaths kept by the Jews, including the weekly sabbath, that was binding upon all other nations as well as upon them, the latter confining it to the sabbaths that were peculiar to the Jews - that is, to their monthly and annual sabbaths. The Sabbatarians ground their opinion on the context. The weekly sabbath is indeed sometimes mentioned in the law of Moses in conjunction with feasts peculiar to the Jews, because it was a positive institution and a festival, as they were; but it never was a shadow, of which Christ was the body, as the new moons and all the ordinances of the ceremonial law were; and therefore it is of these, and of these only, that the apostle shows himself to be speaking. With these holydays the seventh day sabbath is not so much as connected here, nor had it any more to do with them than fornication had to do with "things offered to idols, and things strangled, and blood," though it is enumerated with them in Acts 15.

The law of the seventh day sabbath, though positive, as that of any sabbath cannot but be, (which has already been proved at large,) yet never formed a part of the ceremonial law of the Jews. It existed before man had any need of Christ; it therefore had no reference to the gospel [??], and was instituted on quite a different account. The Jews kept it, it is true; and so they kept, or ought to have kept, the other precepts of the Decalogue: but there is no more reason for thinking that this precept shared the fate of their peculiarities, than that the others did.

It should also be recollected, that if the text under consideration be subversive of the seventh day sabbath, it is equally subversive of the sacred regard due to the seventh part of time; it is also subversive of the rest of the Fourth Commandment. For the holy character of the seventh part of time arises out of and depends upon the original institution of the seventh day; and therefore no day will be left for us to keep holy: and any new sabbath by divine appointment will stand upon its own ground entirely, independent both of the institution in Paradise, and of the Fourth Commandment.

I may add, that if the passage in question repealed the weekly sabbath that was kept by the Jews, it would repeal a sabbath that was equally obligatory on the Gentiles. For it existed long before the time of the Jews - as early, indeed, as there was a human being to keep it; and though it was delivered afresh to the Jews at Mount Sinai, so were the other precepts of the Decalogue, which no one ever thought not to belong to the Gentiles, or to be repealed at the close of the former dispensation, as being Jewish. But the term sabbath in the commandment which God is said there to have blessed and hallowed, is the seventh day; for so it is called in Gen. 2:2,3 to which the commandment refers. I have already shown in what respects it was a sign between the Jews and the Gentiles consistently with its being obligatory on the latter, and that the contrary supposition infers the abrogation of the whole of the Fourth Commandment, as well as of the seventh day sabbath.

(The ingenious and learned Dr. Wallis thinks that the word sabbath, in the verse that has been considered, cannot possibly mean the monthly or annual sabbaths of the Jews, because the Apostle refers not to the Jews in their own country, but to the Asiatic Jews, who, according to the law of Moses, could not keep them, not being at Jerusalem. But he forgets that these Jews were in the habit of repairing to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover, if not the other feasts; and that possibly the evil which the Apostle wished to correct was, in part at least, that they "judged" their brother converts from among the Gentiles, for not taking the same inconvenient and hazardous journeys as they perhaps did. Besides, it is impossible for Dr. Wallis or for any one else to say that some deviations from the law of Moses might not be deemed lawful and necessary by the Hellenistic Jews, under their circumstances. This we know, that the Jews in England keep the Passover in some way, notwithstanding the restrictions of that law. That the Apostle, in Col. 2:16. has the ceremonial law of the Jews solely in view, seems evident from his expostulation with the Colossians a few verses afterwards- "Why are ye subject to ordinances? Touch not; taste not; handle not.") [In fact, Paul is not concerned with the Jewish ceremonial law (which is irrelevant to the Colossians), but with criticisms of Christian religious observances by those influenced by demonic ascetic Gentile practices.]

As the term sabbaths, or sabbath days, (Col. 2:16), is limited in its sense by the context, so is the word days, (Gal. 4:10) as also the application of the Apostle's remarks (Rom. 14.) relative to "keeping or not keeping a day to the Lord." The context in both places shows that he is speaking not of positive institutions exclusively by divine authority, but either of the Mosaic ritual, which though once binding on the Jews was no longer so, or else abstinences and observances which the Divine Being has neither commanded nor forbidden. While, therefore, he casts no censure upon the religious observation of any day, be it what day it may, he does not mean to represent it as justifiable in any one to "esteem every day alike" in opposition to a divine institution, whether an old one, like the seventh day weekly sabbath, that had nothing to do with the Mosaic ritual, or with the Jews exclusively, and that remained unrepealed, or a divine institution that was new.

The explanation just given must be acquiesced in by every one who believes that there is a certain day of the week obligatory upon Christians, to be sanctified as the weekly sabbath, whether it be the seventh, the first, or any other day; or, indeed, whether the Scriptures name it or not: as, for instance, if they had merely instituted the seventh part of time abstractedly.

