A. M. 2561. A. C. 1443; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 4189. A. C. 1222, JUD. i. TO THE END OF KUTH. 6 have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot go back. And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which proceeded out of thy mouth, forasmuch as the Lord has taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon: only let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, his fatal locks gave rise to the fable of Nisus king of Megara, upon whose hair the fortune of his kingdom depended; that his foxes were commemorated at Rome, every return of their harvest, by a similar ceremony of tying them tail to tail, and so letting them go; and to name no more that Jephthah's sacrificing his daughter to God, is partly adumbrated by Agamemnon's offering his Iphigenia to Diana, and partly by Idomeneus's pro-and bewail my virginity, I, and my fellows. And he mising to make a victim to Neptune of the first thing he should meet on shore, if he escaped the present storm, which happened to be his own son. So happily do many fictions of the poets concur to confirm the truth and authority of holy writ. CHAP. III. Jephthah's rash vow. THIS VOW of Jephthah's, which has employed the thoughts and pens of so many learned men, is conceived in these words: And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, if thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into my hands, then it shall be, that whosoever cometh forth out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering.' And the result of this vow was, that 'Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them, and the Lord delivered them into his hands;' whereupon he came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold his daughter came out to meet him, with timbrels, and with dances, and she was his only child: beside her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, alas! my daughter, thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me; for I milkwhite steed decorated with variegated trappings, scarcely was the Niseian virgin mistress of her reason. Happy, she said, is the javelin which he holds, and happy is the bridle pressed by his lovely hand."-Met. b. 8. The result of this passion was, that this perfidious daughter stole into the chamber, while her father was fast asleep, cut off the lock whereon the fate of his kingdom depended, and carried it to Minos, as an undoubted pledge of her love. But if this fable and Samson's history have a near resemblance in some of their first circumstances, they are very different in the conclusion: for Minos rejected the present with scorn, and slighted the woman because of her perfidy; whereas the princes of the Philistines took the advantage against Samson, which Delilah's treachery gave them.-Saurin, vol. 4. Dissert. 17. that is to say There was anciently a feast in Rome, called Vulpinalia, or the feast of the foxes, which Ovid makes mention of, for, inquiring into the custom of tying lighted torches to their tails, "the cause why foxes when let loose bore burning torches bound to their tails," he resolves the matter, by telling us, that a certain youth, having caught a fox which had destroyed much poultry, was going to burn it. His words are these: "He first wrapped the captive all round with straw and hay, and then set fire to it, when all in a flame the animal escaped from his hand, and wherever it fled, the produce of the fields were set in a blaze, the wind giving strength to the destructive element. The story of the deed has perished, but its monument remains; for the Carseolane law declares that every fox that is caught must be put to death. To avenge for the deed, this race of animals is burned with straw, and have to perish in the same manner that their progenitor destroyed the cornfields."-Fast. b. 4. But Bochart has confuted this notion of Ovid's concerning the origin of this custom, and endeavours to refer it to this piece of history in Samson's life.-Saurin, vol. 4. Dissert, 17. said, go; and he sent her away for two months, and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. And it came to pass, at the end of two months, that she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow, which he had vowed, and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah, four days in a year.' I set the whole passage before the reader, that he may the better judge of the depending controversy there is among commentators, whether this daughter of Jephthah's was really sacrificed or no: and for his farther satisfaction in this point, I will fairly state the arguments on both sides; consider a little on which side they preponderate; and then inquire, in case he did sacrifice his daughter, or as others will have it, devote her only to God's service in a single life, whether the thing was lawful for him to do, and what might possibly be the motive of his doing it. Those who maintain the negative, or more merciful side of the question, argue in this manner :-That Jeph thah was certainly a very good man, because we find him ranked among the worthies of old, that are commemorated with honour by the author of the Hebrews: That he was an Israelite, and as such lived under the law, which prohibited human sacrifices by the severest penalties: that had the vow been intended in this sense, God would never have vouchsafed Jephthah so signal a victory as he did, which must have terminated in the violation of his own laws: and therefore they conclude, that so kind and tender a father as Jephthah is represented, would never have