I. THE PATRIARCHAL CHURCH IN GENESIS

There may be those who look upon the Book of Genesis as an epitome of the general history of the world in its early ages, and of the private history of certain families more distinguished than the rest. And so it is, and on a first view it may seem to be little else; but if we consider it more closely, I think we may convince ourselves of the truth of this proposition: that it contains fragments (as it were) of the fabric of a Patriarchal Church—fragments scattered, indeed, and imperfect, but capable of combination, and, when combined, consistent as a whole. Now it is not easy to imagine that any impostor would set himself to compose a book upon a plan so recondite; nor, if he did, would it be possible for him to execute it as it is executed here. For the incidents which go to prove this proposition are to be picked out from among many others, and on being brought together by ourselves, they are found to agree together as parts of a system, though they are not contemplated as such, or at least are not produced as such, by the author himself.

I am aware that, whilst we are endeavouring to obtain a view of such a Patriarchal Church by the glimpses afforded us in Genesis, there is a danger of our theology becoming visionary: it is a search upon which the imagination enters with alacrity, and readily breaks its bounds—it has done so in former times and in our own. Still the principle of such investigation is good; for out of God’s book, as out of God’s world, more may be often concluded than our philosophy at first suspects. The principle is good, for it is sanctioned by our Lord himself, who reproaches the Sadducees with not knowing those Scriptures which they received, because they had not deduced the doctrine of a future state from the words of Moses, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” though the doctrine was there if they would but have sought it out. One consideration, however, we must take along with us in this inquiry, that the Books of Moses are in most cases a very incomplete history of facts—telling something and leaving a great deal untold—abounding in chasms which cannot be filled up—not, therefore, to be lightly esteemed even in their hints, for hints are often all that they offer.

The proofs of this are numberless; but as it is important to my argument that the thing itself should be distinctly borne in mind, I will name a few. Thus if we read the history of Joseph as it is given in the 37th chapter of Genesis, where his brethren first put him into the pit and then sell him to the Ishmaelites, we might conclude that he was himself quite passive in the whole transaction. Yet when the brothers happen to talk together upon this same subject many years afterwards in Egypt, they say one to another, “We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul when he besought us, and we would not hear.” [Gen. 42:21.] All these fervent intreaties are sunk in the direct history of the event, and only come out by accident after all. As another instance. The simple account of Jacob’s reluctance to part with Benjamin would lead us to suppose that it was expressed and overcome in a short time, and with no great effort. Yet we incidentally hear from Judah that this family struggle (for such it seems to have been) had occupied as much time as would have sufficed for a journey to Egypt and back [Gen. 43:10.] . As a third instance. The several blessings which Jacob bestows on his sons have probably a reference to the past as well as to the future fortunes of each. In the case of Reuben the allusion happens to be a circumstance in his life with which we are already acquainted; here, therefore, we understand the old man’s address [Gen. 49:4.] ; but in the case of several at least of his other sons, where there are probably similar allusions to events in their lives too, which have not, however, been left on record, there is much that is obscure; the brevity of the previous narrative not supplying us with the proper key to the blessing. Of this nature, perhaps, is the clause respecting Simeon and Levi, “In their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will they digged down a wall.” [Gen. 49:6.] As another instance. The address of Jacob on his death-bed to Reuben, to which I have just referred, shows how deeply Jacob resented the wrong done him by this son many years before, and proves what a breach it must have made between them at the moment; yet all that is said of it in the Mosaic history is, “and Israel heard it,” [Gen. 35:22.] —not a syllable more. Again, of Anah it is said [Gen. 36:24.] , “This was that Allah that found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father:” an allusion to some incident apparently very well known, but of which we have no trace in the previous narrative. Once more. The manner in which Joshua is mentioned for the first time, clearly shows how conspicuous a character he already was amongst the Israelites; and how much previous history respecting him has been suppressed. “And Moses said unto Joshua, choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek.” [Exod. 17:9.] And the same remark applies to Hur, in an ensuing sentence, “And Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill:” the Jewish tradition being that Hur was the husband of Miriam. Again, it is said, “that Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses’ wife, after he had sent her back.” [Exod. 18:2.] The latter clause refers to some transaction, familiar, no doubt, to the historian, but of which no previous mention had been made. It is needless to multiply instances; all that I Wish to impress is this, that in the Book of Genesis a hint is not to be wasted, but improved; and that he who expects every probable deduction from Scripture to be made out complete in all its parts before he will admit it, expects more than he will in many cases meet with, and will learn much less than he might otherwise learn.