I will add, that it is perfectly incredible that a day consecrated on so great an occasion - a day enjoined upon man as soon as he existed, and upon all his posterity without any distinction - a day, the reason for sanctifying which indicated that it was to continue sacred as long as the creation lasted, and which was in itself as adequate to any holy or beneficial purpose as that of any other could be - a day, in short, the observance of which was as highly important as ever to the beast as well as to man, and to mankind at large both in a civil and religious view - should be dismissed indirectly by means of expressions so slight, general, and ambiguous, as those used in the texts that have been considered.

Such are the reasons for which the Sabbatarians feel compelled, in opposition to their Christian brethren, to deny the sufficiency of the texts that are relied upon to prove the direct repeal of the seventh day weekly sabbath. I propose now to examine certain circumstance, which have been thought to amount to an indirect proof of it.

The circumstances are - that the apostles never tell the converts, if Jews, to continue, if Gentiles, to commence keeping it - and that the inspired writers of the Acts and the Epistles record no instance in which Christians, as such, held a meeting on it for a religious purpose, much less state that such meeting was sanctioned by the presence of an apostle and that he took a leading part in it.

Before I reply to these observations, I beg leave to ask those who make them, whether they would deem them sufficient (admitting the correctness of them) to set aside the old sabbath, if they did not think that there was a new one to substitute for it by divine authority. For if they would not deem the observations adequate to the purpose for which they are made in the case supposed, neither ought they to deem them sufficient in the contrary case. I proceed to examine the observations.

The first of them infers the repeal of the seventh-day sabbath from the silence of the apostles about it, in addressing the converts. But what occasion was there for the inspired missionaries to address persons concerning a law which they had always been under, which they knew they were under, which they were in the habit of obeying, and which they knew of no reason for not continuing to obey? This was unquestionably the case of the Jews, and no less of the Gentiles, if the accounts given of them by the first-day writers, and which have been referred to before, may be depended on, so far as relates to practice, whatever might be their idea concerning the origin of their keeping the day sacred, and of the extent to which it was to be so kept.

It was merely necessary for the apostle to forbid their hearers to keep it any longer, or to tell them that it was not requisite to begin keeping it. This might have been expected, had the sacred heralds intended to repeal it, since nothing had happened to make people think of their own accord that it was repealed, the reason for the original institution continuing the same as ever. They really did this in the cases of sacrifice and circumcision; though the last of these, being given to the descendants of Abraham only, might be supposed to lose its claim to regard when they ceased to be a peculiar people - at any rate not to be binding upon any who never were the peculiar people; and the first ceased naturally [so far as Christians were concerned] the moment the Great Sacrifice was offered.

So far, however, from a repeal being announced respecting the seventh day sabbath, we find the inspired writers after Christ's ascension uniformly continuing to call it by its old name, the sabbath day, without ever intimating that they only did so because the day had been or was still kept peculiarly by the Jews - and what is more, without ever giving the appellation to any other day.

No one doubts that the Gentiles, when they became Jews [proselytes], kept the seventh day as a matter of course, finding both the institution and the practice connected with the true religion revealed in the Old Testament. Was it not natural for them to continue or to commence doing the same when they became Christians, except they were told, or had examples set them, to the contrary? Why was it more necessary to tell them to do so in the latter case, than it was in the former? There is no proof that the apostles or the first Christians ever treated the seventh day as secular. The transactions at Troas certainly do not prove that Paul and the disciples did not keep the seventh day. There is not the slightest hint that the Gentiles at Antioch, in Pisidia, upon embracing Christianity, kept a different day from that which they kept while they were Jewish proselytes, or that they thought themselves at liberty to renounce the seventh day, because they were not told to continue keeping it. Similar silence was observed at Lydia's conversion; yet there is no reason to think that she quitted the Sabbath which she kept when she used to resort along with the other women to the river side.

The apostles were too much occupied in urging the essentials of religion and of Christianity to preach upon the subject of the weekly sabbath, (which, however important, is only a circumstantial of religion,) except something extraordinary had called their attention to it. As the universal and continued obligation of the seventh day sabbath was never disputed or resisted by any of the converts, it was sufficient to enjoin the study of the Old Testament, where they would find an account of it if they needed it, both in Gen. 2:2,3 and in the Fourth Commandment. Whether the converts were from among the Jews or the Gentiles, they were made to understand that they were to regard every part of the Old Testament, except the ceremonial law, and that which related to the political economy of the Jews; neither of which, as has been shown, excluded the weekly Sabbath.