sacrificed an innocent, dutiful, and obedient child, as her whole carriage seems to denote her, in discharge of a rash and inconsiderate vow; especially when, according to the prescription of the law, he might have redeemed his daughter at a price so inconsiderable, 2 as ten shekels of silver.' Jephthah did unto his daughter, and that, according to It must be something else, therefore, say they, that the import of the text, was to devote her to a state of celibacy, or that she might live in the manner of a religious nun all the days of her life: for the particle vau, which we render and, it shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up,' is a disjunctive in this place, as it is elsewhere, and signifies or; so that the true version of the passage should be, whatever cometh forth to meet me shall surely be the Lord's, or I will offer it up for a burnt-offering,' that is, if it be a human creature, I will dedicate it to the service of God; if a beast of any kind, proper for sacrifice, I will instantly offer it up: for that in this sense the vow is to be understood, is evident from her going into the mountains to bewail her virginity, which, had she been doomed to be sacrificed, 'Patrick's and Le Clerc's Commentaries. Jenkin's reasonableness, vol. 2. c. 18. Selden on the Law of Nature and Nations, b. 4. c. 11 Howell's History, &c. Lev. xxvii. 5. A. M. 2561. A. C. 1443; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 4189. A. C. 1222. JUD. i. TO THE END OF RUTH. had not been near so proper, as to bewail her untimely end. Nor can we think that Jephthah would have ever suffered her to have made a circuit of two months among her companions, for fear of her making her escape, or procuring some of her friends and acquaintance either to rescue her, or intercede for her, had she been destined to suffer death upon her return. On the contrary, when she returned to her father, and he had done to her according to his vow, it immediately follows, that she knew not man; which shows that the purpose of his vow was answered by obliging her to a state of perpetual virginity, in some retired place, where she was secluded from all society, except that the daughters of Israel, those especially of her acquaintance, went up, either to talk and converse with her, or to celebrate her praise, or to comfort her concerning her solitary condition, for to all these senses may the word letannoth be applied, four days in the year, that is, one day every quarter. Upon the whole, therefore, they infer, that Jephthah's daughter did not fall a sacrifice, but was consecrated to God and his service, that is, devoted to a single life, and to remain a recluse all her days; which could not but occasion Jephthah no small grief and trouble, because by this means, his family became extinct, and himself destitute of issue to inherit his estate, and perpetuate his name. These are some of the most plausible arguments that are generally employed to prove, not the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter, but only her obligation to a perpetual virginity in the worship and service of God. 36 Vows of perpetual virginity, say they, are institutions of a modern date: the word of God knows nothing of them; nor has this pretended celibacy of Jephthah's daughter any manner of foundation in Scripture; and therefore, when this circumstance is inserted, that she knew no man, it is not to signify, that she lived a perpetual virgin, but only, that she was so unhappy as to leave the world in her youth, and before she had the knowledge of a man. Had Jephthah meant no more, say they, by performing his vow, than consecrating his daughter, a perpetual virgin, to the service of God, what cause was there for renting his clothes, and bemoaning himself, as we find he did? Had Jephthah made only a vow of celibacy for his daughter, whereby she was bound to nothing more painful, than to lead a single life, what reason was there for bewailing this as a grievous calamity, which some men account a thing so eminently glorious and honourable? Is the being shut up as a recluse, and entered into the list of perpetual virgins, a matter of such bitter complaint and lamentation? Was this so sore an evil, an affliction so extraordinary, that not only before she underwent it, she and her companions should, for two months together, be allowed to bewail it; but that, after she had undergone it, the daughters of Israel should be required to lament it four times a year? If she was actually put to death, in execution of her father's vow, it is easy then to understand, why the particular circumstance of her dying without issue, when she was the only daughter of her father, and had no other prospect of posterity to keep up his family, should be represented as a sore aggravation of her violent and untimely death : but it seems very difficult to account for that bitter lamentation, made by her father, by herself, by her companions, and by all the daughters of Israel in succeeding times, if she suffered no other, no severer punishment, than that of being devoted to a single life. Those that maintain the affirmative, or harsher side of the question, namely, that Jephthah, in pursuance of his vow, did actually sacrifice his daughter, form their arguments in this manner. 