and dances, and fhe was his only child,And when he faw her, he rent his cloaths, and faid, alas, my daughter, thou haft 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 the faid unto him do to me according to thy vow. Only let this be done for me,-let me for two months bewail my virs ginity. And it came to pass, at the end of two months, that the returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow. And he knew no man. And it was a cuftom in Ifrael, that the daughters of Ifrael went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah-four days in the year. Now, the queftion is, What did Jephthah vow, and what became of his daughter? Many fay, he facrificed her, and others fay, he confecrated her a perpetual virgin to the Lord. For a folution of this queftion, we must confider that the, and, in the vow, may with as much propriety be render'd, or, as it is well known by Hebreans, that the vau is disjunctive, as well as conjunctive. And then the vow is divided into two parts, shall be the Lords, or I will offer it for a burnt offering.

The next thing to be confidered in the text is, Was it allowable for Jephthah by the Mofaic law to offer up a human facrifice for a burnt-offering? If we turn back to the first chapter of Leviticus, we will fee the quality, and the manner of offering burnt-offerings prefcribed, but no human perfon mentioned. On the contrary, in Deut. xii. 31. it is writ ten, Every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have the nations done unto their gods, for even their fons and their daughters have they burnt in the fire to their gods, Thou fhalt not do fo to the Lord thy God. What thing foever I command you,

obferve to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, not diminish from it. And in Ifaiah lxvi. 3. when the Lord is re proving his people for chufing their own ways, and difregarding him, he fays, He that killeth, or facrificeth an ox, is as if he flew, or facrificed a man. Now, the law before Jeph thah, and the prophets after him are exprefsly against human facrifices, who then required, or allowed fuch at his hand? Would a Judge of Ifra el, immediately under the influence of the fpirit of God, have done this abomination against the known law? Would the Priefts have offered a human facrifice, or the people have allowed it? Befides, there is no inftance of a human facrifice being of. fered to the true God. The cafe of Abraham, who acted by the exprefs command of God, before the law was given by Mofes, does not fall within my view at prefent, and it is nothing againft what I now maintain. So that they who hold that Jephthah facrificed his daughter, have neither precept nor example for it. And they fupport an opinion, which strikes against the law of nature, written in the heart of every man for the prefervation of himself,and his offspring. They make him kill his only child, the hope of his family, and thereby fhed innocent blood, and they alfo make her confent to her own death. Which involve fuch a contradiction to first principles that no man, with the leaft attention to the fubject, can believe what they say.

But the text itself prefents to us what was done to the daughter. She confented to her fathers doing to her according to his vow, the afked two months to bewail her virginity, then her father did according to his vow, and, after all this, fhe never knew man. And the daughters of Ifrael came four days in the year, to con◄ dole or converse with the daughter of

Jephthah.

Jephthah. They who are converfant in the Hebrew know that the word, lament, may with as much propriety be rendered, to condole or converfe with, or extoll and declare, and it is used in the laft fenfe in chap. v. 11. Hence the daughters of Ifrael condoled with her for being excluded from marriage; or they extolled her piety and conftancy in ratifying her father's vow. From all which it appears, he did not kill her, or shed innocent blood, contrary to the law of nature, and the written law of God; but confecrated her a perpetual virgin unto the Lord. Even this he could not do without her confent, as he was grown up; but she confented, and ratified it.

We may now take a view of vows as they were used among the Jews. They were free and arbitrary, but when made they were to be performed. They appear to have been of twoforts. Such as devoted the things vowed, to the fervice of God; and fuch as devoted them to utter destruction, Lev. xxvii. paffim. Under the firft head, perfons fui juris, might vow themselves, their children, or any part of their poffeffions to God. Samuel was devoted in this manner. But the law allowed of redemption of perfons in fuch cafe for a fum of money, but not of cattle, or lands, or the like.

As to thofe things vowed to deftruction, they could not be redeemed at any rate, ver. 28. 29. but were to be put to death, or deftroyed. The children of Ifrael vowed the whole kingdom of Arad to deftruction, alfo the Canaanites, Jericho, and Achan; thofe too who would not affift in punishing the tribe of Benjamin for the Levites concubine, and those who should eat or drink while Saul was in the pursuit of his victory.