The other indirect proof adduced in support of the supposed repeal under consideration is, that there is no case on divine record in which an apostle authorized, presided at, or concurred in, any religious act performed or to be performed by Christians as Christians, or indeed of any Christian assembly being held for a religious purpose, on the seventh day. I reply, that it is not true that no religious meetings or religious acts of Christians, as such, are recorded as taking place on this day. We are told (Acts 2:46.) that meetings and acts of this kind took place among them "daily", and if they took place every day, they of course took place on the seventh day. Nor does it follow that the seventh day ceased to retain the exclusive right to sanctification it had hitherto possessed, on account of religious acts being performed in Christian assemblies on other days likewise. "Breaking of bread," too, is expressly mentioned as taking place "daily;" on the seventh day as well as on other days: and there is as much reason to understand by it celebrating the Lord's supper in this text, as in Acts 20:7. (The word meat in Acts 2:46. occurs also in Acts 47:35, etc., where there is no mention of any thing, except of bread and of wheat.)

But were the passage in Acts 2:46 wanting, it would by no means follow that the Christians did not hold religious assemblies or perform religious acts on the day in question, merely because there is no account of them. It is not necessary to the proof of a law which was uniformly regarded for ages continuing in force at a certain period, that examples of obedience to it should be produced during that period. It is enough that there were examples of it a little before - that there has been no notice of a repeal - and that nothing has intervened which justified the expectation of a repeal, or which, without such notice, tended to or warranted future disregard. It may, be presumed that obedience to a law continues to proceed in its usual course, when nothing is stated to have happened to annul the obligation, or to interrupt the habit of obedience. It was the duty of the Jews, when they became Christians, still to keep the seventh day Sabbath, and of the Gentiles, on their conversion, to commence keeping it, as they always did, when they became Jewish proselytes, if they did not keep it before, (which it was their duty to have done; and which testimonies, as I have already shown, are not wanting to prove that they did in some way and to a certain extent,) except they were informed to the contrary, of which there is not the slightest appearances.

The mere change of dispensation was not adapted to release either Jews or Gentiles from an obligation which commenced at the Creation, and the reason for which was as weighty and as universally interesting as ever a reason which could not be affected by the recovery of man, because it existed before his fall. The sabbath in being was as much wanted after our Lord's death as before, for civil, moral and religious purposes; and in the absence of any declaration to the contrary, seems as proper for promoting them as any other sabbath whatever. It was as proper in itself, as has been before observed for explaining and applying the glorious facts and truths of the gospel, as any other day; as appears from the double sacrifices which the Jews used to offer on it, and from the religious services now performed on it by the Sabbatarians, who expatiate as much upon the gospel on their sabbath, as the advocates of the first day do on their's.

With respect to the authority for abandoning the old sabbath on account of no one of the great events, or of a particular event, not having taken place on it, no one, I suppose, will say that the converts would be justified in doing this as a matter of course, without a divine permission or injunction - especially since the events referred to for the most part no more happened on the first day than on the seventh, and since they were already commemorated and celebrated by two ordinances which Christ himself instituted; whereas the Creation would be without any institution for its commemoration and improvement, if the seventh day ceased to be kept holy. That such permission or injunction exits, could not, for the reasons just stated, be anticipated or expected. There has been no proof of it hitherto, nor would the new sabbath be less burdensome than the former was, from the foregoing considerations.

(We are told that in the Hebrew government, no magistrate, whether judge, sanhedrim, senate, congregation of Israel, or popular assembly, either separately or jointly, had power to repeal any of the laws enacted by Jehovah, or to publish new laws in his name; the doing of which would have been to make laws for his kingdom without his authority - (Brown, vol. 2. p. 60.) If so it would hardly seem possible that any enactment of such men as the Apostles, would gain much ascendancy in any alteration of the Sabbath. - Am. Pub.)

Since, then, the first converts had no cause to question, either from the nature of the case, or from any intimation given or act performed by an apostle, the continuance of a law that had existed from the beginning of time, and which was of universal obligation a law which the Jews had always kept, and which there is very great reason to think that the Gentiles themselves in some respects kept, (as it was their incumbent duty to do,) though they had probably forgotten the origin of it; there would be no just ground for supposing that the first converts had discontinued the practice, were the instance already stated wanting, by which it appears that they met together and performed religious acts on the seventh day as well as on other days. Instances are not wanted to prove the continuance of that which there was no cause for discontinuing. No inspired person ever secularized the seventh day, nor indeed any one else, so far as appears from the Scriptures. The silence of the sacred writers, therefore, on the subject of their keeping it, would not prove that they did not keep it, (since they say nothing to the contrary,) even were it total, or not at all to be accounted for. But their silence has been shown not to be total; and that it is so great as it is, may, in my opinion, be very easily and satisfactorily accounted for.