2 That the times wherein Jephthah lived, were so sadly addicted to idolatry, that to burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods,' was a common practice among the Israelites, as well as other nations; and that the manner in which he lived, before he was called to the assistance of his country, which was chiefly by plunder and rapine, and bloodshed, might make him not incapable of vowing to sacrifice the first of his domestics that should meet him upon his victorious return. That this vow-is delivered in general and indefinite terms, namely, that whosoever should come forth out of the doors of his house to meet him, that should surely be the Lord's, and it should be the Lord's, by being offered up for a burnt-offering:' that though the particle vau be sometimes used in a disjunctive sense, yet it can only be so, where things are really distinct and different from each other, but cannot be admitted, where the one manifestly includes the other, as it is in the passage before us; that therefore it is much more congruous to all the rules of good sense to understand the words of Jephthah so, as that, by promising whatsoever he met should be the Lord's, he obliged himself in general to consecrate it to God, and that, by promising farther, that he would offer it up for a burnt-offering, he specified the manner in which he in-No devoted thing, which a man shall devote to the Lord, tended to make his consecration. 'Edward's Inquiry into some Remarkable Texts. These are some of the most prevailing arguments on the affirmative side; and for the confirmation of them, it is farther alleged, that both Josephus and the Chaldee Paraphrast testify the same thing; that the ancient doctors, both of the Jewish and Christian church, were of the same opinion; and that, as to the substance of the fact, the compilers of the homilies of our church, do perfectly agree with these ancient writers: so that how desirous soever we may be to clear Jephthah from the imputation of so cruel, so impious, so unnatural an act, as that of murdering his own daughter; yet if we will adhere to the more easy and obvious construction of the words, and as they appear to us at first view; or if we retain any just esteem and veneration for the sense of antiquity, we must necessarily conclude, that when it is said of him, that he did with his daughter according to the vow which he had vowed,' the meaning can be no less, than that he did really put her to death: but whether he acted well or ill in so doing, is another inquiry we are now to pursue. The law of Cherem, as the Hebrews call it, which is a law of a peculiar nature, is delivered in these words: of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy to the Lord. None devoted, 7 A. M. 2561. A. C. 1443; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 4189. A. C. 1222. JUD. i. TO THE END OF RUTH. which shall be devoted by men, shall be redeemed, but | to his love and favour; since the natural affection of a shall surely be put to death.' Of this sort, a very learn- father towards his child ought to be stifled, before he could ed1 commentator supposes this vow of Jephthah's to give way to the execution of the sentence of death upon have been, and that therefore he could not redeem his her; since the sacrificing of children to their gods was a daughter, but was necessitated to put her to death. It crime, for which the heathen nations were justly detested, is to be observed, however, that Cherem (which is the and punished by God; since Jephthah's offering his term here made use of) signifies either persons devoted daughter as a victim to the Lord, might reflect a dishoto slaughter for their execrable impieties, as were the nour upon the true God, as if he also delighted in such Amalekites and other nations, whom God commanded sacrifices; since these, I say, and several other things, the Israelites to extirpate, or things destined to de- might be urged in aggravation of this action, we may struction, as were Jericho and Ai, for the wickedness of safely and confidently aver, with the Jewish historian, those to whom they appertained; so that the law of "that the sacrifice which Jephthah offered was neither Cherem related only to such persons or things, as by an lawful nor acceptable to God," but on the contrary a very irrevocable vow, were destined to utter destruction for impious act, and an abominable crime, though it might their horrid crimes, and because indeed there was parti- possibly proceed from a mistaken principle of religion. cular command from God, both for the making or putting such a vow in execution; but it can by no means be pretended, either that Jephthah's daughter merited such a punishment, or that her father had any order or commission from God to inflict it. On the contrary, all human sacrifices are expressly forbidden, as odious and detestable to God: Thou shalt not do so to the Lord thy God; thou shalt not burn thy sons, and thy daughters in the fire,' as the heathens used to do to their gods; for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done.' There is one law, indeed, which seems to be of some moment in the case before us, and that is this: If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word, he shall | do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.' But then all sober casuists are agreed, that a vow has only a constructive, not a destructive force, that is, that it can only lay a new obligation, where there is none, or where there is one, strengthen it; but that it cannot cancel a former obligation, or superinduce one that is repugnant to it. Now all our obligations to obedience proceed from God. He hath an uncontrollable right to give laws to his creatures: but if men, by entering into vows, could free themselves from the obligation of his laws, they might then, whenever they pleased, by their own act, defeat his authority. Whatever, therefore, is in itself forbidden by God, and for that reason unlawful; whatever is against any precept of natural or revealed religion; whatever is inconsistent with those relative duties which men owe to one another; whatever, in short, is in any respect sinful, cannot, by being made the matter of a vow, become justifiable. So that he who hath vowed to do what cannot be done without sin, is so far from being obliged to perform his vow, that he is, notwithstanding his vow, obliged not to perform it; because there is not only great obliquity in making such an unlawful vow, but this obliquity is so far from being lessened, that it is aggravated by keeping it. 