It does not appear that private

perfons could make fuch #ows, but only the whole nation, or the kings and judges. And thofe vows feem altogether to relate to the idolatrous nations, whom God appointed to deftruction. No inftance appears of any private perfon among the Ifraelites either vowing or being voluntarily vowed to deftruction. Achan faved the accurfed thing, and was therefore punished, and Jonathan was to have been brought under the curfe laid on the army by his father but being ignorant of it, and a great deliverer, the army refcued him.

This precept therefore may be only an inforcement of that vow which Mofes had exacted of the whole nation before his death, Deut xxix, of obferving all the commandments of God; one of which was the extir pation of all thofe idolatrous nations, and their monuments of idolatry, without any excufe. The future in the Hebrew is often used for the paft, and fo vica verfa. Therefore the words, hall vow, may be properly rendered, fhall have vowed, And the 28, and 29 verfes feem to be an exception to the regulations concerning thofe things vowed in the firft fenfe, by beginning with the word, notwithstanding. And fo the fenfe is. Notwithstanding the redemption of thofe perfons in the first fenfe of the vow, whatsoever is vowed in the fecond fenfe, to deftruction, fhall not be redeemed, but be put to death, or destroyed, according to the oath you have come under against thofe nations,

But whatever be in this, can any perfonjudge that tho' God never permitted human facrifices, but on the contrary prohibited them, as above-mentioned, yet he allowed the destruction of his people by arbitary vows? He that will believe this, let him believe it. I cannot.

SCRUTATOR,

To

To the PUBLISHER of the PERTH MAGAZINE.

SIR,

AVING been for now thefe

toxicated-On this account, therefore, my letter was not fo much addreffed to them, nor that vice fo much laid to their charge, as to that of the commonalty, over whom no

the country, that lies at a confiderable diftance from any poft-town, I had no opportunity of feeing the laft number of your Mifcellany till yefternight, or otherwise I should have made a reply fooner to your correfpondent Candidus.

As I am called upon, Sir, to explain my intention in the publication of that letter, which has gained you a new correfpondent; I therefore fincerely declare that it was far very far indeed-from my thoughts to ftigmatife the whole town fine difcrimine with the atrocious crime of Drunkennels; as Candidur very uncandidly imagines.

I freely acknowledge, that it was an error in me to write in fuch, general terms: But in this point, Sir, I thought I might have been easily excufed; for I have often obferved it to be the general practice of thofe Writers or Speakers, who seriously endeavour to root out any evil that has crept in among a fociety-Convinced therefore in my own mind of the truth of this obfervation and of the neceffity under which I lay of imitating them, I wrote you the let ter-then indeed I never imagined that any one would have mifunderftood me-but it feems it has been the cafe with fome-and I am forry for it.

The Gentlemen of Perth, Sir, are a refpectable body-for whom I dare fay I have as great a regard as Candidus can poffibly have.

Among them, I am happy to ob. ferve that ebriety is of late very much difcountenanced-that it is well nigh rooted out-and that it is almost reckoned ungenteel to be in

unlimited fway; but as feveral inftances occur'd to me, of fome in the former order, over whom that vice had no fmall afcendant, I thought it was neceffary to take notice of them alfo in the impartial furvey-This I am fure your correfpondent Candidus might eafily perceive, were he poffeffed of any fhare of judgement and penetration.

My Letter was intended as an endeavour to expofe the odious crime of Drunkennefs in its true and genuine colours-to paint to the mind the difmal confeqences that arise from it -to roufe and awake the Drunkard from his lethargy--And to deter the fober from deviating from the paths of rectitude into its pervious tracts-This was my intentionThat it was a juft and laudable one, I am fure no wife or judicious perfon will deny.

Your readers entertainment and my own improvement were the fole motives that prompted me to commence your correfpondent; and, I hope, I never fhall prostitute my weak abilities by writing any thing repugnant to thefe. For this purpofe I am refolved for the future to fuffer the reproaches of envy and the venom of undigefted fatire to pafs unheeded-and at the same time to treat the voice of calumny and the charge of malice with filent contempt.

But now, Sir, after having thus, I hope, vindicated myself from the charge brought against me, by freely declaring my intentions; fuffer me to turn my thoughts towards Candidus as a writer. He has made an attack upon me, I am therefore en

titled