A Complete History and Mystery of the Old and New Testament, Biblical tract · Volume 2 · Commentary on the book of Judges · Chapter 11
Judges CHAP. XI.
JUdges the Eleventh is the Hiſtory of Jephtah's Expedition againſt the Ammonites, the laſt Verſe of the Tenth Chapter being an Introduction to it: Iſrael there was at a loſs for want of a Leader; none durſt, upon their Proclamation, undertake ſo dangerous and deſperate an Enterprize, though the Principality of Gilead was promiſed to the Undertaker: Hereupon they reſolve to ſend for Jephtah, (whom they knew to be excellent both for Valour and Conduct) and to ſtipulate with him for his Encouragement, That if he would accept of this place of a Leader, and give the firſt Onſet, he ſhould be their Judge and General ever after, ver. 8, 9.
The Firſt Remark in this Hiſtory of Jephtah is, this Man was Baniſhed by his own Brethren, becauſe he was a Baſtard, and quâ talis, as Moſes Law baniſhed him out of the Congregation of the Lord, Deut. 23.2. So his Wanton Brethren do Baniſh him (as ſuch) out of their Father's Family, little thinking that they ſhould another Day be glad to be beholden to him. He flies into the Land of Tob (not far from Gilead) where he muſters up many ill-minded Men, yet manageth them well in fighting againſt the Ammonites that bordered upon them, wherein he had oft look'd Death in the Face, and done brave Exploits in the Field, which made Iſrael more forward to chuſe him now for their Chieftain, who had ſo proſper'd in plundering the Enemy for his own and his Followers Livelihood, ver. 1, 2, 3, 4.
The Second Remark is, After this Adverſity of Jephtah, is uſher'd in his Proſperity: The Principality of Gilead is offer'd to him by the Elders of Gilead upon condition that he would be their Captain in their Warring againſt the Ammonites, who were at this very time come forth to fight againſt Iſrael; Jephtah at firſt refuſed their offer, upbraiding them with their publick Act, wherein they had corroborated the baſe private Act of his envious Brethren in Baniſhing of him, and ſo had thereby made his Baniſhment Legal: The Elders (ſome of whom might poſſibly be ſome of his Brethren, being Sons of Gilead, a great Man in the Country of Gilead) anſwer his Objection, ſaying, [this pinchig neceſſity hath brought us to a right ſenſe of our former overſights; we did then indeed work our own Wills without Wit and Wiſdom, but now we come to make thee due Reparation: Jephtah (being Jealous through former Injuries) makes his bargain wiſely, taking an Oath of them, and ſo accepts of being their Captain only, but not a word of being their King, becauſe Abimelech's Kingſhip had been ſo fatal to them, ver. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
The Third Remark is. Jephtah being now formally conſtituted (by a Parliament at Mizpeh) the Judge, and Supream Governour of Iſrael, doth moſt prudently and piouſly Treat with the Ammonites, before he will fight them, and that in obedience to Moſes's Law, Deut. 20.10, firſt offer Peace; accordingly he ſends Embaſſadours to Expoſtulate with the King of the Ammonites about his preſent Invaſion, ſaying, [Why art thou come to ſight againſt me in my Land?] ver. 12. he could not have call'd Gilead Jabaad [his Land,] unleſs Iſrael had made him their Head, and now hath he a juſt Title ſo to term it; The King of Ammon anſwer'd his Embaſſadors, That Iſrael were the Invaders, and not he [for he only came up to recover his own right, which Iſrael had robb'd him of,] ver. 13. Then Jephtah Replys again by his Embaſſadors, declaring that the Ammonites Allegation was no better than a loud Lye, both negando & pernegando, he denies it, and better denies it, ver. 14, 15. ſtrenuouſly affirming, that the Land in queſtion was Iſrael's out of all Queſtion, and that by a Threefold Right. (1.) By the Right of Conqueſt. (2.) By the Right of a Divine Donation. And (3.) By the Right of a long preſcription: And more particularly, what he affirms, he alſo confirms by Three Cogent Arguments.
The Firſt is, A Narrative of all the former Tranſactions concerning this Affair, which are Recorded, Numb. 20.14. and 21.24, 26. Deut. 2.9, 19. and 3.12, &c. unto which I muſt refer the Reader, all related in their proper place in the firſt Volume Supplement. Here Jephtah argueth, that the Iſraelites had nothing to do with the Ammonites at that time, but only with the Edomites and Moabites, ver. 16, 17, 18.
His Second Argument was drawn from the Juſtneſs of Iſrael's War againſt Sibon, &c. ver. 19, 20, 21, 22.
And his Third Argument was from [That the God of Iſrael gave it to Iſrael, which he amplifies from the leſſer to the greater, according to the Law of Nations, arguing, If Ammon abſurdly and ridiculouſly aſcribe the Land of the Zamzummims, as given them by their fondly reputed God Chemoſh.
N. B. Note well. Whereas indeed an Idol is nothing, 1 Cor. 8.4. Jerem. 10.5, 15. and therefore can give nothing; but it was the true God, that gave them that Land for Lot's ſake, Deut. 2.9.19. However, this was Argumentum ad Hominem (as 'tis call'd in Logick) a prevalent Plea to them that had this Impious Opinion of an Idol. How much more may we (ſaith he) receive thankfully, and defend valiantly that Land which the Lord Jehovah giveth unto us? ver. 23, 24. and then he backeth all his Three Arguments.