There is not any thing surprising in the supposition that the apostles might seldom or never be present at Christian assemblies held on the day in question. Their missionary character in general required their attendance at other places of public resort - particularly at the synagogues of the Jews, on account of the great opportunities afforded them at these times and places of diffusing the glad tidings of salvation more widely. In that case, the Christians might keep the day socially as well as individually, publicly as well as privately, without any remarkable occurrence, especially of a miraculous nature taking place; the apostles, and perhaps not only they, but their disciples and "fellow-helpers," and in general all others whose instrumentality was usually employed in working miracles, being absent for the reason just stated. Were this the fact, nothing ever passed or happened at these meetings, except the routine of holy duties: and it could not be expected that any thing said or done by Christians, or any event that took place among them, except what was singular, of general interest, or of lasting importance, would be inserted in a work like that of the sacred historian Luke and the Epistles of the apostles, which was not intended for a diary or for minute details relative to particular individuals and churches, but to furnish a general view of characters and occurrences that were principally connected with the rise and progress of Christianity.

Let no one think, that in supposing the absence of every thing extraordinary from the Christian meetings on the seventh day to have occasioned the silence of the sacred writers about them, I have been substituting hypothesis for fact. There is no one that doubts but the Jews kept the seventh day between the death of Moses and that of Samuel. Irreligious as the Jews in general were, there were not wanting pious characters among them during that period - a period of between four and five hundred years; yet we have no evidence of the fact that they did actually keep it.

What can the silence of the sacred historians be owing to, but to the cause just mentioned? (The silence of the inspired writers under consideration, relates to a period of no more than sixty years, and therefore is not so much adapted to shake the credit of the institution's continuance as the former silence was.) On the other hand, it is evident that we should not have known from sacred history that the Jews kept it in our Lord's time and that of his apostles, or that he kept it himself, had it not been for extraordinary and even miraculous occurrences on that day. In our own country [England], the celebration of the 5th of November [Guy Fawkes' Day] is never noticed by historians from the time of its appointment for celebration till the year of the Revolution; nor would it have been mentioned then, had not the historian Rapin been reminded of it by the landing of the Prince of Orange [William III] in 1688, about that time of the year; but no one would have doubted that the English did observe it during the period of between eighty and ninety years that preceded, if Rapin had continued silent about it, since nothing is stated to warrant the contrary opinion.

There is one circumstance which appears to me impossible to be accounted for, if the apostles really authorized the Jewish converts by precept or by example to forsake the old sabbath, or if the Gentile converts did not continue to keep it or embrace it; and that is, the profound silence observed by the unbelieving Jews, and the total absence of controversy from the Christian churches on the occasion.

The indignation repeatedly manifested by the Jews when our Lord performed cures on the Sabbath day, as well as the testimony of profane history, clearly shows that they were no less enthusiastically attached to the day they sanctified, than they were to circumcision: and how tremblingly alive they were to the claim of the latter - even those of them who believed, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of Paul abundantly prove. They insisted that the believing Gentiles could not be saved without it; they compelled the latter to appeal to the church at Jerusalem; they urged their favorite tenet in the council of the apostles and elders: and notwithstanding the solemn decree passed by the council, with the concurrence of the Holy Ghost, in favour of exempting the Gentile converts from obligation to be circumcised, and the tranquility which the knowledge of the decree restored to the churches in general, yet the sharp remonstrances of the Apostle, in his Epistle to the Galatians, plainly show that the dissensions had by no means subsided in these parts.

But how does the case stand with respect to the seventh day Sabbath, for which the Jews were equally, if not still more, zealous? Do we read of any animosities or outrages of the unbelieving Jews, which must have been the consequence if the apostles had repealed the old sabbath? Did they ever express their displeasure against the neglect or violation of it, now supposed to be general at that time among Christians, as they did on the mere appearance of either in our Lord's time? Do the Jewish converts ever remonstrate against being called upon, supposing them to have been so, to leave their favourite day, or insist upon the Gentiles keeping it upon their becoming Christians, if they did not keep it before? Is there any reason to think that they would be less tenacious on this point, had they been required to give it up, or more liberally minded towards a Gentile brother, had he differed from them in this particular, than they were respecting circumcision?

Were there any dissensions among the Christians, any appeals to the apostles and elders, any decrees under the direction and influence of the Holy Spirit on the subject? It is well known that there was nothing of the kind. For though the passages Col. 2:16. Gal. 4:10 and Rom. 14:5 have been considered as indicative of controversy among Christians on the subject of the weekly Sabbath, and also of remonstrance on the part of the sacred writer against censuring the non-observance of the seventh day, the context (as I have already shown) proves that they relate to a different topic; and my opponents must at least allow them to be ambiguous: whereas the obligation of circumcision on the Gentiles is reprobated by the inspired penmen in terms that cannot possibly admit of any other meaning.

