I. SABBATH, nzc), a day of rest. Its derivation is, by general concurrence, from nmv), signifying, to rest,' to cease from action.' This is so natural, and so obviously connected with Gen. ii. 2, 3, that it does not seem worth while to say anything more respecting its etymology.
The Pentateuch, after giving the narrative of the creation, declares (Gen. ii. 2, 3) that the Sab bath was designed to commemorate the completion of the work. It must in candour, we think, be admitted that it does not necessarily follow, from that reference, that the institution of the day, as a day that Ivas to be dedicated to rest, social enjoyment, and worship,' dates from that time. The reference may have been proleptical. It is possible, assuredly, that the writer may here refer to it, because he is treating of the events in rela tion to which (though at a later date) the Sabbath was actually instituted. But it can hardly be doubted by any intelligent and candid reader that the words most naturally suggest at least this much : —that the anthor's design was to intimate that, from the earliest age of the world, the day had had a notable mark set upon it ; that it was set apart,' to be to some extent 'hallowed' in the traditions of men, and encircled with associations of reverence, by the sanction of God. That this was the accepted tradition of the writer himself, and of the people for whom he wrote, certainly seems the more natural interpretation of the words.
Nor is it very easy to account for certain facts, either of sacred or profane history, without sup posing as much as this.* Whether the seventh day was regarded as consecrated to religious wor ship or not, it is difficult to account for the very general adoption, among so many nations of the ancient world, of the hebdomadal reckoning, with out supposing some primitive traditions which sanc tioned the ideas of a peculiar reverence due to this day. Some have endeavoured, we are aware, to show that the septimand division of time may have resulted from associations connected with seven' as a sacred number, or as the highest prime number' under the decimal system of nota tion ! But these are surely most fanciful and per fectly gratuitous reasons. There is no proof that any investigations of the properties of prime num bers' troubled the heads of men at that early period of the world's history, nor if they had, do they show vvhy any peculiar notions of the sacredness of such and such a number should have grown out of them.
It is surely much more natural to suppose that a tradition, originating in soine presumed fact, gave rise to this peculiar partition of time, than to sup pose it the result of abstract reasoning on the pro perties of numbers, or an unaccountable propensity to attach moral significance to some of these, apart from some such tradition. Neither does any such theory account for the adoption of the custom in question arnong widely different—many of them comparatively barbarous--nations, and far distant from one another in place. When presumed facts have once been generally admitted, and have led on to customs, then (especially if traditions have grown dim), it is very natural for the human mind to account for or illustrate such customs by re ferring them to abstract speculations of philosophy, or the analogies (often faint enough) of imagination. But even this supposes the culture and develop ment, to a considerable extent, of the philosophic faculties, and leisure to indulge in such speculative luxury. It is certainly difficult to imagine the bulk of the early nations, especially if they were (as so often supposed) in a condition of primitive rudeness, either prone to speculate on the pro perties of 'prime numbers,' or learnedly idle enough to found upon them physical or moral mysteries. It is much as if it were contended that the idea of the trinity arose from a general rever ence for the properties of the trinal' number ; or that of the divine unity from profound speculations on the powers of the 'unit ;' or the tradition which * Though our eyes are not sharp enough to see, in the brief history of the patriarchal ages, what some commentators have professed to discover, traces of such an observance of the seventh day as was enjoined upon the Jews (Dr. Wardlaw's reply to Paley on this point—founded on the succinctness of the narrative—though ingenious, seems altogether unsatisfactory), yet there are se veral incidents mentioned, especially in the history of Noah, which argue the familiar and recognised division of time by weeks.