Firſt, With an Inſtance in Balak, ſaying, [Haſt thou better Right, to this Land, or more Power and Policy to maintain it, than he, who never made any claim to it, nor ſtrove with Iſrael to recover it from them, though Sihon had taken it from him, or his Predeceſſors? Numb. 21.24, 26. and 22.2. Deut. 23.4. Joſh. 24.9, 10. and if the Moabites made no challenge of their Land, which Sibon had bereav'd them of, after Iſrael's Conqueſt of Sihon, &c. Why ſhould the Ammonites challenge it now? ver. 25. And,
Secondly, He backs them with the Law of Elapſing Rights, as our Statute Law ſaith, [If a Debt be not claimed once in Seven Years, the Right of the Creditor is diſannull'd, and the Debtor is cleared:] So he pleads here their forfeiture of their Right, (ſuppoſing they had any) by their long ſilence in not challenging it for about Three Hundred Years paſt, ver. 26. Then comes he to draw up his Concluſion from the Premiſſes, ſaying, Therefore [I have done thee no wrong, my Title is juſt, and my Cauſe is good, and with God's help ſo ſhall my Courage be, I appeal to the Supream Judge to Judge of this Controverſie; by the Succeſs of the War, the Lord will diſcover that thou art the Aggreſſor that wrongs Iſrael,] ver. 27.
N. B. Note well. No doubt but Jephtah, though a Bastard, was one that the Lord had bleſſed with prodigious Accompliſhments, rarely all found in one Man: For,
Firſt, He was a mighty Man of Valour, enabled to atchieve Heroick Acts, both by the ſtrength of his Body, and by the fortitude of his Mind, ver. 1.
Secondly, He was an excellent Historian, exceeding skilful in Sacred History, and in the Chronicles of Iſrael's Divine Conduct through the Wilderneſs into Canaan, otherwiſe he could never have compoſed ſuch a convincing Apology as is here recorded.
Thirdly, 'Tis manifeſt likewiſe that he was a moſt Elegant and Eloquent Orator, having both fiumen & fulmen Orationis; he here doth not only pour forth a whole Flood of Eloquence, but alſo he plainly Thunder-ſtruck the King of Ammon with his forcible Arguments, ſo that he ſtood as one ſtupified, and could give no reply, but ſtopp'd his Ears, and became ſtubborn, for the Lord had a purpoſe to deſtroy him for his Obſtinacy, ver. 28. And,
Laſtly, Jephtah muſt be a Man very eminent in Piety alſo, which did indeed ſanctifie all his other high Endowments (as the Altar did Sanctifie the Sacrifice) and without it they had all been [foreign] Giftleſs Gifts: That he was ſo, appeareth by his Pious Apology which ſavoureth of Sanctity from its Prologue to its Epilogue, and a Divine Tincture ſheweth a luſtre in his whole Diſcourſe, a due Veneration to the true Jehovah, running all along through it, as the Woof doth run all along through the Warf in a Web of Cloth on the Weaver's Loom, &c.
The Fourth Remark is, The War of Iſrael againſt Ammon under Jephtah's Conduct, after the Offers of Peace were rejected: Herein he did well, and like a Pious and Prudent Prince to ſend his Heraulds (as the old Romans did) to require Right, and to proffer Peace before he proclaimed War. Cuncta priùs Tentanda (ſaith the Poet) & omnia priùs experiri conſilio, quàm Armis ſapientem decet, ſaith the Comedian. It becomes a wiſe General to try all amicable Means for compoſing of Controverſies by Treaties, to prevent Blows if poſſible; let Fighting be the laſt Remedy. So Wiſe Jephtah made his War here, which falls under a threefold Conſideration. (1.) Its Antecedents. (2.) Its Concomitants. And (3.) Its Conſequents.
Firſt, The Antecedents were Two.
1. Jephtah's Expedition, ver. 29. What the Lord call'd him to, he qualified him for; the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and indued him with more than ordinary Proweſs and Prudence, and mightily working upon his Spirit to undertake the War.
2. Jephtah's Vow, ver. 30, 31. which was a Raſh, Inconſiderate, and Perplexed Vow out of a Prepoſterous Zeal, as after is ſhewed.
Secondly, The Concomitants: He falls upon the Ammonites, not ſtaying till they came to him, but he paſſed over to them, ver. 32. broke all their Army, and took from them many Cities, ver. 33. ſo that they ſaw (when it was now too late) they had better have kept at home content with their own Countrey, a great part whereof they now loſe, by their over-greedy Incroaching upon their Neighbours Countrey for Inlarging their own Territories; like the Dog in the Fable, they catch at the Shadow, and loſeth the Subſtance; they are ſo beaten as beyond a Reçruit.
Thirdly, The Conſequents was, Jephtab's performing his Vow, which he had Vowed, from ver. 34. to ver. 40. In the general, Jerom ſaith of Jephtah here, [In vovendo Stultus, in praeſtando impius,] he was a Fool for ſo Vowing, and yet he was a worſe Fool in ſo performing: That he did perform his Vow is moſt certain, ver. 39. but how and in what manner, the Doctors of the Church are divided about it, and this uſhers in
The Fifth Remark about Jephtah's Vow, What he vowed, and what he performed (which both concenters in one Queſtion) is hard to determine.