(The texts referred to, however, are not ambiguous. They, cannot relate to any dispute between the Jewish and the Gentile converts about the seventh day Sabbath. For why should the latter object to it when they became Christians, any more than they did when they became Jews? If, on the other hand, the Jewish converts did not keep it, how could it occasion disputes?)

I am aware that when Paul says, "to the Jews I became as a Jew," it has been thought that he did so by conforming to them in keeping the seventh day himself, and in conniving at its being kept by others, though he knew of its repeal. Were this the fact, it would at least prove that the silence of the sacred writers concerning the Christians' keeping the seventh day is no proof that they did not keep it. But the case of his circumcising Timothy, (an act then unnecessary by divine law,) though the father of Timothy was a Greek, "because of the Jews that were in that quarter," (and who knew that Timothy's father was not a Jew,) is a sufficient illustration of the apostle's assertion, without any other instance; and were any other instance really wanting, to supply the defect by explaining the words as already stated, - without the apostle's authority, is "begging the question," or taking that for granted which remains to be proved.

The unwillingness of the apostle and his companions to give offence to the Jews, whether unbelievers or believers, by exempting any, whether Jew or Gentile, from obligation to "keep holy the seventh day" has also been attributed to the continuance of the temple at Jerusalem, the daily services there, especially those on the Sabbath, and the attention still paid by the Jewish nation to the Mosaic institutions, though abrogated. They are thought, therefore, to have kept and treated the old sabbath, as Paul conformed to the customs of the Nazarites the day on which the Jews took him in the temple; at least, then, as before noticed, the seventh day was kept by the Christians, notwithstanding the silence of the sacred writers: and how does it appear, from them, that it was not to be kept after the destruction of Jerusalem, as well as before?

If it had been true that the seventh day sabbath was a part of the religious or civil economy peculiar to the Jews, and therefore to cease when they ceased, the Fourth Commandment, according to what was proved in the last Chapter, must have gone with them. But the seventh day sabbath, as has been shown already, formed no part of the Mosaic ritual, nor did it belong to the Jews more than to any other nation, being instituted at the close of the Creation, and on that account. If then, it was kept by the apostles and the first believers till the destruction of Jerusalem, there is no reason to think that it was to cease being kept afterwards, since we are nowhere told that it would be no longer binding after that event.

The ceremonial law was distinctly repealed [or rather it is not part of the New Covenant], though, from the design of it having been answered, its repeal might have been presumed without a formal statement. How much more might such a repeal, if a repeal had been intended, have been looked for in a case where the abrogation could not be known without it, since the reason of the institution continued to be as important as ever? If nothing more than a temporary compliance with the prepossessions of the Jews in a matter of indifference had been meant by the sacred regard which the Christians paid to the seventh day before the destruction of Jerusalem, we should have been informed of it, as the apostle Paul acquaints us with the abridgement of his liberty, which he imposed upon himself in the cases of eating meat and drinking wine. Since neither he nor, any of his companions or followers allege any such reason for adhering to the old Sabbath, which they did cheerfully and universally adhere to, it follows that they did not act from a temporizing and accommodating spirit, but in compliance with an incumbent duty.

Thus the indirect proof of the repeal of the seventh day sabbath fails, in my opinion, as well as the direct proof. I indeed consider as positive evidence to the contrary, our Lord's exhortation to his disciples to pray that their flight from Jerusalem, when threatened to be encompassed by armies, might not take place on "the sabbath day." There was certainly no other sabbath day in being at that time, except the one which is inculcated in the Fourth Commandment. The disciples, therefore, must have understood their Divine Master as speaking of that sabbath day. He says nothing to prevent their thus understanding his meaning, and their expressing themselves in prayer according to that meaning. It is far more natural to suppose that our Lord referred to the disturbance which their own devotion, and that of the pious in general, would be in danger of receiving in the case imagined, than to any they might suffer from the acts of devotion continued to be performed by the Jews on an obsolete sabbath.

Of course, if I am right in my interpretation of the texts which have been noticed, the seventh day sabbath was to continue forty years after our Lord's ascension; nor is the slightest intimation given that it was then to cease.

To conclude. - Though it is commonly supposed that the seventh day is called sabbath in the sacred writings after our Lord's resurrection merely as belonging exclusively to the Jews, and as being observed by them, and that the apostles attended at the synagogues on that day merely as pursuing their missionary work among the Jews, there is not a tittle of evidence to support either conjecture. The sacred writers never intimate any thing of the kind. Till it be proved from other sources that a repeal was wanted, expected, and announced by divine authority, the seventh day, in still being called sabbath, only retained the name to which it was exclusively entitled both among Jews and Gentiles; and the apostles, in attending to their missionary labours on the day, proposed likewise to sanctify that day which it was their duty to "keep holy."