'Since, therefore, the thing vowed by Jephthah seems to have been in itself unlawful; since his daughter was innocent, and had done nothing to deserve death; since the running out to meet her father with joy and congratulation, was an act of piety, which seemed to entitle her 'Diatribe of Lud. Cappel concerning Jephthah's Vow. 'Edward's Inquiry into several texts. Dert, xii. 31. Num. xxx. 2. Bishop Smalridge's Serm. • Ibid. The religious observation of oaths and vows has, at all times, been esteemed a duty incumbent on those that made them; insomuch, that even when they have been procured by guile, they have not been thought destitute of their obligation. The Gibeonites certainly imposed upon the children of Israel, when they obtained from them a league of amity and friendship; and yet we may observe what notions the Israelites had of this kind of obligation, when, in their public consultations, they say, "We have sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel; now therefore we may not touch them.' This was a remarkable instance before Jephthah's days, and it is not improbable, that he might have it in his remembrance, and imprudently make use of it, as a precedent of the irreversibleness of oaths, and of the inviolable tie he was under by reason of his vow: but in succeeding times, there is a passage in Scripture, which comes nearer to the case now before us. Saul, in the day of battle, perceiving his enemies to give ground, out of the abundance of his zeal, made a vow to God, that whoever would taste any food before the pursuit was over, should certainly die; and upon this occasion his own son Jonathan had like to have been made a sacrifice, merely because his father would have been thought religious and austere to the observation of his oath; notwithstanding he was plainly excused from the obligation of it as to his son, who was both in another place, and ignorant of his father's will, and under necessity of taking some small refreshment when he was so faint and hungry. What wonder then if Jephthah, who, we have reason to believe, was a person much more religiously inclined than Saul, should think himself under an obligation to observe his vow, even though it was to the destruction of his own and only daughter. What the acceptableness of Abraham's offering his son Isaac was, he had read in the book of Moses; and this might possibly lessen the horror of the fact he was going to commit. For though Abraham had the positive command of God for what he did, which Jephthah could not pretend to, so that there was a great disparity between their two cases; yet it was plain, from the acceptableness of Abraham's offering, and the great reward bestowed on him for his intended oblation, that the sacrificing a beloved child was not, in all cases, and under all circumstances sinful, but might be so circumstantiated as to be an act of piety, and approved in the sight of God: and when this example proved such an action, as to the Josh. ix. 19. 7 Josephus' Antiquities, b. v. c. 9. A. M. 2561. A. C. 1443; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 4189. A. C. 1222. JUD. i. TO THE END OF RUTH. matter and substance of it, not only lawful but commendable, Jephthah might from hence be led into an opinion that the difference between his case and that of Abraham was not so great, as that what was laudable and almost meritorious in the one, should be imputed as an unpardonable crime to the other. 66 He had read likewise in the law, that when thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord, thou shalt not be slack to pay it;' and was sensible that a wilful neglect of this was a heinous crime, a mocking of God, a dissembling with Heaven, and an act of injustice and unfaithfulness towards him, who is a severe exactor of vows, and is wont to avenge the breach of them by the infliction of the sorest punishments; and upon these premises he might possibly argue with himself in this manner: Though I know that the performance of my vow will be accompanied with murder, yet I consider likewise that my not performing it will be attended with downright perjury. Seeing then there is a necessity of sinning one way or other, I am resolved to choose the former; for though that be an injury to my daughter, yet the other is an affront to God. My child is dear to me indeed, but my God, my Father, is much more so. It is better therefore to be cruel than impious; to be guilty of bloodshed, than to be perjured and false to the Lord of heaven and earth. I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.' I must not reverse, I dare not revoke the sacred promise which I have made to the Almighty; but my firm and unshaken purpose is to perform it." Thus the mistaken sense of the indissoluble obligation which his vow had laid upon him, blinded his eyes, and ran him upon this fatal rock, He could not but know, had he considered at