Commentaries, Commentary on Judges · Chapter 11 · Excursus 6
¶Of the Vowe of Iiphtah.
Whether Iiphtah ſinned in vowyng.HEre ſeemeth to be demaunded, whether Iiphtah ſinned in ſo vowyng, and in fulfyllyng hys vowe. It is a heard queſtion, bycauſe it pertayneth not to the lawe, but to the acte. We knowe that in thoſe tymes it was lawfull to vowe, but what is to be thought of this acte, nothyng can be gathered by the woordes. It is poſſible that he ſo vowed by the inſpiration of GOD, whiche being a ſingular example, ought not to be dryuen into imitation. As there are very many of this kynde in the holy Scriptures. There are whiche contend that Iiphtah dyd not in very dede offer his daughter, but only puniſhed her wt ciuile death, namely in ſeparating her frō the cōmon cōuerſatiō, ſo yt ſhe liued onelyonly to god, geuing her ſelfe to prayers onelyonly, and liuing a parte from other men. And they ſeeme to affirme that ye vow was Cherē, but not ſuch, that the maydē ſhould be bounds to be killed: but yt ſhe ſhould lyue dedicated to God, and ſhould continually geue her ſelfe to ye worſhipping of god. And euen as a field or houſe vowed with this vowe Cherem, could not be reuoked vntounto the firſt owner: ſo ſay they, thys maydē being once dedicated vntounto the Lord, could not returne to her old eſtate.
Dauid Kimhi in defēding this ſētence bringeth theſe reaſōs. Firſt he weigheth the wordes of Iiphtah, what ſoeuer cōmeth out of my houſe, ſhalbe ye Lordes, & I will offer it for a burnt offring. This letter Vau being a cōiunction copulatiue, as we hauehave before ſaid, he thinketh to make a propoſitiō diſiūctiue: as if it ſhould hauehave ben ſayd: If it be ſuch a thing as may be ſacrificed, it ſhalbe ſacrificed: but if otherwiſe, it ſhalbe the Lords, & it ſhalbe dedicated vntounto him. Farther he ſayth yt ye maydē deſired ſpace, to bewayle her virginity: neither is it written to bewayle her ſoule or life. Wherfore it ſeemeth yt ſhe bewayled this onelyonly, that ſhe ſhould wāt a huſbād & childrē. But if ſhe ſhould hauehave ben offred vp, ſhe ought chiefly to hauehave lamēted for her life. Laſtly ſaith he yt ye very wordes of ye hiſtory declare this thing. For it is not ſayd ye Iiphtah ſacrificed her: but did accordyng to hys vowe. If he had killed her, it ſhould hauehave ben writtē, And he offred her a burnt offring to the Lord. Of the ſame opiniō is R. L. ben Gerſon, & he addeth,R.L. ben Gerſon. yt it is written in the texte, And ſhe knew no man. As though hereby might be vnderſtād, what kind of ſacrifice yt was. And he thinketh ye Iiphtah builded a houſe for her, where ſhe ſhould liue a lone, & he permitted her fellowe virgines once in a yeare to go and ſe her, and bewayle her virginity together with her. And afterwarde he addeth that a man ſo dedicated, ought not to lyue without a wyfe, bycauſe the man is not ſubiect vntounto the wyfe. Samuel, although he were dedicated vntounto the Lord by the decree of hys mother, yet had he wyfe and children. But a woman beyng ſo dedicated coulde not marry: bycauſe it was neceſſary that ſhe ſhoulde ſerue her huſbande, and if he remoued any whether, ſhe ſhould go together with hym. And therefore it is written, that Iiphtah dyd vntounto her accordyng vntounto hys vowe, and ſhe knewe no man.