The firſt Opinion is, That Jephtah did really Sacrifice his own dear and Dutiful Daughter. The Sentiments of the Fathers do generally concur in ſaying ſo; as Tertullian, Athanaſius, Nazianzen, Jerom, Ambroſe, Chryſoſtom, Auguſtine, Theodoret, and many more; and the Ancient Hebrew Doctors ſay the ſame, as the Chaldee-Paraphrast Onkelos, Rabbi Solomon, &c. But above all Joſephus's Words are foreign,] that is, he, Slaying his Daughter, offer'd her up for a Burnt-Offering: This Authority of the Antients (both Jewiſh Rabbins, and Primitive Fathers, both Latine and Greek) hath captivated the Conjectures of many late Learned Interpreters, into a concurrence with this Opinion, and the rather, becauſe the Letter of the Scripture ſeems much to favour it; which ſaith, [Whatſoever cometh out of my Houſe to meet me, ſhall ſurely be the Lords, and I will offer it for a Burnt-Offering.] But,
The ſecond Opinion is, That Jephtah did not Sacrifice his Daughter, but only devoted her to a perpetual Virginity: This likewiſe is the Sentiment of divers of the later Rubbins, and of many Modern Judicious Divines, above all Exceptions: It cannot aſſuredly be denied, that the Parties in both thoſe Opinions, are very ſtrong, both in their Parts and Proofs on both ſides; therefore I dare not take upon me to determine the Controverſie, yet do I lean to the latter Opinion, upon theſe Reſpects.
Firſt, Becauſe I find the Particle Vau (uſed in the Declaration of the Vow, ver. 31.) is no more than a Conjunction Disjunctive for [Or] and not for [And] as Gen. 26.11. Exod. 21.15.17. Levit. 6.3.5. 2 Sam. 2.19, &c. So that Jephtah's Words in his Vow, may be read thus, [or (and not and) I will offer it up.] ver. 31. meaning thus, If it be ſuch a thing as may lawfully be offered, then will I offer it for a Burnt-Offering; but if not, it ſhall however be Conſecrated unto God; and ſhould it be read conjunctively for [and I will offer, &c.] this Abſurdity is introduced thereby, ſuppoſe Jephtah's Dog had come out of Doors firſt to meet his Maſter; (as many Dogs do) after a long abſence, to welcome him home after their Natural Inſtinct: This Unclean Creature had been an Abominable Oblation unto God, who hath expreſly forbid it in his Law, Levit. 27.11, 12, 13. Iſa▪ 66.3. as well as Man's Fleſh, Deut. 12.31.
Secondly, The 2d. Reſpect or Reaſon is, I find likewiſe the Execution of the Vow, ver. 39. is delivered in ſuch Ambiguous and General Terms, (far darker than that, [And] for [Or] in the Declaration of the Vow) Jephtah did to his Daughter according to his Vow, &c. where no intimation of his Sacrificing her to the Lord is given, but rather that he did Conſecrate her to the Lord, as a Virgin, to ſerve him in a ſingle Life, 1 Cor. 7.32. for the latter Clauſe in ver. 39. [and ſhe knew no Man,] ſeems Exegetical, explaining the Nature and Matter of the Vow; that Text ſaith not, [He did to her according to his Vow, and offered her up for a Burnt-Offering;] but it ſaith, [and ſhe knew no Man] immediately after, which implies, that ſhe lived ever after in a Devout Virginity, as her Father had Vowed, and ſhe her ſelf had nobly Aſſented.
The Third Reaſon is, I find alſo, that this Daughter did not bewail her Death (which would have been the chiefeſt cauſe of her Lamentation, had ſhe been Vowed to Die, and that by the hands of her own Father;) but 'tis ſaid, [ſhe only bewailed her Virginity upon the Solitary Mountains,] ver. 37, 38. and not any expectation of the loſs of her Life: And though it be ſaid, That Jephtah at the firſt ſight of his Daughter (coming with many more Maidens to ſing Songs of Triumph for his Glorious Victory) immediately falls into a moſt paſſionate Lamentation, ver. 34, 35. crying out.
N. B. I have been troubled by my bad Brethren that Baniſh'd me, and by the Oppreſſing Ammonites that Warr'd againſt me; but now, after God hath given me a compleat Conqueſt, I meet with my greateſt Trouble of all the former by my own dear and only Daughter, which hath plainly put a damp to all the Joys of my Victory; and all becauſe of my Vow, &c. This extraordinary pang of paſſionate Sorrow in Jephtah, hath indeed moved many Learned Men to believe that his Daughter was really offered for a Burnt-Offering, becauſe had he only vowed to Conſecrate her for ſerving God in a perpetual Virginity, he would not have ſorrowed after ſo unſpeakable a ſort, Rending his Cloaths, &c.
N. B. But if it be ſeriouſly conſidered, How great a Bleſſing it was look'd upon in thoſe times to become Parents of Children, and how a Barren Womb, and want of Poſterity, was then accounted a moſt cruel Curſe, Gen. 30.23. 1 Sam. 1.6, 7. Iſa. 4.1. Luke 1.7. and a dreadful Diſgrace alſo, becauſe ſuch were excluded from that great priviledge of Increaſing the Holy Seed, and contributing to the Birth of the Meſſiah, who was to be Born of an Iſraelitiſh Woman; we cannot but confeſs, Jephtah had exceeding great cauſe of this his moſt bitter Grief and Out-cry.