Having made these preliminary remarks, I shall now proceed to collect the detached incidents in Genesis which appear to point out the existence of a Patriarchal Church. And the circumstance of so many incidents tending to this one centre, though evidently without being marshalled or arranged, implies veracity in the record itself; for it is a very comprehensive instance of coincidence without design in the several parts of that record.

1. First, then, the Patriarchs seem to have had places set apart for the worship of God, consecrated, as it were, especially to his service. To do things “before the Lord” is a phrase not unfrequently occurring, and generally in a local sense. Cain and Abel appear to have brought their offerings to the same spot, it might be (as some have thought) [Hooker, Eccl. Pol. b. v. § 11. Vide Mr. Faber’s Three Dispensations, Vol. i. p. 8; and comp. Wisdom ix. 9.] , to the East of the Garden, where the symbols of God’s presence were displayed; and when Cain is banished from his first dwelling, and driven to wander upon the earth, he is said to have “gone out from the presence of the Lord;” [Gen. 4:16.] as though, in the land where he was henceforward to live, he would no longer have access to the spot where God had more especially set his name: or it might be a sacred tent, for it is told Cain, “if thou doest not well, sin (i.e. a sin-offering) lieth at the door:” [Gen. 4:7.] and we know that the sacrifices were constantly brought to the door of the Tabernacle, in later times [See Lightfoot, i. 3.] . Again, when the angels had left Abraham, and were gone towards Sodom, “Abraham,” we read, “stood yet before the Lord, ” [Gen. 18:22.] i.e., he staid to plead with God for Sodom in the place best suited to such a service, the place where prayer was wont to be made; and accordingly it follows immediately after, “and Abraham drew near and said;” [Gen. 18:23.] and again, the next day, “Abraham gat up early in the morning,” (probably his usual hour of prayer), “to the place where he stood before the Lord, ” [Gen. 19:27.] the same where he had put up his intercessions to God the day before; in short, the place where he “built an altar unto the Lord” when he first came to dwell in the plain of Mamre [Gen. 13:18.] , for that was still the scene of this transaction. Again, of Rebekah we read, that when. the children struggled within her, “she went to inquire of the Lord,” and an answer was received prophetic of the different fortunes of those children [Gen. 25:22.] . And when Isaac contemplated blessing his son, which was a religious act, a solemn appeal to God to remember his covenant unto Abraham, it was to be done “before the Lord.” [Gen. 27:7.] The place might be, as I have just said, an altar such as was put up by Abraham at Hebron, by Isaac at Beer-sheba, or by Jacob at Beth-el, where they respectively dwelt [See Gen. 13:18; 26:25; 35:6.] ; it might be, as I have also suggested, a separate tent, and a tent actually was set apart by Moses outside the camp, before the Tabernacle was erected, where every one repaired who sought the Lord [Exod. 33:7.] ; or it might be a separate part of a chamber of the tent; but however that was, the expression is a definite one, and relates to some appointed quarter to which the family resorted for purposes of devotion. Accordingly the very same expression is used in after-times, when the Tabernacle had been set up, confessedly as the place where the people were to assemble for prayer and sacrifice. “He shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord, and he shall kill the bullock before the Lord.” [Lev. 1:3.] “Three times in the year shall all thy males appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose.” [Deut. 16:16.] Here there can be no question as to the meaning of the phrase; it occurs, indeed, some five-and-thirty times in the last four books of Moses, and in all as significant of the place set apart for the worship of God. I conclude therefore, that in those passages of Genesis which I have quoted, Moses employs the same expression in the same sense.

Such are some of the hints which seem to point to places of patriarchal worship.

2. In like manner, and by evidence of the same indirect and imperfect kind, I gather that there were persons whose business it was to perform the rites of that worship—not perhaps their sole business, but their appropriate business. Whether the first-born was by right of birth the priest also, has been doubted; at the same time it is obvious that this circumstance would often, perhaps generally where there was no impediment, point him out as the fit person to keep alive in his own household the fear of that God who alone could make it to prosper. Persons, however, invested with the sacerdotal office there undoubtedly were; such was Melchizedek “the Priest of the Most High God,” as he is expressly called [Gen. 14:18.] , and the functions of his ministry he publicly performs towards Abraham, blessing him as God’s servant, as the instrument by which His arm had overthrown the confederate kings, and receiving from Abraham a tenth of the spoil, which could be nothing but a religious offering, and which indeed, as such, is the ground of St. Paul’s argument for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the Levitical. Tithes, therefore, were already paid [Heb. 7:9.] . Such probably was Jethro “the Priest of Midian.” [Exod. 2:16.] Moreover, we find the priests expressly mentioned as a body of functionaries existing amongst the Israelites even before the consecration of Aaron and his sons [Exod. 19:22.] ; the “young men,” who offered burnt-offerings, spoken of Exod. 24:5, being the same under a different name, probably the first-born. Then if we read of Patriarchal Priests, so do we of Patriarchal “Preachers of Righteousness,” as in Noah [2 Pet. 2:5.] . So do we of Patriarchal Prophets, as in Abraham [Gen. 20:7.] , as in Balaam, as in Job, as in Enoch. All these are hints of a Patriarchal Church, differing perhaps less in its construction and in the manner in which God was pleased to use it, as the means of keeping Himself in remembrance amongst men, from the churches which have succeeded, than may be at first imagined.