The ſame ſentence Lyranus embraceth,Lyra. and there are of the newe wryters whiche are of greate learnyng, whiche doo followe this interpretation. But Lyranus pondereth theſe wordes. And the ſpirite of the Lorde came vponupon hym, and he ſayth. That that ſpirite would not hauehave ſuffred Iiphtah to committe this murther. Farther he wryteth, that there were two monethes ſpace geuen, ſo that he mought aſke counſell of the Prieſts. But it is, not very likely, that he aſked not then Counſell of ſo weighty a matter, or that they tolde hym not that he myght hauehave redemed hys vowe. Neither is it probable that thys Iiphtah conſtituted any thyng raſhely. when as the Epiſtle to the Hebrues calleth hym holy. If thou wilt ſaye: He did vntounto her as he had vowed, but he had vowed a Sacrifice, and to offer what ſoeuer mette hym, they wyll aunſwere: He vowed in deede, but vponupon this condition, ſo that it were lawfull. But when his daughter met him, either he learned, or els he vnderſtood yt it was not lawfull. Wherfore if he had killed her, he had not accōpliſhed his vowe, but ſhould hauehave contaminated hymſelfe. But on the contrary part it ſeemeth wonderfull that he was ſo abaſhed, and rente hys garmentes, if the mayden ſhoulde not hauehave bene offred vp. Farther, what ſhoulde the virgines hauehave lamented her? For if ſhe ſhoulde not hauehave bene ſlayne, there ſeemed no iuſte cauſe of mournyng. Moreouer if her virginitye ſhoulde hauehave bene offred vntounto GOD, it ſhoulde hauehave bene geuen wyth a wyllynge mynde and not wyth an vnwyllyng mynde:What is chiefly regarded in vowes. and in rendryng vowes thys thyng was chiefely regarded, to render them wyllyngly and with a chierefull mynde. Beſides theſe thynges, Iiphtah had no example in the ſcriptures, yt it was lawfull for the father to binde his daughter by a vow, to kepe her virginity: but God contraryly promiſeth aboundaunce of children vntounto the obſeruers of the law, in Deuteronomy the .7. and Exodus the .23. Wherfore that which God promiſed in the place of a great benefite, the ſame could not be hyndred by a vowe. Farthermore, the arguments of the Rabines are cold and weake, as afterward ſhalbe more aboundantly declared.
Paul in his .1. Epiſtle to the Corinthians the .7. chapter writeth: If the father ſhall determine firmely in his hart, hauing power ouer his owne will, to keepe his virgine vnmaried, he doth well, &c. Why writeth he hauing power ouer his owne will? If the mayden her ſelfe will, the father may kepe her vnmaried, ſo that ſhe conſent. But Iiphtah knew nothing of the will of his daughter, whē he vowed, wherfore he ought not to thinke his vow to be ratified, when his daughter met him. And if this kynd of vowe was not firme in the new teſtamēt, it was of much les value in the olde Teſtament, where the vowe of virginity was not knowen. But of this thing I hauehave ſpoken more in my litle booke of Vowes.
There were other whiche thought that Iiphtah did in very dede offer ye mayden, which in theſe tymes ought not to ſeme ſo new and vnaccuſtomed a thing. For God required of Abraham to offer his ſonne, and ſuch a vow was thought of many to be moſt acceptable vntounto God, and that opinion alſo did ſpread abrode among the Ethnikes wherfore, this ſentence is often ſpoken: Thou haſt aſſwaged the windes with bloud, & with ye virgin ſlayne. There are workes of Poetes whiche make mencion of Pollixena & Iphigenia: & alſo Hiſtoryes of the Curtians and Decians. And vndoubtedly with this expoſition agreeth the Chaldey Paraphraſt, which among the Hebrues is in a maner in the ſame eſtimation and authority that the holy ſcriptures are in. That Paraphraſt ſayth, that the mayden was immolated: & reproueth Iiphtah, bycauſe he aſked not counſell of the hyghe prieſt. And the ſame thing do al the auncient Rabines thinke, which alſo reprehēd the highe prieſt, bicauſe he of his own accord went not vntounto Iiphtah. Ioſephus alſo is of their opinion.Ioſephus. Chriſoſtome. Ierome. Chriſoſtome alſo writeth many thinges of this matter, but altogether farre from the Hiſtory: he followeth allegories, ſo that in a maner no certaynty can be gathered out of him. But Ierome writeth agaynſt himſelfe. In his Epiſtle to Iulianus, he ſayth that Iiphtah was numbred among the ſayntes, bycauſe he offred his daughter. But in his .1. boke agaynſt Iouinianus he writeth, after the minde of the Hebrues, that bycauſe he made an euil vowe by the diſpenſatiō of god, he felt his error in ye death of his daughter. For there mought hauehave met hym either a dogge, or an aſſe, whiche had hen wicked to hauehave offred: and ſo in one place he prayſeth that, whiche in an other place he diſpraiſeth.
