Once more, is it infifted on, that it is taking too great liberty and freedom to introduce fuch a limitation of the subject of devotement here spoken of, as' Appointed or doomed to die by the will of God,' and the like? It is eafy to anfwer, fome restriction muft be admitted by all, unless they will make this ordinance of Jehovah, to fignify that every man devoted to death by another, however innocent and useful, yea however independent upon him, and exempt from his jurifdiction and authority in other matters, fhould hereon fuffer excifion without remedy or prevention. But this is a fenfe fo fubverfive of all order and happiness in fociety, and fo repugnant to that found wisdom and understanding, in general confpicuous through the Mofaic fyftem of legiflation, in a word, fo wild and abfurd, that methinks any perfon fhould be ashamed to maintain it as the genuine one. Since then fome limitation must be admitted, why not this, by which the meaning of the ftatute becomes rational, and all the inconveniencies of that interpretation are avoided? Are we not often obliged in like manner to acknowledge fome ellipfis? or, which is the fame thing, to fupply fome word in other laws delivered to the Jewish nation, that we may render them equitable in their nature, and

in the university of Groningen, till his death) in his Commentary on the Hebrew tongue, builds fo much on the omiffion of these words, which is his, in this 29th verfe, when they occur in the former, as to exprefs himself thus, if I may rely upon Michaelis's quotation of him upon the place, "Omne devotum," omne fcilicet aliud quod non eft ⚫ de propriis viri, ut erat ver. 28. quod anathema fit fecundum voca'bulum Dei.' And perhaps from these last words I may have taken the hint of my explication.

consistent with the reft? For inftance, what strange contradiction would follow, and what infliction of death, where it was not deserved, would be enjoined, without having recourse to this in Numb. xxxv. 30. Whofo killeth any perfon, by the teftimony of witneffes fhall the killer be killed.'? For fo runs the original literally, though our tranflators have prudently substituted, for the term killer, the word mur. derer, which word always carries in it the idea of atrocious guilt. Both common sense, and other regulations of the legiflator, fhew that not every perfon who takes away the life of another, which may be done, in some fituations and circumstances, very innocently, nay commendably; but a perfon who deftroys the life of another, unjustly and prefumptuously, is here alone defigned. Nevertheless, we do not fall into any mistake about the fcope and import of that ordinance, nor raife any perverfe inferences from the general form of it, whatever handle there may be, from the application of the term elsewhere, to killing according to demerit, Pf. lxii. 3. and to killing unawares and by chance, without any ill intention, Deut, iv. 42. XXV. 26—28. xix. 46, &c. Why then will we not exercise the fame fairness and candour here, and admit also a reasonable limitation of this determination? None devoted, who is devoted of men, shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to ' death.'

Thus I have laid before the reader my explication of the statute, which, though it hath some resemblance to that which many learned Jews have given of it, is in reality different. And if the light in which I have placed it be a juft one, how plain must it be

P. II. there is no reason to say, that Mofes by it enjoined the deftruction of mens lives whenever any fhould make a vow to that purpose? and how evident there is ftill lefs ground to complain, that he ordered them to be facrificed? For there is not one word concerning oblation upon the altar here at all. Nor is there any appearance, through the whole history of the nation, that any human creature, upon such devotement as is called hherem, was ever prefented to God as a victim. On the contrary, men that were the fubjects of it, were flain with the edge of the fword, as the inhabitants of Jericho and Amalek, Josh. vi, 17-21.and 1 Sam. xv. 21. The difquifition about the meaning of this law, hath indeed been long. But I could not well fhorten it in confiftence with my aim, which was to overthrow the invidious gloffes that have been affixed to it, and been matter of triumph to infidels and fceptics, as well as of trouble and grief to believers,-to examine the merits of other explications, which have been propofed for preventing the infults of the enemies of revelation, and removing the difquietude of its friends,-and to open and fupport in the best manner I could, what feemed to me a more dextrous and unexceptionable interpretation thereof; for which reafon, I hope, the reader will excufe its prolixity. If he approve my hypothefis, he will not think this labour ill bestowed. If not, as indeed about points of this nature, a diverfity of critical judgment may ftill be expected, he will have here met with an account of the various folutions of the difficulty created by this law, which learned and thoughtful men have advanced, and may out of them all choose what feems preferable; as it muft,

from what hath been faid, appear most unreasonable to put upon it the fenfe of our author, and other fcoffers at the Sacred Books.

A reflection upon the differences of opinion among learned men about the meaning of this law.

I WILL only add, by way of conclufion here; that there are difficulties in ascertaining the original intention and sense of this statute, and thence a variety of opinions among divines concerning it, need not be much wondered at. In like manner, there are intricacies in fome of the laws delivered by the decemvirs to the Roman people, and, on this account, a wide difference between the fentiments of civilians and critics about their import. That I may not appear to throw out this affertion without reafon, I will mention two examples. But I doubt not that they are, who are better acquainted with publications at home and abroad, relative to thefe laws of the twelve tables, as they are called, can easily produce other ftatutes among them which are obscure, and as to their meaning much controverted.

The one is the law about punishing theft,upon fearch and discovery of the ftolen goods, by the lanx and licium, Si furtum lance licioque conceptum efcit, atque 'uti manifeftum vindicator.'* For about its fenfe the learned have been much divided, fome with Fef

See Aulus Gellius, lib. 2. cap. 18. who alfo informs us the in veftigation of thefts, by the method here defcribed, was gone into difufe in his time. 16. 10. Furtorum quaeftiones per lançem et licis • um evanuerunt.'

tus, making the licium the cincture of any person who entered another man's house, to try whether goods, which had been clandeftinely carried away from the proprietor, were lodged in it, while the lanx was fome plate which he held before his eyes, from refpect to the females that might dwell there; others judging the licium the habit of the priests alone when they went upon the errand of detecting a thief, and the lanx fome plate, in which, for ceremonies fake, they concealed bread seasoned with the stone called taetites, with intention of offering it to any fufpected perfon: and many explaining it ftill differently, as Gothofred mentions no fewer than four notions about it, and fince his time more have been started.

The other law is that about the treatment of the infolvent debtor, which is also preserved to us by the fame author. And it may be thought more appofite, as, like that of Moses, it hath received an interpretation very cruel and inhuman. This writer first tells us, that any perfon who owned, or was convicted of the debt for which he was fued before the magiftrate, had a truce of thirty days for paying it; -that if he did not offer the money, or give fecurity and bail to find it, at his citation before the praetor, when these days were ended, he might be carried away to the creditor's house, as to a Bridewell, or

This ftone was so named because said to be found in every eagle's neft and it was believed, as Diofcorides tells us, to have the extraordinary and peculiar virtue of difcovering and catching thieves. Gothofred ad Inftitut. lib. 4. tit. 1. De Obligationibus quae ex delicto nafcuntur.

Aulus Gellius, lib. 20. cap. 7.