3. Pursue we the inquiry, and I think a hint may be discovered of a peculiar dress assigned to the Patriarchal Priest when he officiated; for Jacob, being already possessed of the birthright, and probably, in this instance, of the priesthood with it, since Esau by surrendering the birth-right became “profane, ” [Heb. 12:16.] goes in to Isaac to receive the blessing, a religious act, as I have already said, to be done before the Lord. Now on this occasion, Rebekah took “goodly raiment” (such is our translation) “of her eldest son Esau, which were with her in the house, and put them upon Jacob her younger son.” [Gen. 27:15.] Were these the sacerdotal robes of the firstborn? It occurred to me that they might be so; and on reference I find that the Jews themselves so interpreted them [Vide Patrick in loc.] , an interpretation which has been treated by Dr. Patrick more contemptuously than it deserved to be [More especially as he quotes in another place (on Exod. 28:2) an opinion of the Hebrew Doctors, that vestments were inseparable from the priesthood, so that Adam, Abel, and Cain, did not sacrifice without them; see Gen. 3:22: and again (on Exod. 28:35), a maxim among the Jews, that when the priests were clothed with their garments they were priests; when they were not so clothed, they were not priests.]; for I look upon it as a trifle indeed, but still as a trifle which is a component part of the system I am endeavouring to trace out: had it stood alone it would have been fruitless perhaps to have hazarded a word upon it; as it stands in conjunction with so many other indications of a Patriarchal Church it has its weight. Now I do not say that the Hebrew expression [beged:H899] here rendered “raiment” (for of the epithet “goodly” I will speak by and by) is exclusively confined to the garments of a priest; it is certainly a term of considerable latitude, and is by no means to be so restricted; still, when the priest’s garments are to be expressed by any general term at all, it is always by the one in question. Yet there is another term in the Hebrew [salmah:H8008] , perhaps of as frequent occurrence, and also a comprehensive term; but whilst this latter is constantly applied to the dress of other individuals of both sexes, I do not find it ever applied to the dress of the priests. The distinction and the argument will be best illustrated by examples:—Thus we read in Leviticus [Chap. 21:10.] , according to our version, “the high-priest that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes.” The word here translated “garments” in the one clause, and “clothes” in the other, is in the Hebrew in both clauses the same—is the word in question—is the raiment of Esau which Rebekah took, and in both clauses the priests’ dress is meant, and no other. So again, what are called [Exod. 35:19.] “the clothes of service,” is still the same word, as implying Aaron’s clothes, or those of his sons, and no other. And again, Moses says [Lev. 10:6.] , “uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes, lest ye die;” still the word is the same, for he is there speaking to Aaron and his sons, and to none other. But when he says [Deut. 29:5.] , “your clothes are not waxed old,” the Hebrew word is no longer the same, though the English word is, but is the other word of which I spoke [salmah:H8008] ; for the clothes of the people are here signified, and not of the priests.

