kath, both of Man and Beaft, and of the Field of bis Poffeffion, all be redeemed. This is fo exprefs, not only by the Ufe of a general Term, as no devoted Thing, but by defcending to all the feveral Particulars which could be in a private Perfon's poffeffion, and fpecifying peculiarly the devoting of Man as well as Beaft and Field, that it would be difficult to frame the Expreffion more to this Purpose, if it had been intended; and even Mr. Selden * acknowledges this to be fufficient to determine the Meaning of the Words in the enfuing Verfe. None devoted, which shall be devoted of Men, that is, out of Men, and not by Men, as fome have rendred it, fhall be redeemed, but shall furely be put to Death. The Senfe of these Verfes appear fo plain in Conjunction, that for that very Reafon fome of the ancient Jews, as the last cited Author informs us§, feparated them, and fuppofed them to relate entirely to diftinct and different Subjects; and a very excellent modern Writer + follows their Method. They fuppofe the first of these Verfes to relate to voluntary Vows of private Perfons, the other to Nations devoted to Destruction by God's own Appointment. But here again, there is not the least Intimation from the Text or Context of any fuch sudden Transition of the Subject. The whole Chapter treats of the Vows of private Perfons, and this 28th Verse is allowed ftill to relate to these voluntary Engagements; and that then the facred Writer fhould abruptly leave this Point without any Notice of it, and fpeak of quite another, about their indifpenfable Obligation to deftroy all utterly, when they were the Inftruments of God's Vengeance on idolatrous Nations, is utterly unaccountable; nay, this 28th Verfe is not clear and decifive * Loco fupra cit. § Cap. 10. P. 490. + Leland's Anfwer to the Moral Philofopher, Vol. I. P. 150. with It is faid that no fuch without the subsequent one. devoted or accurfed Perfon or Thing fhould be redeemed, but it is not determined, how it was to be difpofed of, it is only faid, that it was most holy to the Lord, but not in what Method it was to be made fo. This the next Verse determines, which after repeating that it fhould not be redeemed, appoints that it fhould be put to Death, that is certainly, that it should be offered up in Sacrifice. The Connection of thefe Verfes is in all Appearance fo strong, that had not fome ill Confequences been apprehended from the Conceffion, there had in all Probability no Doubt been made of it. Mr. Selden exprefly charges thefe Confequences upon it*, that fuch an Interpretation would have invalidated the fixth Commandment, and opened the Way to voluntary Murder. But of this there feems little Danger, fince the Devotement could only be by thofe, who had an abfolute Power over the others, and these must stand in such a Relation to them, as ordinarily to have an Affection for their Persons and an Interest in their Prefervation; nor does Hiftory present us with any fuppofed Example of it, except in the Subject of the prefent Queftion. Nor was this dreaded Confequence at the most any Argu, ment against the Meaning of the Words in the Verfes before us, but a Prefumption only that they ought not to mean thus, and not any Proof that they do not. The worthy Perfon juft now referred to t, who has moft lately confidered this Point, thinks the Mention of devoting a Field a ftrong Argument against this Interpretation, fince this was incapable of being facrificed or confumed by Fire. But whats ever the Author he writes against might affert, the Text mentions nothing of Burnt-offerings in par Cap. 6. P. 467. + Leland. Vol. I. P. 149. ticular, ticular, and a Field may be doomed to Destruction in the Senfe that it was capable of, that is, it might be laid waste in token of the Divine Displeasure against any Iniquity committed in that Place, whenever fuch Cafe fhould happen; and might thus be Holy, or separated from common Ufe, in the fame Senfe that any other accurfed Thing could be. As I fincerely with well to the Caufe, which this Writer has fo well defended, I would equally guard against the Inference, which Unbelievers have drawn from hence, which I fhall not fail to attempt, after having obferved what has been offered by good Men in Confirmation of this Interpretation. For those who judge from hence, that Jephthab was really obliged hereby to fulfil his Vow by the Sacrifice of his Daughter, feem at least to argue very clofely and convincingly. I fhall use the Words