N. B. Seeing Jephtah being the chief Magiſtrate in the Common-Wealth of Iſrael, had hereby all hope of living in his Poſterity cut off from him, becauſe God had bleſſed his two Predeceſſors in the Judgeſhip (Gideon and Jair) as alſo were his two Succeſſors, Ibſan and Abdon, with a very Numerous Off-ſpring, and himſelf muſt die as good as Childleſs, this Danghter being his only Child, beſide her having neither Son nor Daughter, ver. 34. and ſhe now Vowed to a perpetual Virginity.
The Fourth Reaſon, that makes this caſe more dubious (as to any Sacrificing of her) is, The Monſtrous Nature of that Horrible and Ʋnnatural, yea, worſe than any Inhumane, yea, than any Belluine Fact; it ſeems very improbable, that ſuch a Man as Jephtah was, ſo eminent for Piety, Wiſdom, and Godly Zeal, and for his Paith alſo, (inſomuch that he ſtands inroll'd amongſt God's greateſt Worthies, and his Name Eternalized by the Holy Scriptures for his Exemplary Faith, Hebr. 11.32, &c.) ſhould dare to perform ſuch barbarous and unparallell'd a Maſſacre upon his own and only Daughter, who was a Pious and Innocent Virgin, ſo obſequious to her Father's Will, and ſuch an Act of Murder, as was directly contrary to the Light of Nature, much more to the Law of Scripture, &c.
N. B. The very Heathens abhorr'd ſuch unnatural Acts, excepting only thoſe few who were ſo blinded with a Diabolical Zeal, as to deveſt themſelves of all Humanity and Natural Affection, and Sacrifice their Sons and Daughters to the Devil in Moloch, therefore aſſuredly the Judgment of Charity doth partly prohibit us from involving a Man of his Figure, (as above) in a deeper degree of ſin, than the Scripture of Truth doth clearly charge upon him, and from aggravating his Faults with our fond and ungrounded Fancies; and the ſame Law of Charity doth partly command us to put as favourable and as candid a Conſtruction upon his Action, as the Grammatical ſenſe of the Sacred Text will warrant us, we ought willingly to entertain all Advantages, which the Word of God allows us (taking all Expreſſions about it by the right handle) to clear ſo great and ſo good a Father and Governour from all undue and unjuſt Imputations of ſuch an Abominable Iniquity, ſeeing 'tis ſafer to be over-Credulous, than over-Cenſorious, and better to be blind in Charity, than to be raſh in Cenſure; eſpecially conſidering the Holy Ghoſt hath been pleaſed to leave it ſo dark and undetermined.
The Fifth Reaſon is, Suppoſe Jephtah had been ſo far Infatuated, as to make ſuch a wicked Vow as to Sacrifice his own dear Daughter, if ſhe came the firſt out of his Doors to meet him; yet when he ſaw this was the Reſult, he might eaſily underſtand, he was not bound to keep it, for Vows bind only to that which is good; and though the thing vowed ſeemeth good, but afterward proveth evil, yet there is no Obligation upon the Vower in ſuch a caſe, ſave only to Repent of his Raſhneſs.
N. B. As it was a ſingle Sin to make that bad Vow, ſo it becomes a double Sin to keep it: For the firſt may fall out by a prepoſterous precipitancy; but the ſecond muſt be done by a Mature Deliberation, which is always recorded as a Brand for the Aggravation of Wickedneſs: What is done in cold Blood, is far worſe than what is acted in a pang of Paſſion: This was Jephtah's caſe, he had the ſpace of two Months, ver. 37. wherein to inform himſelf about the Unlawfulneſs of his Vow.
N. B. No doubt but ſo tender a Father was willing enough to receive Information, eſpecially in a caſe wherein his Intereſt, yea his All was ſo highly concerned, and in a matter ſo agreeable to his own Natural and Paternal Affection: And though he was bred up a Soldier, ſo poſſibly was ignorant of the Law of Redemption, Levit. 27.3, 4. where the Male that was Vowed to God might be Redeemed for Fifty Shekels of Silver, and the Female is ſet at a lower valuation, becauſe leſs ſerviceable in the publick Service of the Commonwealth, than the Males of Mankind are: Now it may eaſily be ſuppoſed, that this Judge of Iſrael would have given many Hundreds of Silver-Shekels to have Redeemed the Life of ſuch a Generous, Morigerous and only dear Daughter, as bid her Father [do to her according to his Vow,] ver. 36. and ſuppoſe his more Moroſe Education, in Military Matters had made him either Ignorant, or forgetful of this Law of Redemption, yet had he the Prieſts of the Lord and the High Prieſt at Shilo to conſult them about ſo weighty a caſe of Conſcience as this, which ſo mightily concerned both him and his, and ſo profoundly conduced either to his Weal, or to his Woe; though he a Soldier, might not know the Law of Moſes, either concerning the Diſpenſation God gave for Redeeming Vowed Sons, or Daughters, Levit. 27.1, 2, 3, 4. or the prohibition of God, from Sacrificing the Fleſh of Sons, or Daughters (which was the Abomination of the Curſed Canaanites (who were peremptores potiùs quàm parentes, rather Parricides than Parents. Herein, ſaith Bernard) Deut. 12.28.31.
