and likewise, after them, Abraham and all his posterity, until the time of Moses *. ·

Justin seems to have adopted the same severe, possibly the too severe, principle of inquiry, which has since been preferred by Mr. Davison.

Throughout the whole book of Genesis, he could not find recorded, under the form of a regular scholastic enunciation, either the primitive divine appointment of the sabbath or the primitive divine appointment of sacrifice: nor was he able to discover, until we reach the time of Moses, any one single instance of the observance of the sabbath. Hence he concluded (in my own judgment, far too rashly and precipitately), that the religious observance of the sabbath, and the authoritative institution of sacrifice, alike derived their origin from the great Hebrew legislator. That he was mistaken, I have no doubt: but it is a somewhat curious circumstance, that the primitive divine institution of the sabbath, which is so clear a matter to Bishop Warburton and Mr. Davison, that they contrast it even argumentatively with the alleged silence of Scripture as to the primitive divine institution of sacrifice, should yet

* Καὶ γὰρ μὴ σαββατίσαντες οἱ προωνομασμένοι πάντες δίκαιοι τῷ Θεῷ εὐηρέστησαν· καὶ, μετ ̓ αὐτοὺς, ̓Αβραὰμ καὶ δι τουτου ὑιοὶ ἅπαντες μέχρι Μωϋσέως. Ibid. p. 183.

have been so totally overlooked by the philosophic and inquisitive Justin, that he actually mentions the non-sabbatisation of the patriarchal religionists as a circumstance quite indisputable, and that he alike ascribes to the legislation of Moses the first-recorded divine command to observe the sabbath and the first-recorded divine command to offer up sacrifice.

It may not be improper yet additionally to remark, that, among the early theologians of the Christian Church, Justin by no means stands alone in his speculation respecting the appointment of the sabbath. Irenæus and Tertullian, both of whom flourished in the second century, were equally unable to discover any divine institution of that holy festival under the Patriarchal Dispensation. Their language, as to the nonsabbatisation of the primitive race, is exactly the same as that of Justin: and, doubtless, it rested on the same principle of exposition. For, had God, in the judgment of Irenæus and Tertullian, instituted the sabbath from the beginning, those Fathers would never have represented the saints of the first Dispensation, as living in (what must then have been) a deliberate contempt of a known divine ordinance*.

* Ipse Abraham, sine circumcisione et sine observatione

Such, from these authorities and from this train of reasoning, I am inclined to think, was the prevalent opinion of the more early Christians respecting the institution of the sabbath. They found no express declaration, that the observance of the sabbath-day had been enjoined from the beginning: and they perceived not any record of its observance by the patriarchs, anterior to the time of Moses. Hence they too hastily inferred, more especially as the inference afforded them a good argument against the Jews, that the sabbath was exclusively a Mosaical ordinance.

III. It is remarkable, that the statement of Justin experiences no contradiction from his Jewish opponent Trypho. The learned Christian reiterates, almost to satiety, his assertion re

sabbathorum, credidit Deo: et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, et amicus Dei vocatus est. Iren. adv. Hær. lib. iv. c. 30. § 2.

Qui contendit et sabbatum adhuc observandum quasi salutis medelam, doceat in præteritum justos sabbatizâsse. Denique doceant, sicuti jam præloquuti sumus, Adam sabbatizâsse; aut Abel, hostiam Deo sanctam offerentem, sabbati religionem placuisse; aut Enoch translatum sabbati cultorem fuisse; aut Noe, arcæ fabricatorem propter diluvium immensum, sabbatum observâsse, aut Abraham, in observatione sabbati, Isaac filium suum obtulisse; aut Melchisedech, in suo sacerdotio, legem sabbati accepisse. Tertull. adv. Jud. Oper. p. 121–123.

specting the exclusively Mosaical ordinance of the sabbath: and this identical assertion he makes even the basis of an argument against the cherished principles of his antagonist. Yet, however singular it may appear, Trypho seems never once to have thought of silencing Justin by a denial of his premises. He tacitly admits, that the sabbath was not observed by the early patriarchs, and that its divine institution cannot be traced higher than the time of Moses*.

Now, had Trypho thought with Bishop Warburton and Mr. Davison, he would speedily and confidently have met Justin by the round declaration, that any inquirer might read the divine

* Καγω, Τίνα οὖν ἀδύνατον ἐστι φυλάσσειν, παρακαλῶ, λέγε αυτός· πεισθήση γὰρ, ὅτι μὴ φυλάσσων τὰ αιώνια δικαιώματα τὶς ἤ πράξας, σωθῆναι ἐκπαντὸς ἔχει.

Κἀκεῖνος, Τὸ σαββατίζειν λέγω, καὶ τὸ περιτέμνεσθαι, καὶ τὸ τὰ ἔμμηνα φυλάσσειν, καὶ τὸ βαπτίζεσθαι ἁψάμενον τινὸς ὧν ἀπηγόρευεται ὑπὸ Μωσέως, ἤ ἐν συνουσίᾳ γενόμενον.

Κἀγὼ ἔφην, ̓Αβραὰμ, καὶ Ἰσαὰκ, καὶ Ἰακὼβ, καὶ Νῶς, καὶ Ἰὼβ, καὶ εἴ τινὲς ἄλλοι γεγόνασι πρὸ τούτων ἤ μετὰ τούτους ὁμοίως δίκαιοι,μέχρι τῆς Μωσέως τοῦ πιστοῦ θεράποντος μητρός, μηδὲν τόυτων φυλάξαντας, εἴ δοκοῦσιν ὑμῖν σωθήσεσθαι ;

Καὶ ὁ Τρύφων ἀπεκρίνατο· Οὐ περιετέτμητο ̓Αβραὰμ καὶ δι μετ' αυτόν ; Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 205.

Such alone is the lame answer, which Trypho can give to his adversary. Neither here, nor elsewhere, does he venture to deny, that the positive institution of the sabbath originated from Moses, and that Abraham and the early patriarchs did not observe it.

institution of the sabbath formally and expressly recorded at the close of the Mosaic history of the creation. But the truth is, I suspect, Trypho had no inclination to contradict Justin. On this point, at least, the Jew and the Christian perfectly symbolised. Mr. Davison does not seem to be aware, that the matter, which he deems so indisputable as to make it unhesitatingly the very basis of his argument, was strenuously controverted by the earlier writers of the Hebrew nation.

Instead of asserting with Bishop Warburton that the sabbath was divinely instituted in the beginning, all the more ancient writers of that nation, if I mistake not, warmly contended, from tradition yet older than themselves, that it was first instituted by their great lawgiver Moses*. There was, indeed, a small difference of opinion among them, as to the precise time of its earliest institution. For Salomon Jarchi, Moses Mai

*To this remark, Philo the Jew may possibly be an exception. For, since he describes the seventh day, as being a festival, not peculiar to one city or country, but common to the whole world; it may be argued, that he held its primeval divine institution. Τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν ἡμέραν ἑβδομην ἐσέμνυνεν ὁ Πατὴρ, ἐπαινέσας καὶ ἁγίαν προσειπὼν· ἑορτὴ γὰρ ου μιᾶς πόλεως ἤ χώρας ἐστὶν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ παντὸς, ἣν κυρίως ἄξιον καὶ μόνην πάνδημον ὀνομάζειν, καὶ τοῦ κόσμου γενέσιον. Phil. de Mund. Opific. Oper. p. 20.