ised land; and he had bound them by an oath to carry his remains with them. "By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones """ (B.C. 1635). Through all their afflictions, the children of Israel kept the sacred deposit of Joseph's bones, and doubtless they often consoled themselves with his dying promise and the memory of his greatness. Amid the terrors of that "memorable night," when God led the people out of Egypt, Moses did not forget the trust. When the people were settled in Canaan, they buried Joseph at Shechem, in the parcel of ground which Jacob bought from the Amorites, and which he gave as a special inheritance to Joseph.2 28 29 But § 7. Of the other patriarchs we are only told that “Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation." Stephen adds this remarkable statement: "Jacob went down into Egypt and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem." Though all the Hellenistic Jews" were unable to resist the wisdom and spirit by which he spake," modern Christian critics have discovered that Stephen confounded Abraham's purchase of Machpelah from the Hittites with Jacob's purchase near Shechem from the Amorites! But after we have corrected the obvious blunder of a copyist, by reading Jacob for Abraham, the question remains-Were Jacob and all his sons buried at Shechem, in the same sepulchre as Joseph ? Not necessarily. The passage may simply mean that Joseph's tomb at Shechem was regarded as the family sepulchre. Whether the bones of his brethren were placed in or beside the sarcophagus of Joseph, and whether the remains of Jacob were removed from Hebron to Shechem, are questions suggested, but we scarcely think determined, by the words of Stephen. § 8. The interval between the death of Joseph and the be ginning of the bondage in Egypt is dismissed with the brief but emphatic statement, that "the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them." tribes, including any of Jacob's sons] who were still alive; but Joseph would naturally be one of the last Burvivors of the twelve. 27 Gen. 1. 22-26; Heb. xi. 22. 28 Ex. xiii. 19. 29 Josh. xxiv. 32; compare Gen xxxiii. 19, xlviii. 22. 30 Ex. i. 6. 32 Acts vi. 10. 31 Acts vii. 16. 33 Ex. i. 7. 34 The last words may imply that, while their main settlement was still at Goshen, members of the race were scattered over the country; and, in spite of the system of caste, they may have found employment as artificers and soldiers, as well as shepherds. If this were so, they were again restricted to the land of Goshen by the king who began to oppress them, and were thus collected for their departure. Besides the information contained in the genealogies, only one event is recorded during this period-the unsuccessful predatory expedition of Zabad, the sixth in descent from Ephraim, against the Philistines.3 This repulse happening only a short time before the Exodus, will help to account for the people's fear of the Philistines." As Stephen brings down the prosperity of the people till near the time of the Exodus, the bondage must have begun only a short time before the birth of Moses. 35 38 37 In § 9. The whole period of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt is reckoned at 430 years in the account of their de parture. It is impossible to take this number literally, consistently with other chronological data; but there can be no difficulty in understanding it of the whole pilgrimage of the chosen family, from the time when Abram was called to leave his home for "a land that he should afterward receive as an inheritance," to the time when his heirs did actually receive it. And accordingly St. Paul reckons 430 years from the promise made to Abraham to the giving of the Law (B.C. 1921-B.C. 1491, according to the received chronology).” the covenant with Abraham, the period is stated at 400 years. We can not be surprised at a difference of thirty years above the round number being neglected in a prophecy; besides, some years had already elapsed, and if we reckon from the last complete promise," we have only seven years above the 400. The 430 years may be divided into two equal periods-215 years for the pilgrimage in Canaan (B.c. 19211706), and 215 for the residence in Egypt (1706-1491). The bondage itself was probably less than 100 years, as the whole period from the death of Joseph to the Exodus was 144 years (B.C. 1635-1491). 40 34 Ex. viii. 22, x. 23. 35 1 Chron. vii. 20-22. 36 Ex. xiii. 17. 37 Acts vii. 17, 18; comp. Ps. cv. 24, 25. 38 Ex. xii. 41. 39 Gal. iii. 17. 