ed to kill her on the altar, or to confecrate her to attend the tabernacle through life in a state of celibacy; by confequence, whether he difpofed of her in the one way or in the other. Nor do I think it needful here to decide the point, as it would require a long difcuffion. I am willing to fuppofe at prefent, that Jephtha treated his daughter in like manner as he would have done an animal from the herd or the flock, which was an holocauft or burnt facrifice. Nor indeed could destroying her life in a different form than with the rites and ceremonies of fuch an oblation, ever be called dealing with her according to his vow, upon that tranflation of the vow, "Whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, fhall furely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering;' which for argument's fake is now admitted to be the true one. Nevertheless there is ftill no reafon to blame the law in Leviticus for his behaviour. For it hath been fhewn Every one who is acquainted with Scripture commentaries, knows that the words of the vow are otherwife rendered, fo as to make it consist of an alternative, Whatsoever cometh forth to meet me' fhall furely be the Lord's, or, I will offer it up for a burnt-offering.' In pursuance of which disjunctive sense of the particle, (Exod. xii. 4. xxi. 15, 17. Deut. xvii. 1. 2 Sam. if. 19. &c.) many imagine Jephtha referved to himself the liberty of feparating any member of his family that should meet him to attendance about the tabernacle, and only engaged to make a holocaust or burnt facrifice of a brute animal, if that fhould first occur to him at his return. Accordingly, they think Jephtha fet apart his daughter to fuch miniftrations, instead of laying her as a victim upon God's altar, and that he was fo afflicted in the profpect of it as he appears to have been, because hereby he was cut off from all hope of posterity; withal, they adopt our marginal verfion of Judges, xi. 40. that law was never intended to convey to parents a power of taking away their childrens lives upon devotement, at pleafure. If therefore he was actuated by a regard to it, it must have been after a perverse and wild interpretation thereof; in this way however, his criminal conduct can no more with juftice be charged upon it, than the fierce animofities about doctrines among Chriftians can be imputed to the gospel, which are only the accidental effects of it through their own evil paffions, or than the diseases of furfeiting and excefs can be imputed to corn and wine, which are only the cafual refult thereof through mens intemperate and foolish ufe of them. As then it would be wrong to cenfure Christianity and the good creatures of God, for thofe things of which they are but the innocent occafion, fo is it to arraign and accufe the ordinance in Leviticus, for Jephtha's butchery of his daughter. But indeed why fhould it be thought, that the recollection of that statute had influence . any upon him at all? It does not contain one word about putting the man or woman to death in the shape of a burnt-facrifice, that should be the fubject of devotement, as he is fuppofed to have done her; befides, the word n bherem, which is the term in the law for that devotement, or vow with an execration and curfe that was irredeemably fatal, never occurs even once through the whole hiftory of Jephtha's forming and fulfilling his engagement; and yet it is unreasonable to think this would have happened, had a reverence for it and a confideration of its tenor and purport been the fource and spring of his procedure: 77 neder, which is the expreffion in the ritual for a redeemable vow, is the word uniM formly and invariably employed in the narrative of the tranfaction; fo that for any thing which appears, he might if he had pleased, notwithstanding his pro mife, have faved his daughter's life, without any violation of the rule' Whoever is hherem devoted of men fhall be put to death,' even although it had given power to a father upon a hherem or devotement to kill a fon or daughter, which it did not, because no bherem had been uttered or pronounced by him about her. But it seems by fome principles he was led to think it honourable to lose her, as she herself, according to the hypothesis we reafon upon, was willing to be flain. Why then should it have been faid by Mr. Voltaire, that by virtue of the law in Leviticus Jephtha facrificed his daughter, when if she was put to death, which I leave undetermined, this law never authorized it, and indeed never seems to have been thought of through the whole affair. Did not * Some who have feen the learned Dr. Randolph's fermon on Jephtha's vow before the univerfity of Oxford, June 8, 1766. or the abftract of it in the Reviews, may be of opinion I ought to have availed myself of his explication. He turns the vow thus, Whatsoever com⚫eth forth of the doors of my houfe to meet me, fhall furely be