This, therefore, is all that can be maintained, that the term used to express the “raiment” which Rebekah brought out for Jacob, is the term which would express appropriately the dress of the priest, though it certainly would not express it exclusively. But again, the epithet “goodly” (or “desirable” [chamad:H2530] as the margin renders it more closely) annexed to the raiment is still in favour of our interpretation, though neither is this word, any more than the other, conclusive of the question. Certain, however, it is, that though the word translated “goodly” is not restricted to sacred things, it does so happen that to sacred things it is attached in very many instances, if not in a majority of instances, where it occurs in Holy Writ. Thus the utensils of the Temple which Nebuchadnezzar carried away are called in the Book of Chronicles [2 Chron. 36:10.] “the goodly vessels of the House of the Lord.” And Isaiah writes, “all our pleasant things are laid waste,” [Isa. 64:11.] meaning the Temple—the word here rendered “pleasant,” being the same as that in the former passages rendered “goodly;” and in the Lamentations [Lam. 1:10.] we read, “the adversary hath spread out his hand upon all our pleasant things,” where the Temple is again understood, as the context proves; and in Genesis [Gen. 3:6.] , “a tree to be desired to make one wise,” the term perhaps meant to convey a hint of violated sanctity as entering into the offence of our first parents. In other places it occurs in a bad sense, as relating to what was held sacred by heathens only, but still what was held sacred—“The oaks which ye have desired;” [Isa. 1:29.] “all pleasant pictures,” [Isa. 2:16.] objects of idolatry, as the tenour of the passage indicates; “their delectable things shall not profit,” [Isa. 44:9.] that is, their idols. I may add too, that the stolh of the Septuagint (for this answers to the “raiment” of our version), though not limited to the robe of the altar, is the term used in the Greek as the appropriate one for the robe of Aaron; and finally, that the care with which this vesture had been kept by Rebekah, and the perfumes with which it was imbued when Jacob wore it (for Isaac “smelled the smell of his raiment”), savour of things pertaining unto God. Indeed we read in the Law [Exod. 37:29.] of particular drugs which were appropriated to compose the incense used in the service of God.

Again, it seems to be by no means improbable that “the coat of many colours,” (citwna poikilon, as the LXX understands it [Gen. 37:3.] ) which Jacob made for Joseph, was a sacerdotal garment. It figures very largely in a very short history. It appears to have been viewed with great jealousy by his brothers; far greater than an ordinary dress, which merely bespoke a certain partiality on the part of a parent, would have been likely to inspire. They strip him of it, when they put him in the pit; they dip it in the blood of the goat, when they want to persuade Jacob that a wild beast had devoured him. Reuben, Jacob’s first-born, and naturally therefore the Priest of the family, had forfeited his father’s affection and disgraced his station by his conduct towards Bilhah. Jacob might feel that the priesthood was open under the circumstances; and his fondness for Joseph might suggest to him, that he might in justice be considered his first-born; for that he supposed Rachel, Joseph’s mother, to be his wife, when Leah, Reuben’s mother, had been deceitfully substituted for her. He might give him, therefore, “this coat of many colours” as a token of his future office. Hannah brought Samuel “a little coat” from year to year, when she came up with her husband to offer his yearly sacrifice [1 Sam. 2:19.] : and, though Aaron’s coat is not called a coat of many colours, it was so in fact; “and of the blue and purple and scarlet they made cloths of service, to do service in the holy place, and made the holy garments for Aaron.” [Exod. 39:1.] On the whole, therefore, I think there was a meaning in this “coat of many colours” beyond the obvious one; and that it was emblematical of priestly functions which Jacob was anxious to devolve upon Joseph.

4. Furthermore, the Patriarchal Church seems not to have been without its forms. Thus Jacob consecrates the foundation of a place of worship with oil [Gen. 28:18.] ; the incident here alluded to being apparently a much more detailed and emphatic one than it seems at first sight: for we find him, by anticipation, calling “this the house of God, and this the gate of heaven,” [Gen. 28:17.] and promising eventually to endow it with tithes [Gen. 28:22.] : and we hear God reminding him of this solemn act long afterwards, when he was in Syria, and appropriating to Himself the very title of this Temple: “I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me.” [Gen. 31:13.] And accordingly we are told at much length, and with several of the circumstances of the case described, that Jacob, after his return from Haran, actually fulfilled his pious intentions, and “built an altar,” and “set up a pillar,” and “poured a drink-offering thereon.” [Gen. 35:1. 15.]

Then there appears to have been the rite of imposition of hands existing in the Patriarchal Church; and when Jacob blessed Joseph’s children, he is very careful about the due observance of it; the narrative, succinct as on the whole it is, dwelling upon this point with much amplification [Gen. 48:13–19.] .

Again, the shoes of those who trod upon holy ground, or who entered consecrated places, were to be put off their feet; the injunction to this effect, of which we read in the case of Moses at the bush, implies a usage already established [Exod. 3:5.] ; and this usage, though nowhere expressly commanded in the Levitical Law, appears to have continued amongst the Israelites by tradition from the Patriarchal times; and is that which a passage in Ecclesiastes [Eccles. 5:1.] probably contemplates in its primary sense, “Look to thy foot when thou comest to the House of God.” [See Mede’s Works, b. ii. p. 340 et seq.] And finally the Patriarchal Church had its posture of worship, and men bowed themselves to the ground when they addressed God [Gen. 24:26–52; Exod. 4:31; 12:27.] .