N. B. Yet ſure I am, he could not but be acquainted with the famous Story of Father Abrham, how the Lord refuſed his Sacrificing of his Son Iſaac, though he tryed him concerning his willingneſs to it only: However there could not be wanting ſome of the Prieſts of the Lord (whoſe Lips preſerve knowledge, Mal. 2.7.) even in thoſe corrupt times, that knew all thoſe Premiſſes, and were able to reſolve his Doubts, eſpecially the High-Prieſt with his Urim and Thummim, at the leaſt, conſidering they had the whole ſpace of two Months time before the Execution of the Vow, wherein to conſider on the caſe.
The Sixth Reaſon is, It is not Intelligible in any ſound ſenſe, how Jephtah could be inveſted with any ſuch Lawful and Laudable Authority, to Sacrifice the firſt Perſon or thing, (for the Hebrew word [Aſher] may be read either for [who] or for [what]) that came to meet him in his return from the Victory: We may ſay, [Who gave him this Authority?] Aſſuredly God gave it him not. For,
Firſt, As to things, it might have been his Aſs, out of the Doors of his Stable-Houſe, or his Dog, out of the Doors of his Dwelling-Houſe, or any other Ʋnclean Creature, ſuch things were forbidden by the Law, to be Offered up to the Lord, (as above,) Levit. 27.11, 12, 13, &c. And,
Secondly, As to Perſons, It might have been his own Wife, or the Wife of one in his Family, over whom he could have no colour of any Rightful Power to offer them up as Burnt-Offerings, in the doing of which, he can never be excuſed of being guilty of Wilful Murder. Nor had he any ſuch Parental power over his own Daughter as a Father, no nor any ſuch Legal Civil Power, as a Judge, to kill an Innocent, and to take away the Life of his Only, Obliging, and Obedient Child, without any Offence committed by her, either to God, or Man: This had been a Wickedneſs with a Witneſs, hateful to God, and hurtful to Mankind.
Reaſon the Seventh, Nor could Jephtah alone offer up his Daughter as a Burnt-Offering, unleſs he could involve others to act with him in this Horrid Action, for it belong'd not to him to Offer Sacrifice (this preſumptuous Uſurpation God puniſh'd upon Ʋzziah with Leproſie, 2 Chron. 26.18, 19.) ſeeing it did belong only to the Prieſts; and it ſeems not very probable that he could perſwade the Prieſts, to cut the Throat, and to burn the Fleſh of ſuch an Honest and Honourable Virgin, without the leaſt provocation upon her part to them.
N. B. 'Tis far more probable, that both the Prieſts and the People would rather unanimouſly prevent than promote ſuch a Barbarous Butchery, (had Jephtah eſſayed to do it by himſelf) as the People afterwards did reſcue Innocent Jonathan out of the hands of Bloody Saul, when he, (his own Father) had ſworn the Death of his own Son, 1 Sam. 14.39, 44, 45.
Objections againſt this ſecond Opinion, in ſhort, are theſe.
The Firſt Objection is; In that Law of Redemption, it is ſaid, [That no Devoted thing, whether of Man, or Beaſt, ſhould not be Redeemed, but ſhould ſurely be put to Death,] Levit. 27, 28, 29. This was the ground in all probability of Jephtah's mistake, having ſuch a plauſible appearance of a Divine Warrant from the Sacred Text.
Anſwer 1. This preſuppoſes, that Jephtah was not ignorant of this Law of Redemption; and if ſo, then muſt he know, what God ſaith, Levit. 27.3, 4. where his caſe of Conſcience is clearly anſwered, that Conſecrated Perſons might be Redeemed; but Execrated Perſon, ſpoken of ver. 28, 29. muſt not be Redeemed, but they ſhall ſurely be put to Death; and ſuch Execrated or Curſed Perſons were the Canaanites, Numb. 21.2, &c. The Amalekites, 1 Sam. 15.3, &c. the Inhabitants of Jericho, Joſh. 6.17, &c. None of this concern'd Jephtah's Danghter, who was a Bleſſed Virgin, not a Curſed Harlot, one Conſecrated to God, and not Execrated, or Curſed by God.
Anſwer 2. Is Lyra's, Gloſs upon, ver. 28, 29. ſaying, That a Field is devoted there as well as Man and Beaſt, which is not [Mortis Suſceptivus,] capable of being put to Death, yet it is ſaid to be Mortified, becauſe by its being Devoted to God for the Service of his Sanctuary (according to the common Notion of Church-Lands) it, as it were, dyeth, paſſing away from a Secular to a Sacred uſe: In like manner (ſaith he) that the Death of Man there mentioned, is not a Corporal, but a Civil and Spiritual Death, like that of Jephtah's Daughter, who died to the World when devoted to Prayers and Faſtings, &c. as a Recluſe ſpending her perpetual Virginity in Religious Exerciſes.
Anſwer 3. That Law of putting to Death there, is limited with [Mikol Aſher Lo] de omnibus quae ſunt ſub ſuâ poteſtate; which he hath a power over, but the Jews had no power over the Lives of their very Servants, inſomuch that if any Maſter kill'd his Servant caſually, he was to be ſurely puniſh'd for it by the Law of God, Exod. 21.20. Much leſs was it lawful for him to take away the Life of his Servant wilfully and intentionally upon pretence of any Vow as this was, but leaſt of all hath a Father power over his Child to take away his or her Life, under pretence of a Vow; for though Servants be ſaid to be their Maſter's Money, Exod. 21.21. Yet Children are not ſo to their Parents, but are indeed themſelves of a Second Edition; and ſo in ſlaying them, they do [Tantamont] ſlay themſelves in them, whereas both Maſters and Fathers are bound up from Murdering either Servants, or Sons, &c. by that great Command of God, [Thou ſhalt do no Murther,] whereof Jephtah is made a Breaker by thoſe that ſay he Sacrific'd his Child.