Ambroſe.Ambroſe in his .3. booke de Virginitate ſayth, yt the mayden was in very deede immolated, & he writeth ye Iiphtah vowed not before the battaile, but in the fight, & in the very conflict, when things were doubtfull. And he addeth: I do not allow ye murther, but I ſe a laudable feare, yt he would not violate his promiſe yt he had made. And he ſaith moreouer, yt this act is to be cōferred wt the worke of Abrahā. For Abrahā, when he was about to kill his ſonne, the Lord cried out vntounto him: Now I know, yt thou loueſt me. And he concludeth, yt after the ſame maner may Iiphtah be praiſed, bycauſe he ſhewed by his example, yt the oracle of god, wherin he cōmaunded ye vowes ſhould be performed, was to be preferred before childrē, although the onelyonly begotten child ſhould be killed. But he demaūdeth, whether God hauehave a reſpect vntounto perſons, whiche letted Abrahā, yt he ſhould not offer vp his ſonne, but with ſtoode not Iiphtah. He denieth ye God accepteth perſons, but it behoued (ſaith he) to declare vntounto Abrahā, yt he delighted not in humane ſacrifices. Afterward ſucceded the law, which in Deut. & Leui. prohibited the immolatiō of children. Wherfore the will of god was already declared both in Abrahā, & in the law, wherfore there neded no new oracle, or new prohibition. Farthermore, he noted that in Iiphtah was not that perfection whiche was in Abraham. For Abraham wept not, tare not his garmentes, deferred not two monethes, but ſtrayghtwaye went, and Iſaac followed hym. Therefore it is no meruayle (ſayth he) if God prohibited not Iiphtah, for ſo muche as he woulde puniſhe hys longe taryeng.
And in his thyrd booke de officiis the .12. chapter, he writeth: I will neuer be perſuaded but that Iiphtah vowed vnaduiſedly, for ſo muche as he afterwarde repented. And he addeth that in deede he alloweth not the acte, but he ſayeth that in a godly feare he fulfylled his vowe, but in ſuche ſorte, that he appointed his poſterity to lament it. He ſayeth farther, I can not accuſe the mā, bycauſe it was neceſſary for hym to paye that whiche he had vowed, but it is a miſerable neceſſitye (ſayeth he) whiche is payed with parricide: and it is better not to vowe, that thyng whiche he wyll not, vntounto whome thou voweſt. And ſtrayght way he ſaith: All promiſes are not to be kept: for euē god alſo ſometymes chaungeth his will. By which wordes he alludeth vntounto the place whiche is written in Numbers the .14. chapter, of the prayers of Moſes.
Wherfore Ambroſe is vtterly of that ſentence, to thinke that the mayden was offred: and for that cauſe (as I hauehave ſayde) preferreth her before the two Pithagorians. And of her he ſayeth in hys exhortation to virgins: She payed with her bloude the vnaduiſed vowe of her father. And vponupon the firſte Epiſtle to the Corinthians the .15. chapter he ſayth: In a thyng whiche could not be acceptable, he was founde faythfull, offryng his daughter, as he had fooliſhely vowed. And agayne. The acte is not allowed, but the perſeueraunce of fayth is worthy to be brought foorth for an example to followe.