But if there were Patriarchal Places for worship—if there were Priests to conduct the worship—if there were Tithes paid them—if there were decent Robes wherein those priests ministered at the worship—if there were Forms connected with that worship—so do I think there were stated Seasons set apart for it; though here again we have nothing but hints to guide us to a conclusion.

5. I confess that the Divine institution of the Sabbath as a day of religious duties, seems to me to have been from the beginning; and though we have but glimpses of such a fact, still to my eye they present themselves as parts of that one harmonious whole which I am now endeavouring to develope and draw out—even of a Patriarchal Church, whereof we see scarcely anything but by glimpse.

“And it came to pass that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man and all the rulers of the congregation came, and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the Holy Sabbath unto the Lord. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none.” [Exod. 16:22.] And again, in a few verses after, “And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days.” Now the transaction here recorded is by some argued to be the first institution of the Sabbath. The inference I draw from it, I confess, is different; I see in it, that a Sabbath had already been appointed—that the Lord had already given it; and that, in accommodation to that institution already understood, He had doubled the manna on the sixth day. But even supposing the Institution of the Sabbath to be here formally proclaimed, or supposing (as others would have it, and as the Jews themselves pretend), that it was not now promulgated, strictly speaking, but was actually one of the two precepts given a little earlier at Marah [Exod. 15:25, and compare Deut. 5:12.] , still it is not uncommon in the writings of Moses, nor indeed in other parts of Scripture, for an event to be mentioned as then occurring for the first time, which had in fact occurred, and which had been reported to have occurred, long before. For instance, Isaac and Abimelech meet, and swear to do each other no injury. “And it came to pass the same day, that Isaac’s servants came and told him concerning the well which they had digged, and said unto him, We have found water: and he called it Shebah; therefore the name of the city is Beer-Sheba unto this day.” [Gen. 26:32.] Now who would not say that the name was then given to the place by Isaac, and for the first time? Yet it had been undoubtedly given by Abraham long before, in commemoration of a similar covenant which he had struck with the Abimelech of his day. “These seven ewe-lambs,” said he to that Prince, “shalt thou take at my hand, that they may be a witness unto thee that I have digged this well; wherefore he called the place Beer-Sheba, because they sware both of them.” [Gen. 21:31.] Again, “So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan, that is, Beth-el, he and all his people that were with him. And he built there an altar, and called the place El-Beth-el, because there God appeared unto him when he fled from the face of his brother.” [Gen. 35:6, 7.] Who would not conclude that the new name was given to Luz now for the first time? Yet Jacob had in fact changed the name a great many years before, when he was on his journey to Haran. “And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of the city was called Luz at the first.” [Gen. 28:18, 19.] Or, as another instance:—“And God appeared unto Jacob again when he came out of Parian-Aram, and blessed him: and God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob, thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name, and he called his name Israel.” [Gen. 35:10.] Who would not suppose that the name of Israel was now given to Jacob for the first time? Yet, several chapters before this, when Jacob had wrestled with the angel (not at Beth-el, which was the former scene, but at Peniel), we read, that “the angel said, What is thy name? and he said, Jacob: and he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for as a prince hast thou power with God, and with man, and hast prevailed.” [Gen. 32:28.] Thus again, to add one example more, we are told in the Book of Judges [Judges 10:4.] , that a certain Jair, a Gileadite, a successor of Abimelech in the government of Israel, “had thirty sons that rode on thirty ass-colts, and they had thirty cities, which are called Havoth-Jair unto this day, which are in the land of Gilead.” Who would not conclude that the cities were then called by this name for the first time, and that this Jair was the person from whom they derived it? Yet we read in the Book of Numbers [Num. 32:41] , that another Jair, who lived nearly three hundred years earlier, “went and took the small towns of Gilead” (apparently these very same), “and called them Havoth-Jair.” So that the name had been given nearly three centuries already. Why, then, should it be thought strange that the institution of the Sabbath should be mentioned as if for the first time in the 16th chapter of Exodus, and yet that it should have been in fact founded at the creation of the world, as the language of the 2nd chapter of Genesis [Gen. 2:3.] , taken in its obvious meaning, implies; and as St. Paul’s argument in the 4th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews (I think) requires it to have been?