40 Gen. xv. 13: the four genera a tions of v. 16 agree with this, for be NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS. (A.) REVIEW OF THE PATRIARCHAL PERIOD. Abraham, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of JehoI. Meaning of the Patriarchal Dis- vah, to do justice and judgment." pensation.The Greek word Patri- II. Its Three Stages. The patriarch* (Пarpiápxns, the father-ruler) archal dispensation may be divided gives a fuller etymological expression into three stages. (1.) When our to the idea which was at first essential first parents had fallen from their to the simpler Hebrew word, at the primitive state of innocence, they time when the father was, by the were placed, by the promise of a delivright of nature, the ruler of the whole erer, in a condition still to trust in community formed by his living de- the mercy of God, and to choose bescendants. In sacred history the term tween a life of humble dependence is commonly applied to the descend- and obedience to Him, and self-willants of Adam, through the line of ed opposition against Him; and the Abraham, down to the time of Moses. observance of sacrifices of blood seems The whole plan of God's moral gov- to have been an outward sign disernment and revelation of himself be- tinguishing the followers of these two fore the giving of the Mosaic Law courses. The distinction was seen constitutes the Patriarchal Dispensa- in the personal characters of Cain tion, which St. Paul expressly distin- and Abel, and in the family characguishes by the phrase "until the law," ters of the Cainites and the Sethites; and defines as "from Adam to Mo- but before long the latter also were ses" (Rom. v. 13, 14). Its peculiar corrupted by their union with the characteristics were the direct and in- former-the sons of God intermarrytimate communion of God with His ing with the daughters of men-and people, and their government by a the general result was an almost unimoral system, the great principles of versal experiment on God's forbearwhich were well understood, though ance. (2.) This state of things was not yet reduced to a code of laws.† ended by the Deluge, after which the It was an experiment of moral gov- experiment of godly obedience and ernment in the simple and beautiful patriarchal order was renewed under form of family harmony. Its ideal the fresh conditions laid down by the is expressed in the words-"I know covenant with Noah, insuring the divine forbearance till the end of time. But when the prospect of judg ment was thus removed far off, sin assumed new courage; the Babelbuilders made the daring attempt to render themselves independent of Jehovah: nations were founded on those godless principles which have ever It is specifically applied in the N. T. to Abraham (Heb. vii. 4), to the twelve sons of Jacob (Acts vii. 8, 9), and to David (Acts ii. 29). The LXX. use it as the equivalent for the head or prince of a tribe (1 Chron. xxiv. 31, xxvii. 22; 12). Chron. xxiii. 20, xxvi. The few cases of definite laws, which re embodied in the so-called "Noachic Preepts," have been already noticed. since prevailed in the "kingdoms of [ity, as the only one which is natural this world." This was the very con- and original, is inevitably the foundasummation of rebellion against the tion of the earliest form of society, patriarchal dispensation; while the and is probably seen most perfectly authority with which it invested the in wandering tribes, where it is not father of the family was claimed, as it affected by local attachments and by has been to our own day, for the despot the acquisition of wealth. It is one, and usurper. Idolatry was established from the nature of the case, limited in all these kingdoms; and the pure in its scope, depending more on its worship of Jehovah was alone pre- sacredness than its power, and giving served, or perhaps we should rather room for much exercise of freedom; say, retaught to man, in connection and as it extends from the family to with the true model of patriarchal the tribe, it must become less stringovernment, in the one family, which gent and less concentrated, in proporwas chosen to wander about as no- tion to its wider diffusion. In Scripmads, living under tents, amid the ture this authority is consecrated by nations with whom as yet they shared an ultimate reference to God, as the no earthly inheritance. (3.) It is in God of the patriarch, the father (that this third stage that we see the gen- is) both of him and his children. eral form and spirit of the patriarchal Not, of course, that the idea of God's life; for the notices of the earlier Fatherhood carried with it the knowlperiods are too scanty to afford us edge of man's personal communion more than a few detached lessons of with His nature (which is revealed by a moral and religious nature. Of the the Incarnation); it rather implied social life of the Antediluvian Patri- faith in His protection, and a free archs, and even of the Post-diluvian and loving obedience to His authorPatriarchs before Abraham, we know ity, with the hope (more or less asnext to nothing; but when we turn sured) of some greater blessing from to the pictures of Abraham dwelling Him in the coming of the promised in tents* with Isaac and Jacob, the seed. At the same time, this faith heirs with him of the same promises; was not allowed to degenerate, as it of the other branch of the family was prone to do, into an appropriat Haran; of the conflicts between ation of God, as the mere tutelary Sarah and Hagar on behalf of Ishmael God of the race. The Lord, it is true, and Isaac, and between Esau and suffers Himself to be called "the Jacob themselves for the right of in- God of Shem, of Abraham, of Isaac, heritance; of Isaac and Jacob bless- and of Jacob;" but He also reveals ing their children before they died; Himself (and that emphatically, as and of the varied relations between though it were His peculiar title) as the sons of Israel and their families- the "God Almighty" (Gen. xvii. 1, in these and many other scenes we xxviii. 