of one of undoubted Piety and diftinguifhed Judgment. "It is plain from this Text," fays he*, "that fome both Things and Perfons might be devoted, to wit, fuch Things and Persons over "which the Perfon, who devoted them, had à "Power; that no fuch, either devoted Things or "Perfons, could be fold or redeemed; that all Perfons fo devoted were to be put to Death; and fince the "Perfons, which might thus be devoted, are reckoned among the Poffeffions of those who "might thus devote them, and therefore cannot "fo properly be understood of the Canaanites and "Amalekites, who were not in their Power, as of "Perfons actually under their Power; fince no Perfons are fo much under the Power of others, as Slaves in the Power of their Lords, and Chil dren of their Parents, it is from hence with great "Probability of Reafon concluded by fome, that Bishop Smalridge's Sermons, P. 226. "Parents "Parents had in fome Circumftances a Power of devoting their Children to Deftruction; that "Jephthah did by his Vow thus devote his Daugh 66 ter, and that having thus devoted her, he might "think himself obliged by this Law to fulfil his "Vow by putting her to Death." All this and much more to this Purpose is to be found in Lud. Cappellus, who argues from hence, not only that Jephthah might think himself obliged by this Law to facrifice his Daughter, but likewife that he judged right in thinking fo; and that on this Account he was not capable of being abfolved from his Vow of Cherem, by the high Prieft, or any of his Order. His Reafonings on this Point are difficult to be dealt with, and he has guarded against the several Exceptions which he was aware might be made to this Interpretation of it. Indeed the only material ones are the appearing Inconsistency of it with that Precept in Deut. xii. 31. which exprefly forbids human Sacrifices, and the fevere, if not unjust Nature of the Law itself. But there is no great Difficulty in the first of these Objections. For this Direction, Lev. xxvii. 28, 29. was given before that other in Deut. and therefore if there was any Difference betwixt them, that must be reconciled to this, and understood confiftently with it. If this Text really meant to authorize the Destruction of fuch devoted Persons, then the other must be understood as including every Inftance, but this, which had been before allowed. It must be confidered as a general Rule with one only Exception, which a preceding Law had permitted.-But, was not then this fuppofed Law fevere and unjust in itself, contrary to the Principles of Humanity and Religion? Why, even in this Senfe of it, it does not approve *Note Criticæ in Vet. Teft. P. 423. E 2 or or recommend the Practice of devoting any Perfons to Destruction. It only requires, that a Vow thus made should punctually be fulfilled, and that no Redemption should in this Cafe be allowed of. But certainly there is much Difference betwixt warranting and encouraging this Kind of Vow by Cherem or Curfe, and infifting on the exact Completion of it, when once it was made. This might be intended to the very contrary End, even to difcourage this Practice, by the Mischief and Grief, which it might in the Event bring on themselves, and those perhaps who were nearest and deareft to them. And the very Circumftance, which has fometimes afforded Matter of furprize to fome, that this of Jephthah's is a fingle Inftance, not to be paralleled through the whole Bible, may on this Suppofition be rationally accounted for. If this Law, which peremptorily required the Destruction of fuch devoted Perfons, was defigned in Terrorem, to prevent all rafh Vows, then one fuch eminent Example as this was enough to put an End to all fuch Methods of devoting, and to work that Effect, which it was calculated to produce.—But still in this Cafe the Penalty fell on the Innocent not on the Guilty Perfon, and we are perhaps at a Lofs to account for the Equity of a Law which fhould make one a Sufferer by the Mifcarriage of another. -The Truth is, in fuch Cafes the Penalty fell on both Parties, for every one fees both from the Circumftances of this Affair, and his own pathetical Lamentations, that Jephthah was, as well as his Daughter, a fevere Sufferer by the Exécution of his Vow. And as for the Article of an Innocent Perfon's being involved in Ruin by the Default of one who should have fupported and protected them, this should at moft be of no greater Force in this Inftance, than in that which in God Almighty had exprefly |