Anſwer 4. Nor will that Law of God (which impowereth Parents to get their Stubborn and Rebellious Children Stoned, Deut. 21.18, 19, 20, 21.) afford any relief to the firſt Opinion, no more than that Law which commands Parents to have their hands firſt in ſtoning their Idolatrous Children, Deut. 13.8, 9.
N. B. For neither of thoſe Inſtances come near, or concern our Caſe in hand, for Jephtah's Daughter was a Pious Virgin, not ſo much (for ought we know) as tainted with Idolatry, much leſs a down-right and known Idolatreſs; and as ſhe was one that durſt not tranſgreſs the Commands of the firſt Table, in Adoring Srtange Gods, (inſtead of the true Jehovah) ſo was ſhe no leſs careful and conſcientious concerning the Duties of the Second Table; here's no Stubborneſs, or Rebellion heard of here: Oh how did ſhe Honour her Father in her moſt Humble Anſwer to him, ſaying, Father, do not for my ſake make thy ſelf a Tranſgreſſour to God, I freely give my Conſent to thy Vow, I am willing to bear my Burthen, and to live a Virgin all my Life, as one cut off from the Comfort of Children, my Will is wrap'd up in thy Will, Oh my Father: Her words, ver. 36. import all this, as if ſhe had been in Chriſt's School, and had learnt his words, [Father, not my Will, but thy Will be done,] Matth. 26.39. A Dutiful Daughter indeed, &c.
The Second Objection is, Should this be granted, that Jephtah only Devoted his Daughter to a perpetual Virginity, it would too much ſymbolize with that Popiſh Doctrine, of Votary-Nuns, and thoſe Monaſtick Vows of a Single Life, for which we have neither Precept nor Preſident in Scripture.
Anſwer 1. It may well be ſuppoſed, that the fear of palliating that Popiſh Point about Nunneries, hath been the principal Reaſon that hath prevailed with ſeveral Godly Learned Men to puſh them into thoſe Sentiments, that Jephtah's Vow ought rather to be underſtood of a Burnt-Offering, than of Devoting his Daughter to the Service of God in a State of Virginity, as this Second Opinion affirmeth.
N. B. But I think there is more ground of fearing, that the firſt Opinion concerning Sacrificing her, Jephtah's practice therein might be improv'd to a greater countenancing of Humane Sacrifices, in that Day wherein many Inſtances were manifeſt, of burning their Sons and Daughters to Moloch: Whereas there was neither Precept nor Preſident for any Monaſtick Separations at that time; therefore this was not ſo dangerous to become a Pattern of any voluntary vowed Virginity in Monaſteries (as is practical in the Romiſh Church) ſeeing this Virginity was not voluntarily vowed upon the Virgins part, but it was violently impoſed upon her, by the Raſh and Inconſiderate Vow of her own Father, who lived in ſuch corrupt times of Ignorance and Superſtition, that himſelf wanted not ſome Tincture thereof, as will appear afterward, when we come to enquire, Whether Jephtah did well or ill both in making and paying his Vow? And ſeeing his Daughter was ſo far from making any voluntary Vow of Virginity of her own accord, though ſhe obſequiouſly ſubmitted to her Father's Diſpoſing Authority over her, yet doth ſhe beg leave of her Father to lament her Deſtinated Life for two Months among the Mountains, before ſhe became a Recluſe, and to be confined to her place, which is but a Sandy Foundation for ſuch Monaſtick Lives as Popiſh Nuns lead.
N. B. But all Circumſtances aforeſaid being well conſidered, this Example upon Record may rather ſerve as a Sea mark for ſhunning ſuch Rocks from fear of Ship wrack, than ſtand as a Pattern for following Ages. 'Tis ſafer to ſay, This is Recorded by the Holy Ghoſt for our Caution, and not for our Imitation.
Anſwer 2. Nor is it altogether Unſcriptural for ſome Women to be ſo ſhut up as not to be given in Marriage ever after to paſs by Tamar (David's Daughter) who was ſhut up in her Brother's Houſe, 2 Sam. 13.20. and David's Concubines who were ſhut up alſo; we are not told how long David's Daughter remained in Abſolom's Houſe, but we are told how long his Concubines were, even to the Day of their Death, 2 Sam. 20.3.
N. B. Come we now to more Undefiled Inſtances, as Anna the Propheteſs, Luk. 2.37. who was one of the few famous Witneſſes of the Meſſiah's coming into the World, and of whom Grotius ſaith, that ſhe was, Affine huic Exemplum, an Example near a-kin to this, for ſhe ſpent Fourſcore and Eight Years of her Widowhood (ſaving her Seven Years Marriage) in frequent Faſtings and Prayer in the Temple Night and Day, ſhe coming in at that inſtant, when Simeon took up the Babe of Bethlehem into his Arms, [Simeoni Succinuit,] ſhe Sang forth the Praiſes of that Beautiful Babe with Simeon alſo, to make up a more Harmonious Conſort, ver. 38.
