reserved unto pious ufes. Accordingly, it is faid ver. 19. after the general declaration now recited, All the filver and gold are confecrated, more ftrictly

are holiness, to the Lord,' which is the very phrase in ver. 28. of this chapter; and when the Ifraelites became mafters of the city, we are told ver. 2 1. They 'utterly destroyed iahharimu all that was in the city, both men and women, young and old, and ox, ' and sheep, and afs, with the edge of the sword.' ver. 29. And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein; only the filver and the gold, and the veffels of brafs and iron, they brought into the 'houfe of the Lord.' This change of fenfe moreover, from a separation unto religious uses, to a separation unto the abfolute lofs of life, is fufficiently intimated by the finishing clause in the paffage under our confideration, (which if I am not mistaken hath been manifested in the laft note to be incapable of any other interpretation than He fhall be furely flain, or He shall be surely put to death,') fince it fhews that the bherem described in it, inferred an excision by violence from the land of the living, while the bherem fpoken of in the former verfe, only iffued in a perpetual and unalienable state of holiness unto the Lord.

But though the Jewish doctors have commonly interpreted, as hath been faid, the bherem or devotement here, of a feparation to be cut off, they never fuppofed it was the intention of the law to fay, that a man with validity might devote, and with acceptance before God kill another, according to his fancy and humour; No. How indeed could they lodge a right of this kind in any Jew, when, as was fhewed, they

do not even allow to a Hebrew mafter, the power of life and death over his Gentile flave? Now, a devotement is only made with binding force, to the extent of a man's title of difpofal; and procedure according to it is only juft, in the fame proportion, thefe rights being exactly paramount or equal to one another. They therefore limited and restrained this ftatute about devoting unto death, with a legal effect of excision, in respect of the perfons who were the fubjects of it; and fo would I, though with fome little alteration. For I fuppofe it to relate to none but those, whose lives were appointed by God to be deftroyed. Thus the Amalekites, and all the Canaanites who would not confent to terms of peace, were to be put to death by God's exprefs command,

t

These Jewish commentators make enemies and contemners of public authority in general, the proper subjects of devotement, and also, for most part at least, make it neceffary the devotement should proceed from perfons vested with magiftracy and rule, or from the whole congregation of Ifrael; I'fay for the most part, because if I understand Abarbinel in Pirush Thorah, fol. 275. col. 2. as quoted and commented upon by Selden, De Jure Nat et Gent. 4. 10. page 549. he expounds it even of an individual's devoting unto death a person whose life was forfeited. For he speaks thus, In priori commate devovens fit, qui de⚫ vovet id quod fuis effet in bonis. In pofteriori commate devovens fit, 'qui vovet homines qui fui quidem non effent, tametfi ita in devoven'tis poteftate haberentur, ut ex jure belli feu militia fingulari fuum fortiretur effectum devotatio ipfa.' Again, Hujus fpeciei erat anathema" "Hierichuntis. Si nempe inciderit in poteftatem cujufpiam Ifraelitae vita hominis, ex iis qui ibi caperentur, non poterit redimi, fed omnino 'morti tradendus erit; nihilominus, quod ad anathema illud, quo fer• vum fuum quis Domino devoverit, attinet, is morti tradendus non eft. ⚫ Tantum is donarium eft, ut ligna difcindat, aquam hauriat, et facer'dotibus ministerium praeftet. Atque hic eft literalis loci sensus.' Sơ likewife Bar Nachman, and others.

Deut. vii. 2. xxv. 17, 19. 1 Sam. xv. 3. In the fame manner, whoever should lie with a beast, facrifice to an idol deity, or commit certain other atrocious crimes, against which capital punishment was denounced in the law, were to be cut off. They therefore, who belonged to thefe claffes of men, or who perpetrated thefe enormities, might be devoted unto death without any injury or wrong to them. And on account of the conformity and agreeableness of fuch a measure to the will of God, they might hereon be faid to be devoted, or as the phrase is in the book of Joshua, vi. 17. about the inhabitants of Jericho, To be accurfed, to the Lord.' And * concerning fuch, when they had been devoted to death, I reckon the ordinance here to be enacted, None devoted who is devoted of men, fhall be redeemed, ⚫ but shall furely be put to death.'

