Combining all these testimonies together, they fully establish the primitive custom of measuring time by the division of weeks, and prevailing as it did among nations separated by distance, having no mutual intercourse, and wholly distinct in manners, it must have originated from one common source, which cannot reasonably be supposed any other than the memory of the creation preserved in the Noahic family, and handed down to their posterities. The computation by days, months, and years, arises from obvious causes, the revolution of the moon, and the annual and diurnal revolutions of the sun; but the division of time by periods of seven days, has no foundation in any natural or visible septenary change; it must therefore have originated from some positive appointment, or some tradition anterior to the dispersion of mankind, which cannot well be any other than the memory of the creation and primeval blessing of the seventh day. The custom, it is true, has been supposed to have taken its rise from the planetary bodies, the number and names of which were applied to so many days". But there is great reason to believe, that both the knowledge of the seven planets, and the denomination of the

n

Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gent. lib. iii. cap. xix. et seq. ; Gomarus, Lib. de Sabbato, cap. iv.; Le Clerc in Grotius de Veritate, lib. i. cap. xvi.; Marsham, Canon Chron. secul. ix. p. 194. et seq. 4to. Francq. 1696.

seven days from them, were long posterior to the hebdomadal division of time. Seven principal stars are not once named in the Old Testament, while Joseph makes mention of eleven. The Bible translation of Amos indeed speaks of the seven stars, but the Hebrew expression, though of very doubtful meaning, is certainly not expressive of number P. When it is considered also, that however early the study of astronomy began, particularly among the Egyptians, it must have been long before the seven planets were discovered, the hebdomadal division of time cannot have been derived from an observation of the heavenly bodies".

The primitive fathers of the church, it is acknowledged, frequently assert that none of the patriarchs before Moses observed the ordinances of the sabbath'; but all the declarations of this

• Gen. xxxvii. 9.

P Amos v. 8.

See Kennicott, Dissertation ii. p. 162. et seq.; and Jephson, Discourse on the Lord's Day, p. 21. et seq.

Justin Martyr. Dial. cum Trypho, p. 236. et seq.; Irenæus, Hæres, lib. iv. cap. xxx.; Tertullian, Adversus Judæos, § 4.; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. i. cap. iv. Preparatio Evangel. lib. vii. cap. vi. Dem. Evangel. lib. i. cap. vi.; Damascen, De Fide Orthodox, lib. iv. cap. xxiv. I do not think it necessary to notice Dr. T. Burnet's attempt to prove that these Fathers do not refer to the Jewish sabbath. (Lett. 2da. ad Archælogiæ, p. 499.) It is glaringly unsuccessful. See cap. v. of this work.

kind refer to the sabbath, so far as it was peculiarly Jewish. To this, however, it has been objected that, as it would be absurd to refer to an institution before it was appointed, they cannot be rationally thought to have alluded to the Jewish sabbath. But this objection will be easily removed, if we consider that the fathers make these assertions in opposition to the pretensions of the Jews, who maintained the paramount authority of the law of Moses; and their argument is, that we cannot be made heirs of salvation by observing the Levitical law, for the patriarchs were justified without it. In proof of this position, they likewise instance circumcision, shewing that the worthies who lived long before the appointment of this rite were acceptable to God. Their constantly joining the sabbath with circumcision in such arguments, is a full proof that they are speaking of the Jewish sabbath, and not of that which was instituted at the origin of the world. The high authority of the ancient Fathers cannot therefore be pleaded in favour of the opinion, that this latter was not kept by men of piety in the patriarchal ages.

Dr. Paley's next argument is, that "there is not in the sixteenth chapter of Exodus any intimation that the sabbath, when appointed to be observed, was only the revival of an ancient institution which had been neglected, forgotten, or suspended." The contrary, however, seems the more natural infe

rence from the narrative. It is mentioned exactly in the way an historian would who had occasion to speak of a well-known institution. For instance, when the people were astonished at the double supply of manna on the sixth day, Moses observes, "This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the Lord," which, as far as we know, was never said previously to this transaction, but at the close of the creation. This surely is the language of a man referring to a matter with which the people were already acquainted, and recalling it to their remembrance. In the 5th verse, God promises on the sixth day twice as much as they gather daily. For this no reason is given which seems to imply that it was already known to the children of Israel. Such a promise without some cause being assigned for so extraordinary a circumstance would have been strange indeed; and if the reason had been that the seventh day was now for the first time to be appointed a festival, in which no work was to be done, would not the author have stated this circumstance? Again, it is said, "Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none" and, " for that the Lord hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days." Here the sabbath is spoken of as an ordinance with which the people

were familiar. A double quantity of manna was given on the sixth day, because the following day, as they well knew, was the sabbath, in which God rested from his work, and which was to be kept as a day of rest, and holy to the Lord. It is likewise mentioned incidentally, as it were, in the recital of the miraculous supply of manna, without any notice of its being enjoined upon that occasion for the first time, which would be a very surprising circumstance had it been the original establishment of the sabbath. In short, the entire phraseology in the account of this remarkable transaction accords with the supposition, and with it alone, that the sabbath had been long established, and was well known to the Israelites.

The learned Mede has a very ingenious argument to prove that the Jews did not keep the seventh day holy till the raining of manna. It appears, says he, from the 16th of Exodus, that they marched a wearisome march on the 15th day of the second month; the next morning it rained manna, which was the 16th day, and so six days together; on the seventh, which was the 22d day, it rained none, and that day they were commanded to keep for their sabbath. Now, if the 22d day of the month were the sabbath, the 15th should have been one; but it was not, since they marched on that day a great distance; consequently the seventh day could not have been previously ob