But theſe wordes of Ambroſe are not ſo lightly to be paſſed ouer:What thynges are to be noted in the woordes of Ambroſe. for they can not be ſimply allowed, and as they be ſpoken of hym. Yet hauehave I brought them, to ſhewe that he thought that the mayden was offred in very deede. But in hys woordes thys firſte I marke, that he affirmeth a certayne godly feare to be in Iiphtah, whereby he was led to performe his vowe: and that children were not to be preferred before Religion: thirdly that Iiphtah was found faythfull in that thyng, whiche coulde not be acceptable vntounto God. Laſtly that hys perſeuerance of fayth is brought foorth for an example to followe.
As touchyng the firſt, I knowe not, how that may ſeeme a godly feare, which driueth a man to parricide: for he calleth that kyllyng parricide,Godly feare driueth not a man to commit parricide. and that three or foure tymes. Ther are in dede affections in vsus which are grafted by god, but yet to vertues, and to do well. A feare, to eſchewe ſinnes. An anger, to puniſhe wicked actes, &c. Wherfore feare, when it is applied vntounto vertue, may be called godly: but if it ſerue for vice, it can not ſeme godly, yea rather,What affections are to bee coūted godly. it hath a certayne maner of vngodlines. Otherwyſe ye endeuor of Idolatrers might be prayſed: for we ſee them diligently labor to worſhip god, but bycauſe they apply not themſelues to the ſincere worſhippyng of God, their endeuour can not be called godly. So when that feare of Iiphtah draue him to commit parricide, howe could it be godly? If thou wilt ſay that by parricide he vnderſtādeth not the ſinne, or the wicked acte, but ye immolatiō of his daughter: I will demaūd, why he ſayth yt he alloweth not the acte? vndoubtedly if he cā not allowe it, then perceaueth he yt it is ſinne.
But in that he ſayth: That the louelove of children is les to be eſtemed them Religion. That is true: but that was no religion, but a fooliſhe vnaduiſed, and raſhe vowe. Neither is the louelove of children to be les eſtemed then ſuch religion.
Thirdly he ſayeth, that he was founde faythfull. But what fidelity is there in that thyng, whiche coulde not be acceptable to God? If my ſeruaunt ſhould do that whiche I had forbidden hym, can he therin ſeme faythfull?
But in that he calleth the vnchaungeable mynde of Iiphtah conſtancy, in my iudgement he erreth, when as rather it was wilfulnes, wherby he would nedes fulfill that whiche he had vnaduiſedly vowed: neither can perſeuerance in an euill thyng bee called conſtancy. He attributeth vntounto hym a feare, whiche alſo he calleth a godly feare, and yet afterwarde he ſayth that he repented. If he repented hym, he dyd agaynſt his conſcience: but no man ought to doo any thyng agaynſt it. For what is not of fayth, is ſinne. Farther, if he repented, why amended he not hys faulte? For if any thyng had ben done raſhely, that ought to hauehave ben amended. If GOD (as he ſayeth) doo ſometymes chaunge his ſentence, why then is it not lawfull for vsus to chaunge a ſentence that is not ryght? Afterwarde he ſayth: he can not but prayſe Iiphtah. But what will he prayſe? An vncircumſpect vowe? But that ought rather to bee reprehended. What, wyll he prayſe the performaunce of the vowe? But that he calleth parricide, neyther can that bee prayſed. I ſaye therefore that Ambroſe affirmeth, that the mayden was in very deede immolated: and yet are not al hys wordes to be allowed.