6

Is it objected, that where was a divine command to destroy life, a devotement by men would be needlefs, wherefore it cannot be thought the statute before us hath any reference to fuch a cafe? I answer, this does not follow; Even where was an obnoxi

* To reftrict it to them, feems to me far more reasonable, than to extend it as the Jews do, to all foes of the state, and to all who might have incurred a sentence of death by the violation of fome public edict, whether of the king, or of the fanhedrim, or of the whole congregation, to which a capital fanction had been annexed; for might not perfons engaged in war against the state, have fometimes right on their fide? and might not such edicts be sometimes foolish and injudicious, tyrannical and oppreffive, so that the tranfgreffion of them would not merit the lofs of life? and can we fuppofe God would ratify a vow of destroying men in these circumstances? Surely not. The hif tory of Saul and Jonathan will very well illuftrate the sentiment here, and evince the abfurdity of the interpretation to which it is oppofed.

ousness to suffer death, through a previous order of God to kill men, or an antecedent declaration by him that they ought to be flain, a devotement might be used, the more effectually to fecure obedience to the divine will, against all temptations from motives of pity or considerations of interest to transgress it, by fparing their lives that were under such doom; for do not men often bring themselves under additional obligations by vow, to practise what is already duty by God's requirement, who is their fupreme sovereign, the better to secure their performance of it amidst inducements to its neglect? Which is more, and fully expofes the weakness of this reasoning, we find in fact, a human vow of deftruction sometimes interpofed, where was an actual liablenefs before to be cut off, from God's antecedent direction. Thus Ifrael vowed a vow unto the Lord, and faid, 'If thou • wilt indeed deliver this people' (the people of Arad the Canaanite,) into my hand, then I will utterly deftroy hehharemti them, and their cities.' And they acted fuitably hereunto, for When the Lord 'hearkened to the voice of Ifrael,' in this vow of killing these Canaanites, which the reader must perceive was only a vow to act as God had enjoined them, And delivered them up into their hands, they utterly deftroyed iabherem them, and their cities; " and they called the name of the place Hhormah,’ a curfe and devotement, or a curfed and devoted thing, Numb. xxi. 2, 3. Nor may it be improper to compare the hiftory, Judges, xxi. 5. where we read, 'The congregation had made a great oath concerning him that came not up to the Lord to Mizpeh,' upon the public authoritative fummons to

arms, that they might punish the tribe of Benjamin for refusing to animadvert on the men of Gibeah, after their barbarous ufage of the Levite's concubine, "Saying, "He fhall furely be put to death." the better to guard against indulgence to the offenders, tho' difobedience to fuch fummons must have been by the constitution capital,

Is it urged farther against this interpretation, that Mofes must be thought here to intend the devotement of perfons who were private property by their owners, which thofe Amalekites and Canaanites, and those malefactors that were fentenced to fuffer excifion by God, were not? I reply, It is very true that in the preceding verfe Mofes fpeaks concerning that which an individual should devote to the Lord, or feparate for religious ufes, out of his fubftance and poffeffion, whether field, or beaft, or man. But it cannot hence be concluded, that in this verse also he speaks concerning an individual's devotement of a man to death that belonged to him, or made part of his eftate. For no mafter had a legal right to take away the life of his flave when he inclined; far less therefore a parent to take away that of a fon or daughter at pleasure and leaft of all, a citizen to take away that of a neighbour according to his convenience or inclination. Befides, the words are not repeated here which are found in the 28th verse ‡, and which require us to understand the fubject of deotement therein mentioned, to be private property.

Guffetius, that celebrated critic, (who having been forced to quit France, like many other learned Proteftants, by the repeal of the edict of Nantes, was firft minifter of the French church at Dort in Holland, and afterwards profeffor of theology, and of the Greek language,