the "Lord's, and I will offer to him (i. e. to the Lord,) a burnt offering.' And he understands that Jephtha vowed two things, to dedicate whosoever fhould come forth of the doors of his house to meet him to the fervice of the Lord, and likewife to offer on occafion of his victory a burnt-offering to the Lord of fome clean beaft, fuch as the law allowed and God would accept, both which, he adds, he religiously performed; that is, he devoted his daughter to wait on the tabernacle in a state of perpetual virginity, and brought fome brute animal fit for facrifice from the fold or the stall to God's altar. And the fame interpretation feems to have been formerly propofed in the Mifcellanea Groningana, published under the care and direction of Dr. Gerdes, profef .་ fuperftition often carry fome of the Jews to do violence to the strongest affection of nature, I mean the for of divinity at Groningen, though I do not suppose that Dr. Ran dolph borrowed it thence; for in the account given of a part of that collection by the Acta Eruditorum Lipfiae, 1739. are these words, Pag. 347. Judic. xi. 31. verbum nay Vehagnalithihu, no' va interpretatione fic redditur," Et offeram ipfi (i. e. Jehovae,) ho"locauftum "Ac ita magna hujus loci tollitur difficultas.' I will therefore briefly mention these reasons, which have offered themselves to me against adopting it. First, it affords a ftrong prefumption that Jephtha's VOW did not confift of these two branches which he attributes to it, that the hiftorian, instead of mentioning one fyllable about his offering a brute facrifice on God's altar in conformity to it, fpeaks only of his dealing with his daughter according to his vow, as if this was all that was requifite to accomplish it in its full extent, and no more had remained to be done, in order to approve his fidelity therein. Nor would it be a fufficient anfwer to this remark, to say, 'The facred writer 'might neglect to record his performance of his vow in this branch of it, because every one would conclude his carefulness to fulfil it here, * from his diligence to act agreeably to it, where it could not be veri'fied without offering the greatest violence to nature, by depriving his * only child of life, or at least of all hope of iffue through his confignment ' of her to perpetual celibacy.' For it is the manner of the facred writers to be more minute in their details, and to give us a particular relation how perfons of unfufpected piety obeyed God's commands in more eafy inftances, after fhewing us their compliance with them in more hard and difficult cafes, where were stronger diffuafives from affection and interest, as may be seen by looking into the account of Abraham's be haviour, Gen. xxii. 1, 13. and into the story of Gideon and others. But fecondly, the chief objection against that explication is this, that it affixes a fenfe to Jephtha's phrafe Vehbagnalithihu, which is totally repugnant to its constant acceptation in the Bible. It is true, an ellipfis of the preposition which denotes the dative cafe between a verb and its suffix is not unusual, as indeed his examples of it are all right, except the Jast from Ezekiel, xxiv 3 for here there is no fuffix at all, but a noun following the verb apart, and the prepofition of the dative cafe actual parental one, in direct contradiction to the moft peremptory prohibitions of God's law, and the most fe ly intervening between them, fo far is it from being omitted. Sup 5, legno+ lah, whereas now there is nothing in the Hebrew to answer the word for in our tranflation.' But there does not seem to be any folid foundation for this critical obfervation. For there are not wanting instances where the fame word gnolah is undeniably introduced after a verb, with a noun following or preceding it, which expreffes the matter of the burnt-facrifice, without any fuch prefix as that which he makes neceffary. Thus after UV gnasah, Levit. v. 10. xiv. 31. xv. Num. viii. 12. xv. 8. where however our tranflators have inferted for, as if the prefix had been in the original, so likewise after Numb. xxviii. 19. and even after gnalah the verb here, 1 Sam. vi. 14. for what we render, They offered the kine for a burnt-offering,' is in the original Eth happaroth hagnalu gnolah lahovah, instead of legnolah, and Ezek. xliii. 24. where what we turn 'They fhall offer them hikrib, up for a burnt-offering to the Lord,' is in Hebrew, Hagnalu otham gnolah (not legnolah) lahovah. Why then might it not be without the prefix here alfo, though the pronoun hu, which makes the fuffix, mark the object of the oblation, as in other places, Gen. xxii. 2. 13. 1 Sam. vii. 9? Certainly every argument to the contrary from the analogy of the language is hereby deftroyed. But which must be ftill more decifive, we have the fame verb with the fame suffix conftrued without any prefix with grolah, in the very fenfe beyond all controverfy, which our |