Let it not be objected to the conclusiveness of the foregoing reasoning, that from the non-repeal of the seventh day sabbath, the inconvenience would follow of, sanctifying two days in a week. I own the inconvenience, and, as well as all other Christians, think it utterly improbable that the Divine Being would require this. I am ready to admit, further, that the non-repeal should not be acquiesced in without the greatest care, considering how long and how extensively the contrary idea has prevailed. At the same time, I must observe, that caution in examining evidence should not be confined to the case of retaining the old sabbath, but be extended to the case of receiving a new one.

The Sabbatarians, therefore, cannot agree with their Christian brethren in calling the seventh day sabbath the Jewish sabbath, as if it ever had belonged, or continued to belong, exclusively to them. So far from it, that they always call it sabbath, and never call any other day by that name [except the 7 annual Holy Days of Lev. 23]. They can admit the propriety of the phrase only in the sense in which Jewish Scriptures and Jewish God are commonly understood.

The Sabbatarians, however, are not the only people who ever demurred to the repeal of the seventh day sabbath. The ancient Fathers never once affirm it, much less do they ever plead Scripture in support of it. With respect to the sacred regard that continued to be paid to the seventh day, after the apostolic age, I have already referred to the earliest writers among the Christians to prove the fact, and shall now proceed to quote the words of Morer relative to it, p. 187-189.

"Socrates tells us, that all the churches over the world, excepting those of Alexandria and of Rome, set apart as well Saturday as Sunday for religious uses; even the Egyptians and those who dwelt in Thebais, borderers on Alexandria, complied, and had on both days prayers and collections. Sozomen has the same exception of Rome and Alexandria, but (to use his own words) all or most of the other churches carefully observed the sabbath. And so great stress was laid on beeping it, that Gregory Nyssen expostulates thus: "With what eyes can you behold the Lord's day, when you despise the sabbath? Do you not perceive they we sisters, and that in slighting the one you affront the other. And as sisters, we find them go hand in hand the Ecclesiastical Canons. `If any clergyman be found fasting on the Lord's day, or the sabbath, let him be suspended.' - Canon 66. Apost.' And in the Sixth Council of Trullo, the canons obliged all people fast throughout Lent, except on the sabbath and Lord's day. And so they are joined together in the 49th and 51st Canons of the Council of Laodicea.

[Council of Trullo, 692 A.D.:
CANON LII. ON all days of the holy fast of Lent, except on the Sabbath, the Lord's day and the holy day of the Annunciation, the Liturgy of the Presanctified is to be said. ]

But the words of St. Ignatius are very severe; (Epist. ad Philip.) [a spurious epistle. Ignatius was opposed to the Sabbath, `they have given up keeping the sabbath, and now order their lives by the Lord's Day instead' (Magnesians 9)] `if any man fast on the Lord's day, or the sabbath, except that before Easter, he murders Christ again:' and no wonder, seeing we find it among constitutions of the Church in St. Clement, that celebrate as festivals the sabbath and the Lord's day. This is done in memory of the resurrection, and that of the Creation. Elsewhere the same author makes both days of rest, that so servants may have opportunity to go to church, to hear and learn the duties of religion.

`In sum,' says Balsamon, `the holy Fathers make the sabbath and the Lord's day to stand on the same ground, and they were equally respected in ancient times.' Thus far Morer.

For upwards of three hundred years (as before noticed) the seventh day was thus kept by Christians in, general, though in conjunction with the first day. Several parts of the extract just given deserve particular remark. Not only fathers, but councils, declare in favour of the old sabbath; and the language employed by them is not that of concern to have its observance connived at or tolerated, but of conviction that it was an important duty. St. Ignatius himself who in another part of his writings [Magnesians] is understood by some to urge the celebration of the first day instead of sabbatizing, in this [spurious, post-300 A.D.] part, on the contrary, enjoins it only after sabbatizing; reprobating the neglect of the latter in the severest terms.

The Apostolical Canons are not thought to be so early as they pretend to be; but the later the zeal was which they express for the seventh day sabbath, the more advantageous it is to the cause which it advocates. The Council at Trullo which declares on the same side, must also have been held late, as it was the sixth which sat there. [Only one is called "Trullo", but it was a successor to the sixth ecumenical synod.] Whether the Council of Laodicea which espouses the cause of the seventh day was that which sat there in the middle of the fourth century, is uncertain; but if it was, it is not a little remarkable that it should venture thus to express its sentiment in opposition to the decrees of Constantine which enjoin the observance of the first day without mentioning the seventh day.