N. B. But ſtill to ſtep nearer the point in hand, the Counſel of the great Apoſtle may be conferred herewith concerning Virgins, which he confeſſeth cannot be Congruous to all, but only to ſuch as have the Gift of Continency, and have ſo decreed, reſerving ſtill a liberty of doing otherwiſe, if need require, which Popiſh Votaries do not, and which Jephtah's Raſh Vow indeed took away from his Daughter, being not ſo careful as the Apoſtle was in not caſting a Snare upon her, that had decreed no ſuch thing upon her ſelf, but did mightily bewail that enſnaring Bondage, 1 Cor. 7.25, 35, 37. which Verdict Paul gives as peculiar to thoſe Primitive Perſecutions of the Church, under Bloody Nero, for the better bearing of Diſtractions in thoſe diſmal Days.
Anſwer 4. is, Nor doth all this give any Countenance, much leſs any Confirmation to the Romiſh Nunneries, in Popiſh Countries; for (as Capellus argues excellently) we read of no Nunneries, or Cloyſters that were erected in the Jewiſh Church: And beſide what hath been ſaid upon the caſe of Jephtah's Vow, and upon the Apoſtle's Advice to the Virgins, &c.
N. B. Though it was lawful for a Virgin (under her Father's Power) to Vow a Vow for the Afflicting of her Soul, &c. Yet muſt it be,
Firſt, With her Father's Conſent, Numb. 30.4.13.
Secondly Of things Lawful only, as in denying her ſelf in ſome things that Nature deſired and may warrantably be received. Thus the Rechabites Vowed againſt Wine, Strong Drink, &c. Jerem. 35.8, 9, 10. And thus the Virgin might Vow to afflict her Soul, which is one of the Inſtances of what ſhe might Vow, namely, ſuch Acts of Selfdenial in abſtaining from ſome Creature-Comforts▪ ſuch as otherwiſe ſhe might lawfully live upon, whereas to Vow Unlawful things, and what are not warranted by God's Word, a Vowing to do evil is an utter Abomination; as Deut 23.18. Act. 23.14, &c. And,
Thirdly, She might Vow only ſuch things as were poſſible (as well as lawful) and in her power, either by the Conſtitution of her Natural Temper, or by the Aſſiſtance of God's Grace promis'd to her. And thus thinks Judicious Junius, That Jephtah's Daughter did conſent to her Father's Vow, being content [Se in perpetuùm quaſi Nazaraeum futuram Domino] to be ſeparated as a perpetual Nazariteſs, unto the Lord and his Service, &c.
N. B. But the Popiſh Vows of Virginity, are Diametrically contrary to thoſe Divine Truths, and therefore their Vows of Continency hath this Curſe of God upon them to breed all manner of Incontinency in both Sexes, as our own Chronicles concerning Abbies and Monaſteries do abundantly confirm: To ſay nothing of their Clergy, who are all under the ſame Vow of Continency; yet is it too notoriouſly known, that they turn all Towns and Cities into ſo many Sodom's where they dwell, &c.
The Third Objection is, If Jephtah's Daughter was not Dead, but only Devoted, Why did the Daughters of Iſrael go yearly, (four Days every Year) to lament her, by a Cuſtom, or Ordinance? ver. 40.
Anſwer 1. The Hebrew word [Lethannoth,] is variouſly rendred, either to lament, and in this firſt ſenſe, they might take a juſt occaſion of lamenting her perpetual Virginity, as well as her Death, for the former bare an Analogy and proportion to the latter, it being a Civil Death (as before is ſhewed) and therefore to be lamented.
Anſwer 2. Worthy and weighty Weems ſaith, Though the Septuagint render [Lethannoth] by reading it, [foreign.] to lament; but the reaſon was (ſaith he) becauſe they miſtook its Derivation, deriving it from Tanin, a Dragon, which makes a moanful mourning, Mich. 1.8. Job 30.28, 29 whereas the word [Letannoth] comes from [Tanah] narrare to Rehearſe. So Judg. 5.11. it ſhould therefore be Tranſlated [ad colloquendum,] Pagnin and Arias Montanus do Tranſlate it, [ad confabulandum cum câ.] So Kimchi which Junius followeth, namely, to talk with her, that they might comfort her in her Solitary Life, for which theſe Daughters of Iſrael might both lament her caſe, and chear up her Spirit, with the remembrance of that Glorious Victory, which they celebrated with Triumphant Songs four times every Year with her, to allay her Sorrows.
Objection the Fourth, It was the Belief of the Ancients of that very Age, that Jephtah did really ſlay and Sacrifice his Daughter, for it is probably conceived, that the Ancient Greek Poets uſed to ſteal Sacred Hiſtories, and turn them into their Poetical Fables, and accordingly they framed from this very Scripture-Record, their Story of Agamemnon's Sacrificing his Daughter Iphigenia to pacifie the Gods.
N. B. Anſwer 1. It is granted, That it was the practice of both the Greek and Latine Pagan Poets, to ſteal their Stories out of the Scripture of truth, as Homer his Deſcription of Alcinous's Garden, from Moſes's Sacred Deſcription of Paradiſe; and Ovid likewiſe ſtole his lame deſcription of Deucalion's Floud, from Moſes's Deſcription of Noah's Deluge, and ſundry other ſuch like.