Auguſtine.Let vsus heare nowe what Auguſtine ſayeth of thys thyng. In hys queſtion 29. vponupon thys booke he writteth that out of this place, the enemyes of the olde Teſtament, ſnatche occaſion to ſpeake euill of GOD the creator of the world. For they called hym both an euyll GOD, and a cruell. Suche were the Maniches, Valentinians, Marcionites, and ſuche lyke peſtilences. When he delighteth (ſaye they) in the bloude of manne, howe can he not but bee cruell? Auguſtine aunſwereth:God reioyſeth not in bloud. So farre is it of that GOD reioyſeth in the bloude of man, that he reioyſeth not euen in the bloude of beaſtes: onelyonly he ſuffred for a tyme that ſacrifices of beaſtes ſhoulde be offred, by lytle and lytle to inſtructe men. But what the Sacrifices of the Elders ſignified, whiche ſerued to theyr erudition in that place,What the ſacrifices of the Elders ſignified. he declareth not, but I will in fewe woordes ſhewe it. Firſt was ſet foorth in thoſe Sacrifices, that the rewarde of ſinne is death. And that dyd he after a ſorte teſtifie, whiche brought the Sacrifice, namely that he had deſerued to be kylled, but by the goodnes of GOD hys death was tranſferred to the Sacrifice. By thys meanes were the Elders inſtructed, that they ſhould eſchewe ſynnes. Farther, thoſe Sacrifices directed the myndes of menne vntounto Chriſte, and they were certayne viſible ſermons of hym, and taught that Chriſt ſhoulde bee that Sacrifice whiche ſhoulde take awaye the ſinnes of the worlde, and vponupon whom our death and damnation ſhould be tranſferred.
God mought hauehave required humane ſacrifices.Wherefore GOD of hymſelfe delyghted not in bloude, but by thys ſchoolyng he inſtructed his people. Yea if he had delyghted in Sacrifices, he mought hauehave required them of the number of menne. For what ſhould hauehave letted hym, or what iniury ſhoulde he hauehave doone vsus, if he woulde hauehave had Sacrifices of menne offred vntounto hym? For manne muſt needes ſometymes dye. Wherefore to preuent the tyme one yeare or two, it woulde not hauehave bene ſo grieuous, neither ſhoulde he hauehave doone vsus any iniurye, chiefly when we ſhoulde vnderſtande that with hym we ſhoulde lyue for euer. Vndoubtedly in thys thyng no manne coulde hauehave accuſed GOD as cruell. But nowe ſeyng he hath remoued all thoſe holy ſeruices, he manifeſtly teacheth that he reioyſeth not, neither in the bloude of menne,God woulde hauehave the firſte borne of menne redemed, and not ſacrificed. nor in the bloude of beaſtes. Yea the firſte borne of menne, when they were bounde vntounto hym, he woulde not hauehave them Sacrificed, but redemed with a price: whiche he woulde not hauehave doone, if he had taken any pleaſure in bloude. In Deuteromy the .12. chapter he ſayeth: The Nation whiche I wyl expell before thee, doo Sacrifice theyr ſonnes and daughters: but ſee that thou do not ſo.
