advocate of the notion, which I thought was now geneally exploded, that the daughter of Jephthah was put to death in consequence of the rash vow of her father.

Mr. Pearson acquiesces in our present translation, and he espouses the opinion of Cappellus, that though Jephthata did not "sacrifice his daughter, human sacrifices not be ing permitted by the Jewish law, yet that he caused her to be put to death, and that his vow brought him under an obligation to do so."

I have always considered this concession and substituted hypothesis of Cappellus as an utter abandonment of the point; for if Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter, then he did not fulfil his vow, provided his vow rigorously exacted her death. If he caused her to be slain in any other way than the words of his vow expressed, that is, if he did not offer her as a burnt-offering, he lied unto the Lord, and was guilty of murder.

I contend, that Jephthah had no right to put his daughter to death, as she had been guilty of no crime; if, therefore, the hypothesis of Cappellus be admitted, this controverted passage will be involved in still deeper difficulty, and the horror of the transaction will be extremely aggravated. Yet Jephthah is praised for his faith by an inspired apostle; and he is enrolled by him among the religious worthies of old," Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, and obtained promises." Heb. xi. 32, 33.

But if he offered up his daughter as a burnt-offering, he wanted faith, which, as embracing the whole of religion, and consisting as much in obedience as in fortitude, or any other religious duty, required of him a dutiful regard to the wholelaw of God, which expressly prohibited human sacrifices.

And if, on the other hand, he put her to death in a mere civil capacity to fulfil a rash and unlawful promise; so far from deserving the appellation of a righteous man, he was guilty of horrible and unnatural injustice.

Our translators were certainly not quite satisfied on this point; for they have placed that reading in the margin which they ought to have given in the text; in which case there would have been no room for dispute.

By reading the principal passage with this slight alteration, which is literally agreeable to the original, the whole narrative becomes easy, and cannot excite any painful emotion in the feeling mind. It will stand thus: "And Vol. IX. Churchm. Mag, for Dec. 1895. 3 K Jeph

Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, if thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, then it shall be, that whatsoever (or whosoever) cometh forth 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, OR I will offer it up for a burnt-offering." (Judges xi. 30, 31.)

In support of this reading it deserves consideration, that it is natural, whereas the ordinary one is tautological; for if " to be the Lord's," and " to offer it as a burntoffering," be one and the same thing, which must be the case, on the supposition that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, then there could be no reason for the declaration that he would make a burnt-offering of what should come forth to meet him; because the former part of the vow was sufficient to signify that purpose. By this more correct reading, we may perceive a due regard had in Jephthah's mind to the holy terms and limitations of the Mosaic law; with which the whole language of the vow will then be consistent; whereas, on the ordinary supposition of a human sacrifice, or the still more forced opinion of Cappellus, it is is inconsistent and perplexed.

But what will be said to the conclusion of this remarkable narrative," that Jephthah's daughter went up and down the mountains with her companions, two months to bewail her virginity; and that after her father had done with her according to her vow, SHE KNEW NO

MAN ?"

This is surely strange language, and not very conformable to the concise and expressive phraseology of the historical scriptures, if Jephthah made a burnt-offering of his daughter, or put her to death at all.

But it is afterwards added, "that this was a custom in Israel, for the daughters of Israel to lament (or to commune and condole with) the daughter of Jephthah, the Gileadite, four days in a year." (Verses 39, 40.)

Our translators knew that the word here rendered lament, means something very different, and therefore they have given the true reading in the margin, " to talk with;” but this they could not have admitted into the text as they have given it; because the narrative would then have been justly chargeable with absurdity.

give

The word comes from a root which means to " presents," as well as to " rehearse," or "converse," and the prefixed particle, here indicating the dative cases

fixes one or the other of these interpretations as tha which should have been adopted.

It has been objected to Cappellus's notion, that "in the Hebrew of Judges xi. 39. the word " neder is used, where, in that case we should actually expect to find

cherem: and in the Septuagint the word xn, where we should actually expect to find avada. This objection Cappellus has endeavoured to remove, by shewing that 7 is a generic, and not a specific term.'

person

Admitting that in some places of scripture the word neder is used for vows in general, and admitting, for mere *argument's sake, that in this place cherem, or the vow of execration is to be understood, it will involve Jephthah in still deeper guilt; for no man had a right either to make or to fulfil such a vow of his own accord. No could be devoted by any private individual, but only by those who exercised the highest authority, that of the high priest, and on account of some great offence. Here Jephthah had no such authority, neither had his daughter been guilty of a crime: consequently, if he put her to death, his name ought not to have been admitted into the catalogue of pious persons enumerated by St. Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews.