N. B. Anſwer 2. It is granted alſo, that there is ſome Congruity, and ſeeming Parity betwixt the Name of Agamemnon's Daughter, (Iphigenia and Jephtah's Daughters Name) eſpecialy had the Sacred Scriptures given her that ſuppoſed Name of Jephtigenia, which it doth not, and therefore that Hypotheſis, or Suppoſition, wants a firmer foundation to ſtand upon: We have this Rule in Philoſophy [Strato Superſtruitur,] and Vitruvius ſaith, [In ſolido extruendum eſt,] Ʋpon firm ground found the Building; and our Lord better bids us build upon the Rock: Now a Poetical Fiction ſeems too Sandy a Foundation to bottom a Theological Aſſertion upon.
N. B. Anſwer 3. Though it be granted that in many Circumſtances there be a Congruity. As,
Firſt, In Time, they were Contemporary.
Secondly, In Name, they not abſurdly Symbolize.
Thirdly, In Perſonal Figure, both were the only Daughters of two Chieftains, and both were Virgins. And,
Fourthly, In their Fate, both were Objects of a Paternal Vow. And,
Fifthly, In the Occaſion thereof both were Vowed to a Deity when their Fathers went forth to wage War againſt their Enemies: Thus far the Congruity may hold.
N. B. Yet the Diſparity in the Iſſue of the Poetical Fiction, ſpoils all as Argumentative to prove the point in hand, that Jephtah did certainly Sacrifice his own only dear Daughter, becauſe Agamemnon did ſo to his Iphigenia. For,
Firſt, It is denied that Agamemnon did ſo by Authors of unqueſtionable Honour and Credit, who thus relate this Story; Agamemnon having by chance ſlain a Stagg that belong'd to Diana, ſhe in Revenge rais'd a Dreadful Tempeſt upon the Grecian Ships that were at the Beſieging and Blocking up of Troy. The Devil's Oracle told them, That Diana would not be appeas'd, unleſs ſome of Agamemnon's Blood were Sacrificed to her. In order hereunto, crafty Ʋlyſſes got the Virgin away from her Mother by a Wile, but when ſhe was about to be Sacrificed, Diana was moved with compaſſion, ſent her away privily into Taurica, there to be one of her Prieſteſs's, and kindly ſent them an Hind to be offered up in her ſtead with Acceptance, ſo that the Storm ceaſed.
N. B. This is the Relation of the moſt Claſſick and Authentick Hiſtorians; and in particular briefly Sir Walter Rawleigh (one of great Reputation) relateth it thus, Calchas that Pagan Prieſt, would indeed have had Agamemnon's Daughter Sacrificed to pacifie Diana, but ſome think that the Goddeſs was pleaſed with an Hind, &c.
N. B. But Secondly, Suppoſe ſhe were really Sacrificed, (which is improbable) What Inference can be drawn from hence? Shall we conclude, that becauſe the Pagan Agamemnon did ſo, who lived under the Conduct of the Devil, that always delighted in foreign, or Man's Fleſh and Blood; therefore Jephtah muſt do ſo, who had the Spirit of God upon him, and whoſe Faith is celebrated in Hebr. 11.32. may we not ſafer ſay, If Diana refuſed Iphigena out of pity to her, how much more the God of all Mercy who ſpared Abraham's Son Iſaac, and accepted of a Ram in his ſtead, might not accordingly have had pity upon Jephtah's Daughter, more than Diana had upon the Daughter of Agamemnon, &c. wherein the Congruity or Parity doth well concur in both the Virgins caſes; and no leſs Correſpondency is there in this point, that as Agamemnon's Daughter Iphigenia was devoted a Prieſteſs to Diana, that Pagan Goddeſs; ſo Jephtah's Daughter Jepthigenia (though the Scripture vouchſafes not to give her either that or any other Name) was devoted a kind of Nazariteſs to the true Jehovah, the Lord God of Iſrael.
The laſt Remark upon this Eleventh Chapter is, The Inquiry, Whether Jephtah ſinned in this Vow, either in the promiſing, or in the performing part of it?
Anſwer 1. Some ſay he did not ſin in either part, but he did both of them by an Inſtinct from that Spirit of God, which came upon him, ver. 29. ſo ſaith Anſelm and other Fathers (as Austin and Jerom) favour this Opinion, ſaying, God did not move Jephtah to do this, that Men ſhould imitate him in ſo doing, but that Men ſhould underſtand how God the Father had but one only Son, (as Jephtah but one only Daughter) yet he freely parted with him for a Sacrifice of Man's Redemption, as Jephtah did with his only Child here.
N.B. But ſeeing this Allegory wants altogether a Foundation in God's Word, 'tis to be reckoned inter Naevos patrum, among the Failures of the Fathers, being no better than the Frothy Exuberancy of Wanton Brains.
Anſwer 2. But others do cenſure Jephtah, as Tertullian, Ambroſe, Nazianzen, Chryſostom, &c. ſaying, he was a Fool in making ſuch a confuſed and inconſiderate Vow; and a worſe Fool in doing according to his Vow, as more largely appears in what is ſaid before: Nor may we wonder that Jephtah, tho praiſed for his Faith, Hebr. 11.32. Yet might have his Failings with all other great Saints, for every one of which Infirmities (found in them) they are not blamed by either Prophet, or Apoſtle: All that can be ſaid, 'tis a folly to juſtifie Jephtah in all his Promiſes and Performances; only the Ignorance of that Age may excuſe him à Tanto, but nothing can excuſe him à Toto.