Certayne kyllynges of men are acceptable vntounto God.But Auguſtine demaundeth farther, whether there be any ſlaughter of men whiche is acceptable vntounto GOD? Hee aunſwereth that there is. But what ſlaughter? When menne (ſayeth he) are kylled for ryghteouſnes ſake: not that the death of Martyrs of it ſelf pleaſeth GOD, but bicauſe faith towardes God & piety is by that,Martyrdomes are lyke ſacrifices. both declared and alſo kept. And the death of Chriſt ſo pleaſed God, that it redemed the whole worlde: and the death of Chriſtians whiche they ſuffer in Chriſtes name, may be called after a ſorte a Sacrifice. Wherefore Paul in the .2. to Timo. the laſt chapter writeth, foreign, that is, I ſacrifice, &c. in whiche ſaying he calleth his death an immolation. And to the Phil. the .2. foreign that is,The martirdomes of men make not ſatiſfaction for ſins. but if I offre in an oblation and ſeruice of our fayth. And yet do not ſuch ſacrifices make ſatiſfaction for ſinnes: for that doth the death of Chriſte onelyonly. But the death of Martirs are acceptable, becauſe the cauſe is thankefull. Auguſtine was baptiſed of Ambroſe: and being wōderfully affectioned toward him, he followeth his opinion as his Scholemayſter, aſmuch as he may, but ſomwhat more warely. He cō pareth Iiphtah with Abraham: but he putteth a difference, whyche Ambroſe noted not. Abraham, ſaythe he, had the woorde of god to ſacrifice his ſonne, ſo had not Iiphtah, yea rather he had the law againſt him, that he ſhoulde not ſacrifice. And in Abraham not the death pleaſed god, but the faith. Farther, there is great difference, for a man to do any thinge of himſelf, and to hauehave a will to doo thoſe thinges that are commaunded him. And Auguſtine doth ſubtilly admoniſh,Iiphtah vowed an human… ſacrifice, as Auguſtine thinketh. that Iiphtah vowed an humane ſacrifice, not deceaued, but willinglye. Whatſoeuer ſayth he, ſhall come out of my houſe, I will offer it for a burnte offringe &c. Doo we thinke that beaſtes woulde come forth to meete him returninge home? Men vſe to go and mete ſuch as hauehave the victory, and to reioyſe. Wherfore he vowed an humane ſacrifice.
The ſcripture only maketh mencyon of this acte, but praiſeth it not: as alſo it is there written that Iudas had to do with his daughter in law, but it is not allowed. So there can nothing be gathered by theſe wordes,The raſhenes of the father is puniſhed in the death of the children. why the acte of Iiphtah ſhould be prayſed. Farther Auguſtine thinketh with Ierome, that god woulde puniſh the raſhenes of the vow in the father, by the death of hys daughter. But there are two places, ſayth he, why I cannot reprehend Iiphtah. Becauſe in the Epiſtle to ye Hebrewes he is numbred among the ſaints, & in this place it is written, that the ſpirite of the Lord was vponupon him. But thoſe holy men which are rekoned vntounto the Hebrewes, did they neuer ſinne? Vndoubtedly their ſinnes alſo ar ſet forth in the holy ſcriptures. Gideon, who is in ye number, a little before his deth made an Ephod, which was ye deſtructiō both of himſelf & of his houſe. But as touchinge the other place: The ſprite of the Lorde came vponupon hym. But this nothing letteth, but that afterward he might fall. But Iiphtah thou wilte ſaye had the victory, but Gidion after that acte, nothing went well with him. Yea rather ſayth he, Gideon did before after a ſort tempt God, & yet he had the victory. So much of Auguſtine.
But I would ſay otherwiſe. For I agree not with Auguſtine, to thinke that Gidion tēpted God. Therfore I would aunſwere after this maner: Dauid cōmitted aduoutry, & ſtraightway afterward obteined ye victory, & toke ye city Rabath-Ammon, in whoſe ſiege he prepared that Vrias ſhould be ſlayne. Saule perſecuted Dauid, in the meane time there were brought him meſſengers from the Philiſtians. He leauing Dauid, went to war, and obteined the victory. Moſes ſinned at the waters of ſtrife: the people alſo hadde ſinned many waies, and yet they obteyned the victorye agaynſte Sihon and Og moſte myghtye Kynges. Wherefore wee will graunte that Iiphtah was numbred amonge the Sayntes, and yet he mighte ſinne, and althoughe he ſynned, he obteyned the victorye. And we wil graunt that the ſprite of the lord came vponupon him, but we hauehave alredy interpreted that it was the ſpirite of ſtrength. And although the ſprite of the Lord was vponupon him, yet is it not of neceſſitye that he did all thinges by that ſpirite. For we alſo which are Chriſtians, hauehave the ſprite of Chriſt, when as yet none of vsus is renewed in all partes, yea rather we all very oftentimes ſinne.