But why are we to take neder in this place in a generic and not a specific sense, any more than in other passages of scripture? In 1 Samuel i. 11. we have the same word used, and that to express precisely the same thing: "Hannah vowed a vow to give her son to the Lord all the days of his life." This vow she fulfilled, and Samuel was consecrated accordingly to God's service, in which he spent his days. And why are we to suppose that this was not the case with the daughter of Jephthab, who was devoted to the Lord by the same vow of neder as Samuel was?

Mr. Pearson, however, is strengthened in his opinion by the authority of Josephus, who lived above twelve hundred years after the fact. Whatever credit is due to the assertions of Josephus with respect to the general history of his nation, and to particular circumstances near to his own time; he is to be regarded with great caution in his relation of matters of remoter date. He swallowed implicitly many of the most ridiculous traditions and fables of the Rabbins, such in particular as that monstrous tale of the angels begetting giants with the women before the flood, froin the corruption of those words in Genesis, "That

3 Ke

"That the sons of God went in unto the daughters of men."

As to the story of Iphigenia, whom Cappellus ingeniously calls Jephtigenia, it might as well have been omitted in a disquisition on a scriptural narration.

It is well known that many different accounts have been given of the fate of Iphigenia; and though in many she is said to have been sacrificed, yet in others it is related, that she was saved by Diana, and was devoted to perpetual virginity: so that the advocates for the sacrifice or death of Jephthah's daughter in consequence of her father's vow, will be found to gain nothing from this. obscure, though remarkable fable. I am your's, &c.

Dec. 18, 1805.

J. WATKINS,

IN

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S

SIR,

MAGAZINE.

N the letter of a London Curate, p. 35, of your Maga zine for January 1805, the late Mr. Bulkley Bower, should have been the late Mr. George Buckley Bower. This very respectable and pious dignitary of the church, once told me that if any one in his parish was to die by his own hands, he not only should not give christian burial to the body, but should not think it right to permit another clergyman to do it at his church, whatever might have been the verdict of the jury; not this, but the Rubric, being the rule to which the clergy are to conform. This humble and upright clergyman, with whom I was well acquainted, was rector of Great-Billing, in Northamptonshire, and declined the acceptance of one or two different livings besides, which were freely offered to him, because his conscience forbad him to be a pluralist. Upon this, the archdeaconry of Richmond was given to him, which is a perfect sinecure, and the income but about 401. per annum, as I was informed by the late Buckley Bower, Esq. father of the Archceacon.

I am, Sir, &c.

0.

ON

I

ON THE FALL OF MAN.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S

SIR,

MAGAZINE.

LATELY met with the following passage in a volume

of Sermons; I request your insertion of it, to give an opportunity to some of your ingenious correspondents of commenting upon it, and explaining clearly what the writer seems to me to have expressed confusedly*.

"3dly. The inability to perform his duty, which man contracted by his fall, did not render his case in the least more deserving of compassion. This inability, as it proeeeds entirely from the depravity of our tempers, and the enmity of our hearts, can only serve to render us more vile and odious in his sight. Had we, indeed, lost the affection of love altogether, had our natural powers been quite destroyed by the fall, our case might have moved compassion; but this case was not ours. The affection of love, still remains, and we exert it with ardour and vivacity towards a variety of objects." I have only one remark to make. If (as the writer argues) inability proceeds from depravity, and depravity is contracted by the fall; I do not see why we should be less the objects of compassion than if we had lost the natural affection of love altogether; for I presume the writer means neces sarily contracted.

EREUNETES,

ON THE DEAN OF BRISTOL's SERMON.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN'S

SIR,

MAGAZINE.

EING at Bristol last Sunday, on a journey of indis

forenoon to partake of the service of our church, in a form which pleases me more than any other. The chaunting of the service; the solemn pealing of the organ; the * Our correspondent would have done well in mentioning the author's name, that reference might have been had to the Sermon entire.-EDITOR.

grandeur