succession of Christian authors, ancient and modern, may be found in unison from the time of St. Jerom down to our own, that the priesthood, during the patriarchal dispensation, was one of the prerogatives of primogeniture. And this opinion, derived from such early tradition, ought, surely, to be conclusive, unless the Scriptures afford evidence of its falsehood.

There have been, however, some authors of the highest character both for piety and for Scriptural and Talmudical knowledge, who have held a contrary opinion, and who have maintained that the patriarchal priesthood had no connexion with the privileges of primogeniture. Among

Bochartus, (de anim. sac. P. 1. Col. 575.) illi Reipublicæ literariæ triumviri, ut alios jam taceam non facile numerandos. In hujus autem opinionis subsidium, illius patroni (Gen. xxvii. 15.) vestimenta illa desiderabilia proferre solent quæ Esau primogenitus, tanquam muneris sui sacerdotalis insignia, gessisse creditur. Ita Judæos antiquitus existimasse, S. Hieronymum testantem audiamus: (tradit Hebraic. in Gen. p.m. 98.) In hoc loco (nempe Gen. xxvii. 15.) tradunt Hebræi primogenitos functos officio sacerdotum, et habuisse vestimentum sacerdotale; quo induti Deo victimas offerebant, antequam Aaron in sacerdotium eligeretur. Addunt insuper quòd Esau, non ineptus, sed (Beẞnλos) profanus, ab Apostolo (Heb. xii. 16.) nuncupetur, qui avti Bρwσews μias, propter escam unam, jus primogenituræ vendidit, et facto illo sanctum illud Deo ministrandi privilegium se pro vili habere satis indicavit. Deinde, et illud afferunt, quòd Levitæ ad quos spectabat sacrorum cura Deo dati essent pro primogenitis, et eorum in locum surrogati: adeo ut quales erant Levitæ primogenitorum loco substituti, tales erant primogeniti, quamdiu loco jureque suo gaudere licuit. Hinc etiam argumentum

these I may mention Outram, Vitringa, Bishop Patrick, and Mr. Parkhurst, as having fallen under my own notice. After having read what they have written on the subject, I must own that, highly as I esteem their opinions in general, I am dissatisfied with their reasoning on this particular subject. But before I proceed to state my own views, it may be right that I should mention the objections to which I have referred.

The author who has written most copiously on the subject, so far as my information extends, is the truly excellent Vitringa. Mr. Parkhurst in a note on the word, in the third edition of his Hebrew Lexicon, says, "The reader may remark that, in this third edition, I have not, as I

sumi solet, quòd Hebræorum primogeniti Deo sacri fuerint, et homines quos Deus præcipuo quodam jure (Num. viii. 17.) suos appellaverit. Illi verò, quos Deus suos et sibi sacros vocat, Deo ministrâsse et sacerdotium obiisse non temerè censeantur. Quibus omnibus adjungi solet, quòd Jacob Reubeni, filio suo natu maximo titulum illum excellens dignitate (Gen. xlix. 3.) tribuat; cujus, inquiunt, ratio vix ulla reddi potest, nisi quòd sacerdotium jure πρwτоTOKELY ad Reubenum pertineret. Ut his omnibus major addatur fides, Targum Hierosolymitanum, Onkelosum, Jonathanem, et alios e synagogâ magistellos, laudare solent. Spencer. De Legibus Hebræorum. Lib. i. p. 115, 116. Dr. Spencer has stated these opinions for the purpose of refuting them: whether he have succeeded in the attempt, the reader must judge for himself. He has at least shown, by this statement, that the voice of antiquity, Jewish and Christian, is in favour of the argument which he attempts to refute,—that the priesthood was one of the rites of primogeniture during the patriarchal dispensation.

did in the second, said any thing about the priesthood's being annexed to the birthright. My reason for this omission is, that, on attentive consideration, I think the texts which I there quoted for such annexation (namely, Num. iii. 12, viii. 16, Exod. xix. 22, xxiv. 5,) insufficient to prove it; and whoever will peruse the learned Vitringa's Observationes Sacræ, Lib. ii. chap. 2 and 3, will, I believe, be of the same opinion. The English reader may, for his satisfaction, consult Bishop Patrick's commentary on the several texts." Perhaps, were these texts the only foundation on which the affirmative opinion may be built, were there no other evidence than what they furnish,-they would not be a sufficient basis for the superstructure. But I do not depend merely on the substitution of the Levites for the first born, spoken of in these texts. I shall have recourse to prior facts, and to an axiom of inspired authority on the general subject.

But I will first request your attention to Vitringa's view of the substitution to which the aforementioned texts relate. He thinks that the Levites are therein spoken of as contradistinguished from the family of Aaron; and that the substituted Levites are to be considered in the character of sacrifices and not of priests. He maintains therefore that this substitution of the Levites for the first-born had no relation to the

priesthood, but that as the lives of the first-born of the children of Israel had been spared, when those of the Egyptians were destroyed, and as the former were to be redeemed, as well as the firstling males of unclean animals which were unfit for sacrifice, by a sum of money; the ordinance respecting the Levites merely indicated the righteous forfeiture which had been graciously superseded in the case of the preserved Israelites. For a further explanation of his hypothesis, that the priesthood was not limited to any class of persons till the designation of the Aaronic family took place, and for the arguments by which he supports it, I must refer you to his own pages, and shall proceed to state my own views on a subject which is by no means unimportant in the inquiry to which my correspondence with you has been devoted.

It seems reasonable to expect that, as every thing else, relating to the service of God during the patriarchal era, was so particularly defined, and bore so exact a resemblance of what is afterwards more minutely enjoined by the Mosaic institute; the important article in the system of typical expiation, which relates to the persons to be employed in mediating with God on behalf of others, would not be left without Divine direction and limitation. If the time, the place, the species of animal victims, and the accompanying ceremonies, were all prescribed, as we have

seen that they were in the course of our investigation; is it likely that the question, "Who shall conduct the service"--would remain unanswered? Or, can we suppose that the solemn acts, which prefigured the great expiation, were allowed to be performed by every one who chose to engage in them? This is to me, primâ facie, utterly improbable. The same reason which influenced the Divine Legislator so solemnly to charge his servant Moses, that in his institute every thing should be done according to the pattern which was showed him in the mount, must have existed from the time of the fall for a similar orthodoxy in the hieroglyphic creed of the patriarchs.

The latter was typical as well as the former, and both had the same object in view, to prefigure what our Lord, as the prophet, priest, and king of his church, was to teach, to suffer, and to bestow, at his advent into the world. Any mistake in the ceremonial of religion would have led to a correspondent error in the expectations formed concerning the character, work, and grace of the great Deliverer; especially before any written revelation was afforded, while the orthodoxy of the creed depended on a series of symbols and their interpretation. I cannot therefore but suppose, that the instructions given to Adam, and from him derived to his posterity, were as full and precise as a preparative and