Auguſtine addeth moreouer, that although the fathers ſometimes ſinned, yet if nothinge letteth, but that god maye vſe theyr ſinnes, to ſignifye thoſe thinges whych myght inſtructe the people. For god is ſo good, that euer of ſinnes he picketh out laudable commodities, and maketh them alligorically to declare what ſemeth profitable vntounto hym. As in that Iudas played the whoremonger with his doughter in law, it ſignified that god would couple vntounto himſelf ye church, which before was an harlot: ſo alſo maye it be, that by this acte of Iiphtah he ſignified, that god ſo loued mankinde that he would geue his onelyonly begotten ſonne vntounto the death for it: for he did not in vaine, and without any cauſe ſuffer ſuch a thing to be don by the fathers. Although they greuouſly ſinned, yet god could vſe their actions to the inſtruction of his people. They were amaſed at the ſacrifices of beaſts, neither did they as it was mete, lift vp ye eies of their minds vntounto chriſt. Wherfore god would by this meanes ſtirre vp the ſluggiſh, that they ſhould be enduced by the humayne ſacrifice of Iiphtahs daughter to thinke vponupon Chriſt. For he ſhould geue his lyfe, and be made a ſacrifice for mankinde.
Farthermore, Auguſtine toucheth a reaſon whereby he defendeth the acte of Iiphtah. It may be ſaid, ſaith he, that he was moued by the ſprite of god to make a vow, and led by the ſame ſpirite to performe it. Wherfore he is the more worthy of prayſe, ſo far is it of, ye he ſhoulde be reproued. But ye cannot be gathered by the wordes of the hiſtory. But that whych ſome ſaye, as we hauehave before touched, he wepte, tare his garments, and was excedingly ſorye: therefore he was not moued by the ſprite of God:God ſo requireth obedience that he withdraweth not affections. this I ſaye doth not muche moue me. For god ſo requireth of vsus the duties of piety, that yet he withdraweth not frō our minds humayne affections. Chriſt himſelf when he ſhould willingly go to dye for our ſakes, ſayd for all that: my ſoule is heauye euen to the death. He prayed alſo, father, if it be poſſible, let his cup go from me. But Auguſtine intendeth to declare how Iiphtah might be defended: which I alſo would gladly do, if I had any part of the hiſtory to helpe me. But that which followeth in Auguſtine, is ſpoken to imitate Ambroſe. The error of Auguſtine.For he writeth: The error of Iiphtah hath ſome praiſe of faith, which thinge (as I hauehave before ſhewed) can not be receaued. For if it were an error, then can it not be aſcribed vntounto the mocion of the holye ghoſte. Farther, if it were ſinne, what praiſe of fayth can there be in it? Becauſe he feared not to render that which he had promiſed. What if the vowe were not lawfull? Can fayth be there prayſed? Moreouer he ſaith: He declined not from the iudgemēt of God, and he hoped that he would hauehave prohibited him, frō killing of his daughter. He would rather vtterly performe the will of god, then contemne it. Theſe thinges were well ſpoken, if he had bene aſſured of the wil of God. But he was not aſſured of it: yea rather god had otherwiſe prohibited it in his lawe. Wherefore if it were an error, it ought not to be prayſed. But if the ſpirit moued him, then was there in it no error. That which he afterward addeth is moſte true, and maketh on my ſyde. Firſte he ſheweth, that it was prohibited that a man ſhoulde kill his childrē, both by the example of Abraham and by the law. Farther, why the maidens wept, he bringeth the ſame reaſon that I brought, namely, both that the fathers ſhould beware, not to bynd themſelues with ſuch a vow, and that ſo great an obedience of this mayden ſhould not be put in obliuion. Theſe thinges wee hauehave out of Auguſtine, by which woordes appeareth, that he thoughte that this virgin was in very dede immolated, and not compelled by the vowe of chaſtitye to liue alone. Which ſentence I my ſelfe alſo do altogether allow.
