and his only hope, "for one morsel of meat," the person to be relied upon in a matter of the last importance to religion? Or was it not rather the steady Jacob, whose piety was proved not only to be a profession, but a reality, whose doctrine was both sound and firm, and whose faith and esteem for the blessing he afterwards obtained, was visible in every act of his life? I presume not to say that the foreknowledge of this difference in their respective characters was the ground of the prediction, and the motive of the choice; for I dare not meddle with things so deep. But I would steadily assert, that since the election has actually been made, there is reason enough in the dispositions of Esau and Jacob, as manifested in their subsequent acts and conversation, to justify, for such a purpose, and, on such an occasion, the propriety of the preference shown to the latter. Be it that Esau was the more amiable man, yet Jacob was the more pious one, and it was piety, in this instance, which alone could constitute the fitness of the instrument. Let us now recapitulate the remarks we have made, and placing them contiguously with the -objections to which they are opposed, endeavour briefly to give a judgement upon the whole case. It is objected, first, that Jacob's subtilty was justly, condemnable, and what a wise and good man would greatly disapprove. We allow that it was so, and answer that this forms no objection to Scripture, because whatever holiness, in other respects, may be attributed to Jacob, Scripture never speaks of this act with commendation, whilst Moses, by calling it a subtilty, would seem to have given it a direct reproof. It is objected, secondly, that this wrong action of Jacob was yet allowed to be successful, and he obtained the blessing which he sought by subtilty. We admit this also, and answer, that such is a common issue of actions in the world that now is, and that in the world to come alone, are we to look for a perfectly retributive state. But we observe further, that, in the example before us, retribution, rigid and appropriate, commenced even with the commission of the crime; that, personally at least, Jacob enjoyed nothing of what was promised, and that to himself the whole terms of the blessing were reversed, with the exception of that assurance vouchsafed to him by God, that "the blessing of Abraham" should still ultimately be his, and that "in his seed should all the families of the earth be blessed." Here then, in the third place, it is asserted that this portion of the blessing ought also to have been reversed, and that retaliation should have been entire as well as signal. We allege, in reply, that as the promise it is proposed to revoke was positively and unconditionally pronounced, the unchangeableness of the Divine Being could scarce admit of its being violated. Upon this we rest; but if we are still further pressed with an inquiry, why such an unconditional promise should have been made by a Being who must have foreknown the conduct the object of the declaration would pursue, we beg leave to decline the question as presumptuous and indeterminable by man, whose ignorance and incapacity cannot possibly appreciate that combination of circumstances, past, present, and to come, by which the determinations of Omniscience are regulated. Thinking thus modestly ourselves, we would yet represent to the objector that, either Esau or Jacob, as being the only sons of Isaac, must necessarily have been chosen, and that, considering the purpose for which the election was made, Jacob was evidently the fitter of the two. The objector has no right, therefore, to assert that the preference was given without there being any thing in reason and nature to be the ground of that preference." Thus would we endeavour to satisfy, if possible, those that doubt; whilst upon those that believe we would strenuously urge the moral of the whole. If Jacob, we would say, the elect of the Lord; if Jacob who, "as a prince, had power with God and with men;" if he to whom appertained" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants," was yet made to suffer severely and long for the evil that he had done, how strong is the warning to us less-distinguished individuals against being beguiled into any deceit, and expecting to escape the penalty which is due to our sin. Let "no man go beyond, and defraud his brother in any matter, because that the Lord is the avenger of all such." This is the instruction conveyed to us by this history; and this is evidently the instruction our Church intended us to draw from it, because on that very day on which she has taken the account of Jacob's subtilty for the lesson, she has selected for the epistle that portion of Scripture which contains the sentence I have just read-a sentence "of reproof, and of correction in righteousness," which we should do well to have continually in our hearts. For to few, as to the Thessalonians, can it be said that "as touching brotherly love there is no need that we should write unto them." |