Be that as it may, Gregory Nyssen must have had that boldness, since he lived at that time. Nor do the historians Socrates and Sozomen, both of whom lived in that century, (and the latter continued beyond the beginning of the fifth century,) display a small degree of it, in stating, as they do, both the period during which Sabbatarianism (as it is now called) was practiced, and the extent to which it prevailed. The first of these writers states; (Lib. 5. Cap. 22.) not only the public observance of the seventh day in almost all the churches, with the exception of those in Rome and Alexandria, in the fourth century, but also that the "holy mysteries were performed on it."

St. Ignatius, indeed, according to Bishop White, exhorts the Christians to work on the sabbath, quoting the apostle's words, "If any man will not work, neither shall he eat." This, however, is no more than what the same learned writer shows the fathers in general to have done relative to the first day, not only while the Christians were subject to the idolaters, but for three centuries after the Roman empire became Christian. The exhortation of Ignatius [spuriously?] implies, also, that the Christians with whom he was concerned in general abstained from working on the seventh day.

(The short account of the Sabbatarians in the preceding part of this Chapter contains some important particulars of their condition abroad between Constantine's time and this period, as well as afterwards.)

In England, even so late as some years before A. D.1000, in the reign of Edgar, the seventh day was ordered to be sanctified from three o'clock in the afternoon, in addition to the whole of the first day: and this sacred regard for it continued, in consequence of different canons and proclamations, till the time of King John; that is, for more than two hundred years. Notwithstanding the present practice of deferring the commencement of the national sabbath till twelve at midnight on the seventh day, I am not aware that the laws just referred to have ever been repealed. The Journals of Parliament, as well as the public schools, still, I believe, call the seventh day, in Latin, Sabbath-day, not Saturday: and it is a well known fact that neither of the two Houses, in general, transact any business on that day.

The religious respect shown to the seventh day by the Christians at large, during the first ages of Christianity, has been attributed to the reluctance of the Jewish converts to quit an old practice and the deference paid to them by their Gentile brethren. At least, it is allowed that they both kept the seventh day for the most part at that time, notwithstanding the silence of Luke and the apostles.

There was, however, no such deference shown in the case of circumcision. Had that been the case respecting the seventh day, the toleration of the seventh day would have been sufficient, without enjoining its observance; and if the latter was thought necessary or prudent, it will at least show that the numbers and strength of the Sabbatarians were not inconsiderable. But the conjecture proceeds upon the ground that the repeal of the seventh day sabbath has been proved from Scripture: for if that point be not established, there is a more natural way of accounting for the harmony that subsisted among the Christians; namely, the conviction of the Jewish converts that it was their duty still to keep the seventh day, and that of the Gentile converts that their brethren from among the Jews, in adhering to the old sabbath, were doing do more than their duty, and what it was equally the duty of the Gentiles themselves to practice.

Upon the supposition of the non-repeal, it would have been strange indeed, had the Jews, when they became Christians, acted otherwise than they did; and their abandonment of the old sabbath would no doubt have been brought forward as an unanswerable argument in support of the repeal. That the converts from the Jews should continue to keep the seventh day was no more than what might be expected, as the apostles gave no orders to the contrary; and if the converts from the Gentiles did not practice the same, they had occasion for the forbearance of their brethren, and not their brethren for theirs.

There is not the least appearance, in the Fathers, that the Sabbatarian Christians were a new sect, sprung up since the time of the apostles. They are never charged with innovation in this respect; nor was their existence or continuance in the church ever accounted for in the way that is now under consideration, till modern times. The churches at Rome and Alexandria, which the historians tell us, contain no Sabbatarians, so far as is known, never pleaded Scripture, if they pleaded any thing else, as a reason for excluding them.

That the arm of civil and ecclesiastical power should afterwards disperse, though not annihilate them, can excite no wonder: but Constantine and his successors, whether acting in a political or sacred charactery when, in their decrees relative to observing the first day, they overlooked the seventh day, did not urge the authority of Inspiration for the omission. They even acted in opposition to the authority and example of the primitive church, without ever assigning the pretext which has since been invented for them, namely, that there were no longer any converts from among the Jews to render the toleration of their prepossessions in favour of the old Sabbath, or conformity to them, necessary.

(This detail from Church History is given to satisfy a natural curiosity, and not to strengthen the reasoning which preceded it. The Bible is the religion of Protestants, not the opinions and precepts of men.)