—Nor is such a case without a parallel. “Moses gave unto you circumcision,” says our Lord; yet there is added, “not because it is of Moses, but of the Fathers;” [John 7:22.] —and the like may be said of the Sabbath; that Moses gave it, and yet that it was of the Fathers. And surely such observance of the Sabbath from the beginning is in accordance with many hints which are conveyed to us of some distinction or other belonging to that day from the beginning—as when Noah sends forth the dove three times successively at intervals of seven days: as when Laban invites Jacob to “fulfil his week, ” after the marriage of Leah; the nuptial festivities being probably terminated by the arrival of the Sabbath [Gen. 29:27.] : as when Joseph makes a mourning for his father of seven days [Gen. 1:10.] ; the lamentation most likely ceasing with the return of that festival: these and other hints of the same kind being, as appears to me, pregnant with meaning, and intended to be so, in a history of the rapid and desultory nature of that of Moses. Neither is there much difficulty in the passage of Ezekiel [Ezek. 20:10, 11, 12.] , with which those, who maintain the Sabbath to have been for the first time enjoined in the wilderness, support themselves. “Wherefore,” says that Prophet, “I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness—and I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them—moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths.” Here, then, it is alleged, Ezekiel affirms, or seems to affirm, that the Almighty gave the Israelites his Sabbaths when He was leading them out of Egypt, and that He had not given them till then. Yet his statutes and judgments are also spoken of as given at the same time, whereas very many of those had surely been given long before. It would be very untrue to assert, that, until the Israelites were led forth from Egypt, no statutes or judgments of the same kind had been ever given: it was in the wilderness that the law respecting clean and unclean beasts was promulgated, yet that law had certainly been published long before [Gen. 7:2.] ; and the same may be said of many others, which I will not enumerate here, because I shall have occasion to do it by and by. My argument, then, is briefly this:—that as Ezekiel speaks of statutes and judgments given to the Israelites in the wilderness, some of which were certainly old statutes and judgments repeated and enforced, so when he says that the Sabbaths were given to the Israelites in the wilderness, he cannot be fairly accounted to assert that the Sabbaths had never been given till then. The fact indeed probably was, that they had been neglected and half forgotten during the long bondage in Egypt (slavery being unfavourable to morals), and that the observance of them was re-asserted and renewed at the time of the promulgation of the Law in the Desert. In this sense, therefore, the Prophet might well declare, that on that occasion God gave the Israelites his Sabbaths. It is true, that in addition to the motive for the observance of the Sabbath (hinted in the 2nd chapter of Genesis, and more fully expressed in the 20th of Exodus), which is of universal obligation, other motives were urged upon the Israelites specially applicable to them—as that “the day should be a sign between God and them” [Exod. 31:17.] —as that it should be a remembrance of their having been made to rest from the yoke of the Egyptians [Deut. 5:15.] . Yet such supplementary sanctions to the performance of a duty (however well adapted to secure the obedience of the Israelites) are quite consistent with a previous command addressed to all, and upon a principle binding on all [Justin Martyr, it is true, frequently speaks of the Patriarchs as observing no Sabbaths (See, e.g., Dial. § 23); but it is certain that his meaning was, that the Patriarchs did not observe the Sabbaths according to the peculiar rites of the Jewish Law; his use of the word sabbatizein has always a reference to that Law; and by no means that they kept no Sabbaths at all].

