SECT. 7.] AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 943
1 born of the father only, and not to the first-born of the mother, if her husband had had a son by another wife before. And if a man had more wives at the same time, he that was the first-born of any of them was to have the privilege of the birthright, against all disad- vantages on the mother’s part, as if she were hated in comparison of the others; which manifests that it was a law of nature not to be transgressed, nor the right to be forfeited but by personal sin and disobedience, as it was with Esau and Reuben, Deut. xxi. 15-17. There was, indeed, a privilege that belonged unto the first-born of every mother, by virtue of the especial law about 5/7] 008, him that opened the womb; for every such an one was.to be “sanctified” or separated unto the Lord, Exod. xii. 2; which among men was restrained unto the male: chap. xxii. 29, “ The first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.” And therefore we have added, in way of exposition of this law, in our translation, chap. xxxiv. 19, “ All that openeth the matrix is mine” (that is, the males). And it was instead of the first-born males only that the Levites were taken in exchange, Num. iii. 40-42. But this was a peculiar ceremonial law and pri- vilege. There were two things that eminently belonged unto the apwroroxeia, or right of primogeniture, before the law, the one whereof was confirmed also under it; and this was the privilege in “ familia hereiscunda,” or distribution of the estate and inheritance of the family. For whereas every son was to have 708 DY, Gen, xlviii. 22, “one part” or “shoulder,” to bear the charge of his own especial family, so the first-born was to have 0°¥ ‘B, Deut. xxi. 17, that is, Gitr&, OY wépog diwAoty, “a double portion” of the inheritance. And this evidently Jacob took from Reuben and gave to Joseph, when he adopted his two sons, and gave each of them the inheritance of a tribe, Gen. xlviii. And there also belonged hereunto civil pre-emi- nence and right unto rule. The first-born had a principal honour among his brethren, and when rule and dominion was erected, without especial cause and alteration made by God himself, it be- longed unto him. So do the words of God to Cain plainly signify: “Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him,” Gen. iy. 7. And when God transferred in prophecy the birthright from Esau to Jacob, he did it in these words, “ The elder shall serve the younger,” chap. xxv. 23; which Isaac also in the confirmation of it so expresseth, “ Be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee,” chap. xxvii. 29. And so he tells Esau after- wards, “ Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants,” verse 37. . And this was by Jacob taken from Reuben and given unto Judah. Both these are expressly mentioned, 1 Chron. v. 1, 2, “ Reuben was the first-born; but, for- - asmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given unto
244 PREFIGURATIONS OF THE PRIESTHOOD [EXERO. XXXIV.
the sons of Joseph: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph’s.” I confess the birthright here seems to be confined unto the double portion only, and is therefore proposed as totally transferred to Joseph, and to have comprised all that was lost by Reuben. The matter of rule is introduced so as that when God would erect it, he gave it to Judah without depriving any other of a right unto it. I will not therefore be positive that, by the law of nature, or any previous constitution of God, right unto rule belonged unto the primogeniture, but suppose it might be disposed unto the most worthy, as the Roman epitoma- tor’ affirms it was at the beginning of all governments. However, here is no mention of the priesthood, which we inquire after.
8. The Mishnical Jews, in Masseceth Becaroth Peresh. 8, divide the rights of the primogeniture in nen) and nana, “ the inheritance” and “the priesthood,” and thereon make many distinctions concerning them, who may be the first-born, or have the right of primogeniture, as unto the one, but not unto the other. But by “the priesthood” they intend only the dedication of the first-born unto God upon the law of opening the womb. Now, this had no relation unto the priesthood properly so called. As far as it had its foundation in the law of nature, it was an offering unto God of the first-fruits of the family, all primitie being due unto him; and hereby was the whole family made sacred and dedicated unto God: for “If the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy,” Rom. xi. 16. The place, there- fore, mentioned in Becaroth intends not the priesthood. But in Bereshith Rabba, fol. 71, some of them do plainly ascribe the priest- hood unto the primogeniture; and so doth Jerome from them, on Gen. xvii. 27, Epist. ad Evagr., and elsewhere, as do others also of the ancients. But in the whole law and order of the primogeniture, it is plain that God designed to shadow out the Lord Christ in his offices, when, by his incarnation, he became the first-born of the creation, as to rule, Col. i. 15, 18, Rev. i. 5, Heb. i. 6; as to inheritance, Heb. i. 38, 4, Eph.i. 20; and as to sanctifying the whole family, Heb, ii. 11.