To return to the subject of the present Chapter. - There is a sense in which the advocates for the repeal of the seventh day sabbath may themselves be said to aid the cause of those who maintain that it is not repealed: I mean the adherence of the first day Christians in general to the Fourth Commandment. I am aware, indeed, that they do not profess to retain the whole of the commandment, or at least, if they do, that they do not understand the expression Sabbath in it to mean "the seventh day," or this last to mean the last day of the week exclusively, but the seventh part of time; so that though the Jews were confined to the seventh day, Christians may keep another of the seven without violating the commandment.

I have also shown, before, that the seventh part of time abstractedly was not the thing instituted, either in the commandment, or in Genesis 2:2,3, but that it was the consequence of the institution.

(The seventh part of time was not instituted first, and the seventh day afterwards, either in Gen. 2:2,3, or in the Fourth Commandment.)

The thing instituted relates only to the last day of the first week - the day on which God rested from the work of creation, and every seventh day afterwards in succession.

(Moses and the Jews did not conceive that the first seventh day only was to be kept holy; nor do the first day Christians think that no other Sunday was to be kept except that on which Christ rose.)

It was that day which the Fourth Commandment ordered the Jews to keep, the day which in fact (as has been proved) they were keeping before the commandment was given from Mount Sinai - the day, the weekly return of which they now keep. If the commandment did not confine them to that day, there was nothing else that did. No one, however conceives that the Jews were at liberty to keep any other day, or that they would have escaped the severest punishment, had they dared to keep another in the room of it. But as there was no other precept to bind them to the observance of the last day of the week in particular, except the Fourth Commandment, if that commandment only required in general the seventh part of time, they would have been at liberty to change the day, by keeping two sabbaths together, or by some other expedient.

The expression, then, in the commandment, "the seventh day," can only mean the last day of the week, as it was understood to mean by the Jews, and even by our Lord himself. So the holy women understood it, who rested on it according to the commandment. Of course it means the same to all who are subject to the Fourth Commandment. They are as much bound by it to keep the seventh day, as the Jews were. It never can mean a different thing after our Lord's resurrection from what it did before - a different thing to different bodies of people alike subject to the Fourth Commandment - a different thing to Christians from what it did to the Jews. It never can mean the last day of the week exclusively to the Jews, and to Christians only the seventh part of time. As the former were not at liberty to disregard the letter of the commandment under the notion of adhering to the spirit of it, so neither are the latter warranted in taking any such liberty.

But it will be asked, may not part of a law be repealed, and the rest continue in force? Undoubtedly it may, when the repeal relates to a circumstance, but not when it relates to the essence. Here the supposed repeal relates to the essence. For if the words "the seventh day" be struck out, nothing will remain to be kept holy. The seventh part of time will not remain; for since it owes its right to consecration entirely to the seventh day, when the seventh day goes, it must go with it.

(Had the seventh day sabbath been repealed before our Lord's time, the Fourth Commandment would not have bound the Jews to keep any day, whatever reason or a new divine institution might have done.)

The reason, too, assigned at the end of the commandment for its enactment must also vanish, as relating to the last day of the week, and to nothing else. The seventh day, therefore, cannot be cancelled without cancelling the whole; and upon this account, whoever retains the rest of the precept (as Christians in general do) may be said virtually to deny the repeal of the seventh day sabbath.

It is true, the obligation to sanctify the seventh part of time might exist, and consequently continue, if reason supported it, without the commandment. But in that case the Fourth Commandment would have nothing to do with it. It might also be renewed by the Divine Being, either by the institution of it abstractedly, no day being named in particular, or by instituting a specific day, as was done at the Creation; anti I say nothing at present whether this last has or has not been done in the case of the first day. But if it be so, the Fourth Commandment cannot with propriety, any more than any other essentially amended or altered law, be considered in its present state as obligatory upon Christians.

Before the words relative to the mode of keeping holy the sabbath day can be used, "the seventh part of time," or "the first," for instance must be substituted for seventh; and instead of the reason now given in the commandment for the divine institution of the seventh day, the following, or some such words, must he introduced: "for the sanctification of the seventh part of time is requisite for the purposes of civilization, humanity, morality, and religion: therefore the Lord, &c." Or thus:- "for the Lord Jesus Christ, having died for our sins, rose from the dead on the first day: therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Whether the commandment would remain the same in substance with either of these alterations - whether the apostles have sanctioned either - or whether a real Christian can, without such a sanction, adopt either of them, must be left to every one's own conscience to determine.

At all events the Sabbatarian possesses this important advantage, that when he is present at church, and hears the solemn recital of the Fourth Commandment as now binding upon Christians, he can with the utmost sincerity toward God and man unite with the congregation in praying, "Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law!" [cf. Psa. 78:1]

Next chapter
Previous chapter
Introduction and Table of Contents

Go to Literature Index Page

This URL is www.abcog.org/b6.htm