sessed of the birth-right, and probably in this instance of the priesthood with it, since Esau by surrendering the birth-right became profane," goes in to Isaac to re

66

*

ceive the blessing, a religious act, as I have already said, to be done before the Lord. Now on this occasion, Rebekah took

66

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." Were these the sacerdotal robes of the first-born? It occurred to me that they might be so; and on reference I find that the Jews themselves so interpreted them, an interpretation which has been treated by Dr. Patrick more contemptuously than it deserved to be; for I

* Hebrew, xii. 16.

Vide Patrick in loc.

+ Genesis, xxvii. 15.

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 itas 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* here rendered "raiment" (for of the epithet

66

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,† 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,* 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 "the clothes of service," is still the same word, as implying * Chapter xxi. 10. + Exodus, xxxv. 19,

Aaron's clothes, or those of his sons, and no other. And again, Moses says,

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,

66

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, 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

*Leviticus, x. 6.

"de

+ Deuteronomy, xxix. 5.

sirable" 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" the goodly vessels of the House of the Lord." And Isaiah writes, " all our pleasant things are laid waste," meaning the Temple-the word here rendered "pleasant," being the same as that in the former passages ren† 2 Chronicles, xxxvi. 10.

*

‡ Isaiah, lxiv. 11.