3, xxxv. 11); He is addressed see the working of the patriarchal as the "Judge of all the earth" (Gen. system with sufficient distinctness to xviii. 25), and as such is known to trace its leading principles. have intercourse with Pharaoh and III. Its leading principles. It is Abimelech (Gen. xii. 17, xx. 3-8), to based on the sacredness of family ties hallow the priesthood of Melchizedek and paternal authority. This author- (Gen. xiv. 18-20), and to execute "The Bedouin tents are still the faith- wrath on Sodom and Gomorrah. All ful reproduction of the outward life of the pa- this would confirm what the generaltriarchs." Stanley's Sinai and Pales in, Preface, p. xxiv. ity of the covenant with Noah and 31; Heb. vii. 1–17), indirectly supported by other passages of Scripture (Matt. xxiv. 37-39; Luke xvii. 28– 32; Rom. x. 10-13), and instinctively adopted by all who have studied the history itself. of the promise of blessing to "all na- looking back on the unconscious tions" in Abraham's seed must have freedom and innocence of childhood, distinctly taught that the chosen fam- with that deeper insight and strength ily were not substitutes but represent- of character which are gained by the atives of all mankind, and that God's experience of manhood. We see in relation to them was a clearer and it the germs of the future, of the fumore perfect type of that in which He ture revelation of God, and the future stood to all. trials and development of man. It Still the distinction and preserva- is on this fact that the typical intertion of the chosen family, and the pretation of its history depends, an maintenance of the paternal author- interpretation sanctioned directly by ity, are the special purposes which the example of St. Paul (Gal. iv. 21– give a key to the meaning of the history and of the institutions recorded. For this the birthright (probably carrying with it the priesthood) was reserved to the first-born, belonging to him by inheritance, yet not assured to him till he received his father's blessing; for this the sanctity of marriage was jealously and even cruelly guarded, as in Gen. xxxiv. 7, 13, 31 (Dinah), and in xxxviii. 24 (Tamar), from the license of the world without; and all intermarriage with idola-document which throws a flood of light ters was considered as treason to the family and the God of Abraham (Gen. xxvi. 34, 35, xxvii. 46, xxviii. 1, 69). Natural obedience and affection are the earthly virtues especially brought out in the history, and the sins dwelt upon (from the irreverence of Ham to the selling of Joseph) are all such as offend against these. The type of character formed under it is one imperfect in intellectual and spiritual growth, because not yet tried by the subtler temptations, or forced to contemplate the deeper questions of life; but it is one remarkably simple, affectionate, and free, such as would grow up under a natural authority, derived from God and centring in Him, yet allowing, under its unquestioned sacredness, a familiarity and freedom of intercourse with Him, which is strongly contrasted with the stern and awful character of the Mo saic dispensation. To contemplate it from a Christian point of view is like (B.) THE BOOK OF JOB. In addition to the notices of patriarchal life contained in the Book of Genesis, we possess a contemporary on the manners, the social condition, and the moral and religious character of the period. It would be out of place here to attempt a full discussion of the theories that have been maintained respecting the Book of Job; but whatever opinions may be held of the reality of Job's personal existence, and of the events on which the great discussion that fills the book is based, there is enough internal evidence for our present purpose. The residence of the patriarch in the land of Uz, which took its name from a son of Aram (Gen. x. 23), or Nahor (Gen. xxii. 21), marks him as belonging to a branch of the Aramæan race, which had settled in the lower part of Mesopotamia (probably to the south or south-east of Palestine, in Idumæan Arabia), adjacent to the Sabæans and Chaldæans.* The opinions of Job *As far as we can gather, the land of Uz lay eher east or south-east of Palestine, ad jacent to the Sabæans and the Chaldeans (Job i. 15, 17), consequently northward of the |