all, that no vow is obligatory, where the matter of it is unlawful; or that, what is unlawful in itself, cannot possibly be made otherwise by the interposition of a vow. Nay, he could not but know, that to act unlawfully, in virtue of a vow, was a double sin, since not only the vow itself was sinful, but the act consequent thereupon was sinful likewise; and yet so blind sometimes is the zeal of an erroneous conscience, that it will not suffer men to perceive, at least to be governed by the most rational and self-evident principles. Upon the whole, therefore, we may conclude, that how great soever this sin of Jephthah's was, yet, properly speaking it was the sin of ignorance, and the effect of a misguided conscience. By the bitter complaint, which he uttered upon the first sight of his daughter coming out to meet him, it is evident that he was under great trouble and perplexity; and as she had done nothing to alienate his affections from her, but in this very act of meeting him, had done something to engage his affections more strongly towards her, the bowels of a father must necessarily yearn to save the life of a loving and a beloved child. The generous offer which she made him, that he might do to her what he pleased, according to his vow, though it made the doing of it less unjust, could not but add a fresh sting to his grief, and, if he had any generosity in his breast, make him do it with more reluctancy. No one who is a parent; no one who has felt the workings of nature towards his own issue; no one who hath suffered, or who hath feared the loss of Edward's Inquiry into several texts. Deut. xxiii. 21. an only child, but must be sensible of what pangs of sorrow, what meltings of compassion, what agonies of grief, must pierce the soul of Jephthah, when he imagined himself under the sad necessity of sacrificing his own, his only, his virgin daughter, whom he could not offer up for a burnt-offering, without sacrificing, at the same time, all the propensions of nature, all the ease and pleasure of his life, all the prospect of keeping up his family. Nothing less than a mistaken opinion of the indispensable obligation of his vow could prevail with him thus to overrule the strong motives of interest and inclination; and a mistake which took its rise from so good a principle must, without question, at least extenuate the guilt, in the judgment both of good-natured men, and of an all-merciful God. 3 We cannot, however, part with this remarkable piece of history, without making one inference, namely, that we should be strictly careful how we engage ourselves in any rash and indeliberate vows; because, as a vow is confessedly an act of religion, when once we have opened our mouths unto the Lord,' we cannot, without manifest prevarication and contempt of God's authority, go back.' And therefore, to conclude in the words of a great divine already quoted upon this subject, "as in civil life, men of the best character for integrity, and such as are most punctual in keeping their words, are observed to be very sparing in making promises; so in religion, the best way we can take to observe the precept given us by Solomon, that when we vow a vow unto God, we should not defer to pay it,' will be, in the first place, to observe another precept, which he lays down before this, namely, that we should not be rash with our mouths, nor let our hearts be hasty to utter any thing before God." " 4 CHAP. IV.-On Jephthah's Vow. SUPPLEMENTAL BY THE EDITOR. In the course of the previous section, our author states, that Josephus and the Jewish writers in general, as well as the principal writers of the early ages of the church, were of opinion that Jephthah, in consequence of his vow, offered his daughter as a burnt-offering to the Lord, and he seems himself decidedly to incline to the same view. This opinion has been adopted by very respectable modern commentators. But from this view of the matter I dissent, as I conceive that Jephthah only devoted his daughter in a peculiar manner to the service of the Lord. I am confirmed in the accuracy of this opinion, by all that is recorded of the piety of this judge, as well as by the language in which his vow is couched. He is uniformly represented in Scripture, as a man who feared God. He is mentioned by the apostle Paul as one of the eminent men who obtained a good report through faith: and it is declared, that at this very time,—the time in which he uttered his vow,-that he was under the influence of the Spirit of God. I maintain, that all this is irreconcilable with the supposition, that Jephthah deliberately vowed to commit murder; for he must have knowingly done so, if we may imagine that he bound Smalridge's Sermons. Eccles. v. 4. 5 Eccles. v. 2. A. M. 2561. A. C. 1443; OR, ACCORDING TO HALES, A. M. 4189. A. C. 1222. JUD. i. TO THE END OF RUTH. himself by an oath to kill the first man, woman, or child, | sacrifice to the Lord, it shall be presented as a burntthat should meet him on his return. He, who in his expos- offering.' To satisfy us that this is a correct translation, tulation with the king of Ammon, showed that he was well it may be remarked that the conjunction vau must be acquainted with the history of Israel, could not be igno- rendered disjunctively in Lev. xxvii. 