I have now attempted to show, but very briefly, lest otherwise the scope of my argument should be lost sight of, that there were among the Patriarchs places set apart for worship—persons to officiate—a decent ceremonial—an appointed season for holy things; I will now suggest in very few words (still gathering my information from such hints as the Book of Genesis supplies from time to time,) something of the duties and doctrines which were taught in that ancient Church: and here, I think, it will appear, that the Law and the Prophets of the next Dispensation had their prototypes in that of the Patriarchs—that the Second Temple was greater indeed in glory than the First, but was nevertheless built up out of the First, the one body “not unclothed,” but the other rather “clothed upon.”

6. In this primitive Church, then, the distinction of clean and unclean is already known, and known as much in detail as under the Levitical Law, every animal being arranged by Noah in one class or the other [Gen. 7:2.] ; and the clean being exclusively used by him for sacrifice [Gen. 8:20.] . The blood, which is the life of the animal, is already withheld as food [Gen. 9:4.] . Murder is already denounced as demanding death for its punishment [Gen. 9:6; 42:22.] . Adultery is already forbidden, as we learn from the cases of Pharaoh and Abimelech [Gen. 12:18; 26:10.] , of Reuben [Gen. 49:4] , and Joseph [Gen. 39:9.] , Oaths are already binding [Gen. 26:28.] . Vows were already made [Gen. 28:20; 31:13.] . Fornication is already condemned, as in the case of Shechem, who is said “to have wrought folly in Israel, which thing ought not to be done.” [Gen. 34:7.] Marriage with the uncircumcised or idolater is already prohibited [Gen. 34:14, and comp. Exod. 34:16, and Dr. Patrick’s Comment.] . A curse is already denounced on him that setteth light by his father or his mother [Gen. 9:25, and comp. Deut. 27:16.] . Purifications are already enjoined those who approach a holy place, for Jacob bids his people “be clean and change their garments” before they present themselves at Bethel [Gen. 35:2.] . The eldest son had already a birthright [Gen. 25:31; and comp. Exod. 22:29; and Deut. 21:17.] . The brother is already commanded to marry the brother’s widow, and to raise up seed unto his brother [Gen. 38:8.] . The daughter of the Priest (if Judah as the head of his own family may be considered in that character) is already to be brought forth and burned, if she played the harlot [Gen. 38:24.] . These laws, afterwards incorporated in the Levitical, are here brought together and reviewed at a glance; but as they occur in the book of Genesis, be it remembered, they drop out incidentally, one by one, as the course of the narrative happens to turn them up. They are therefore to be reckoned fragments of a more full and complete code, which was the groundwork, in all probability, of the Levitical code itself; for it is difficult to suppose that where there were these, there were not others like to them. But this is not all—the Patriarchs had their sacrifices, that great and leading rite of the Church of Aaron; the subjects of those sacrifices fixed; useless without the shedding of blood; for what but the violation of an express command full of meaning, could have constituted the sin of Cain [See Gen. 3:21; 4:4, 5. 7.] ? Their sacrifices, how far regulated in their details by the injunctions of God himself, we cannot determine; yet it is impossible to read in the 15th chapter of Genesis the particulars of Abraham’s offering of the heifer, the goat, the ram, the turtle-dove, and the pigeon—their ages, their sex, the circumspection with which he dissects and disposes them—whether all this be done in act or in vision, without feeling assured that very minute directions upon all these points were vouchsafed to the Patriarchal Church. And as that Church had her rite of sacrifice, so had she her rite of circumcision: and accordingly she had her Sacraments.