28, where the law rant of the law which said, 'Thou shalt not kill,' and regarding things devoted is recorded. Notwithstanding which expressly forbade to imitate the heathen in offering no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord human sacrifices. He who was aware that the law pre- of all that he hath, either of man or of beast, or of the scribed that, if a man even unintentionally should kill | field of his possessions shall be sold or redeemed,' his slave, should be punished, could not imagine that the law permitted him intentionally and deliberately to kill his own daughter. There is no similarity between the case of Jephthah and that of Abraham offering up his son Isaac. Abraham acted in obedience to the divine command; but there is no intimation that the Spirit of God, under whose influence he was, gave any such order to him. Nor even if such a sacrifice had been required for the trial of his faith, can we conceive that he would be allowed to carry it into effect. But the idea of Jephthah's sacrificing his daughter, is not more irreconcilable with what we know of his piety than it is with the provisions which the law itself made in such a case. It permitted a valuation to be made of any thing devoted, and the ransom money to be offered in its stead. The valuation, in the case of a human being, varied according to the age and sex of the person; but, if it were a beast, the offerer was required to give as the price of its redemption, a fifth more than its estimated value. No ransom could be given for cities or possessions which God had declared accursed, and had devoted to destruction; such were the Amalekites and Canaanites, to spare whom was to sin against God. We are entitled to presume, that Jephthah, who was so well acquainted with the history of his people, was also acquainted with the law concerning vows and things devoted; and that in making his vow, therefore, he had in his view those exceptions in things offered, which the law made, and those exchanges which it admitted. Even if he had been ignorant of this, can we suppose, that the priests were so ill instructed, and so forgetful as to overlook it? Especially as the execution of the vow was deferred for two months, and great lamentation made on account of it? It is true, idolatry with its attendants, ignorance and superstition, prevailed over the land; but at no period did it prevail to the utter extinction of the worship of God, and neglect of his law. Besides, Jephthah, and the people of Israel, had united in a reformation of religion; and in doing so had obtained signal marks of the peculiar favour and presence of God. Would the people allow the instrument of their deliverance, on his return from victory, to sacrifice his own daughter? Would they not have interposed for her safety, as they did at a subsequent period of their history, on behalf of Jonathan when his father Saul had doomed him to destruction ? There is nothing in the language in which the vow of Jephthah is couched, which requires us to suppose that he devoted his daughter to death. The conjunction vau rendered and in our version, might be rendered or: and it is often thus translated in other passages, Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, shall surely be the Lord's, or, I will offer it for a burnt-offering: Whatever it may happen to be, it shall be consecrated to God: or, should it be fit to be offered in 1 These considerations, when viewed in connexion with those which I am about to mention, prove conclusively that Jephthah neither did sacrifice his daughter, nor was under any obligation from his vow to do so. The sacrifice of children was an abomination to the Lord: he repeatedly expressed his abhorrence of the practice; and it was prohibited by law under pain of death. No father could, by his own authority, put an offending, much less an innocent child to death upon any account, without the sanction of the magistrates, and the consent of the people, as in the case of Jonathan. The Mishna says, that "if a Jew should devote his son or daughter, his man or maid servant, the devotément would be void, because no man can devote what is not his own." 2 In what way, then, did Jephthah fulfil his vow? The consideration of this question will lead us to the same conclusion as that to which we have already come. After Jephthah had subdued the children of Ammon, we read that he came to Mispeh unto his house, and behold his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances, and she was his only child; beside her, he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas! my daughter! Thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back. And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth. And she said unto her father, let this thing be done for me, let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows. And he said go:-And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed. And it was a custom in Israel, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.' The first thing in this narrative which claims our attention, is the notice which Jephthah's daughter takes of the effect of this vow on herself. If we understand the vow as subjecting her to a life of celibacy, and of seclusion from the world, and consecration to the service of God, her language on the occasion is natural, and what might have been expected from her: but had she been doomed to death, to this she would doubtless have alluded, and have made it the ground of her lamentation. If it be supposed that her piety would have made her silent as to death, the same piety would have led her silently to acquiesce in the other calamity; and like Isaac, be willing to forego every prospect in regard to the promised land. If it be alleged, that on the supposition of her only being doomed to a life of celibacy and seclusion from the world, it was not necessary for |