Then as she had her sacraments, so had she her types—types which in number scarcely yield to those of the Levitical Law, in precision and interest perhaps exceed them. For we meet with them in the names and fortunes of individuals whom the Almighty Disposer of events, without doing violence to the natural order of things, exhibits as pages of a living book in which the Promise is to be read—as characters expressing his counsels and covenants writ by his own finger—as actors, whereby He holds up to a world, not yet prepared for less gross and sensible impressions, scenes to come. It would lead me far beyond the limits of my argument were I to touch upon the multitude of instances, which will crowd, however, I doubt not, upon the minds of my readers. I might tell of Adam, whom St. Paul himself calls “the figure” or type “of Him that was to come.” [Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:45.] I might tell of the sacrifice of Isaac (though not altogether after him whose vision upon this subject, always bright though often baseless, would alone have immortalized his name)—of that Isaac whose birth was preceded by an annunciation to his mother [Gen. 18:10.] —whose conception was miraculous [Gen. 18:14.] —who was named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb [Gen. 17:19.] , and Joy, or Laughter, or Rejoicing was that name [Gen. 21:6.] —who was, in its primary sense, the seed in which all the nations of the earth were to be blessed [Gen. 22:18.] —whose projected death was a rehearsal (as it were), almost two thousand years beforehand, of the great offering of all—the very mountain, Moriah, not chosen by chance, not chosen for convenience, for it was three days’ journey from Abraham’s dwelling-place, but no doubt appointed of God as the future scene of a Saviour’s passion too [Gen. 22:2; 2 Chron. 3:1.] —a son, an only son the victim—the very instruments of the oblation, the wood, not carried by the young men, not carried by the ass which they had brought with them, but laid on the shoulders of him who was to die, as the cross was borne up that same ascent of Him who, in the fulness of time, was destined to expire upon it. But indeed I see the Promise all Genesis through, so that our Lord might well begin with Moses in expounding the things concerning Himself [Luke 24:27.] ; and well might Philip say, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law did write.” [John 1:45.] I see the Promise all Genesis through, and if I have constructed a rude and imperfect Temple of Patriarchal worship out of the fragments which offer themselves to our hands in that history, the Messiah to come is the spirit that must fill that Temple with His all-pervading presence,—none other than He must be the Shekinah of the Tabernacle we have reared. For I confess myself wholly at a loss to explain the nature of that Book on any other principle, or to unlock its mysteries by any other key. Couple it with this consideration, and I see the scheme of Revelation, like the physical scheme, proceeding with beautiful uniformity—an unity of plan connecting (as it has been well said by Paley) the chicken roosting upon its perch with the spheres revolving in the firmament; and an unity of plan connecting in like manner the meanest accidents of a household with the most illustrious visions of a prophet. Abstracted from this consideration, I see in it details of actions, some trifling, some even offensive, pursued at a length (when compared with the whole) singularly disproportionate; while things which the angels would desire to look into are passed over and forgotten. But this principle once admitted, and all is consecrated—all assumes a new aspect—trifles that seem at first not bigger than a man’s hand, occupy the heavens; and wherefore Sarah laughed, for instance, at the prospect of a son, and wherefore that laugh was rendered immortal in his name, and wherefore the sacred historian dwells on a matter so trivial, whilst the world and its vast concerns were lying at his feet, I can fully understand. For then I see the hand of God shaping everything to his own ends, and in an event thus casual, thus easy, thus unimportant, telling forth his mighty design of Salvation to the world, and working it up into the web of his noble prospective counsels [Gen. 21:6.] . I see that nothing is great or little before Him who can bend to his purposes whatever He willeth, and convert the light-hearted and thoughtless mockery of an aged woman into an instrument of his glory, effectual as the tongue of the seer which He touched with living coals from the altar. Bearing this master-key in my hand, I can interpret the scenes of domestic mirth, of domestic stratagem, or of domestic wickedness, with which the history of Moses abounds. The Seed of the Woman, that was to bruise the Serpent’s head [Gen. 3:15.] , however indistinctly understood (and probably it was understood very indistinctly), was the one thing longed for in the families of old, was “the desire of all nations,” as the Prophet Haggai expressly calls it [Hag. 2:7.] ; and provided they could accomplish this desire, they (like others when urged by an overpowering motive) were often reckless of the means, and rushed upon deeds which they could not defend. Then did the wife forget her jealousy, and provoke, instead of resenting, the faithlessness of her husband [Gen. 16:2; 30:3; 30:9.] ; then did the mother forget a mother’s part, and teach her own child treachery and deceit [Gen. 25:23; 27:13.]; then did daughters turn the instincts of nature backward, and deliberately work their own and their father’s shame [Gen. 19:31.] ; then did the daughter-in-law veil her face, and court the incestuous bed [Gen. 38:14.] ; and to be childless was to be a bye-word [Gen. 16:5; 30:1.] ; and to refuse to raise up seed to a brother was to be spit upon [Gen. 38:26; Deut. 25:9.] ; and the prospect of the Promise, like the fulfilment of it, did not send peace into families, but a sword, and three were set against two, and two against three [Gen. 27:41.] ; and the elder, who would be promoted unto honour, was set against the younger, whom God would promote [Gen. 4:5; 27:41.] , and national differences were engendered by it, as individuals grew into nations [Gen. 19:37; 26:35.] ; and even the foulest of idolatries may be traced, perhaps, to this hallowed source; for the corruption of the best is the worst corruption of all [Numb. 25:1, 2, 3.] . It is upon this principle of interpretation, and I know not upon what other so well, that we may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men, who have made those parts of the Mosaic History a stumbling-block to many, which, if rightly understood, are the very testimony of the covenant; and a principle, which is thus extensive in its application and successful in its results, which explains so much that is difficult, and answers so much that is objected against, has, from this circumstance alone, strong presumption in its favour, strong claims upon our sober regard [See Allix, “Reflections on the Books of Holy Scripture,” where this interesting subject is most ingeniously pursued.] .

Such is the structure that appears to me to unfold itself, if we do but bring together the scattered materials of which it is composed. The place of worship—the priest to minister—the tithes to support him—the sacerdotal dress—the ceremonial forms—the appointed seasons for holy things—preachers—prophets—a code of laws—sacrifices—sacraments—types —and a Messiah in prospect, as leading a feature of the whole scheme, as He now is in retrospect of a scheme which has succeeded it. Complete the building is not, but still there is symmetry in its component parts, and unity in its whole. Yet Moses was certainly not contemplating any description of a Patriarchal Church. He had other matters in his thoughts: he was the mediator not of this system, but of another, which he was now to set forth in all its details, even of the Levitical. Hints, however, of a former dispensation he does inadvertently let fall, and these we find, on collecting and comparing them, to be, as far as they go, harmonious.

Upon this general view of the Book of Genesis, then, I found my first proof of consistency without design in the writings of Moses, and my first argument for their veracity—for such consistency is too uniform to be accidental, and too unobtrusive to have been studied. Such a view is, doubtless, important, as far as regards the doctrines of Scripture; I, however, only urge it as far as regards the evidences. I shall now enter more into detail, and bring forward such specific coincidences amongst independent passages of the Mosaic writings, as tend to prove that in them we have the Word of Truth, that in them we may put our trust with faith unfeigned.