They which think otherwiſe, hauehave not paſſing two or three authors, but I hauehave many which are on my ſide, and eſpecially the auncient Rabbines, whyche liued at that time, wherin the Chaldey Paraphraſte, and the writinge of the Thalmut was made.Reaſons which confirme the interpretation. For the Chaldey Paraph. affirmeth, that the mayden was ſlayne. Ioſephus, Ambroſius, and Auguſtin are of the ſame opinion. And we hauehave reaſons not to be contemned. Firſt, bicauſe there was no law in the old time, that maydens ſhould vow chaſtity: yea rather it was a curſe, if a womā had died without children and baren. Yea and god promiſed vntounto the hebrewes, if you obſerue my law there ſhalbe no barren woman among you. Neyther is it very lykelye, that holy men would by theyr vow hinder this promiſe. Farther in all the ſcriptures reueled by god, there remayneth no example of ſuch a thinge. Alſo by this interpretacion, we ſhould ſeeme after a ſort to confirme monaſticall vowes, which ar playnly againſt ye holy ſcriptures. For Paule admoniſheth yt he which cannot containe, ſhould mary a wyfe. I wil not ſpeak how Iiphtah taried not for the conſēt of the mayden before he vowed, without whiche (as I hauehave before ſhewed) the vowe of Virginity could not be ratified. I hauehave opened my mouth (ſayth he) vntounto the Lord, and I cannot go backe. Wherefore he vowed not the Virginitye of the mayden, when as he aſked not counſell of her. To this alſo ſerueth the weeping of the Virgins, and therewithall the weepinge of the mayden herſelfe. For ſhe deſired, that ſhee mighte with her fellowes bewaile her Virginitye. But if it were a vow, why ſhould ſhe hauehave lamented it? We vſe to bewayle our ſinnes, & not our vowes. But the cauſe that moued the Rabbines, Kimhi & Ben Gerſon, was this, becauſe they wil eyther allowe or excuſe the acte of Iiphtah. But wee muſt not labor for that: not that we would willinglye vncouer the defaultes of the fathers, but becauſe we ſee that thinges whiche are not well doone, are not to be excuſed. Moreouer, alſo this doth not a litttle moue me, bicauſe ye Iewes at this day hauehave not this vowe of Virginity among them. Wherefore al theſe reaſons lead me to think that the daughter of Iiphtah was in very dede immolated.
But if it be demaunded, whyther he ſinned or no in doing this,The queſtion aunſwered two wayes. it may be aunſwered two manner of wayes. Firſte, bycauſe as he was a man, ſo moughte hee ſeme, as very many of the elders fel. Secōdly, it may ſaid, yt he did this by the impulſion of the holy ghoſt, not as though god would hauehave other men to imitate this act, but that men might by it vnderſtand, that Chriſt ſhould dye for their ſaluation. It is indifferent for eueryevery man to choſe eyther of theſe aunſweres. But I thinke rather he fell. Nowe reſteth to confute the argumentes of the Rabbines.
In that they ſay the mayden was not killed of her father, but only puniſhed wt ciuil death, namely that ſhe ſhould liue a part from the followſhip of men with out a huſband and children, it is not wel ſayd: bicauſe it can not be proued by the holy ſcriptures that there was any ſuch kind of vow in the old time. I know that there were Nazarites, whiche abſtained from wyne and ſtronge drinke, and all drinke which would make one dronke: but they abſtained not from matrimony. Samuel and Sampſon beyng either of them a Nazarite, had wiues, and Samuel had children, as the holy hiſtory declareth. But departinges from the companye of men, are not altogether to be diſalowed, ſo that of them come ſome fruite vntounto the church. Chriſt departed .40. dayes, and faſted:How departings from the company of men are allowed or diſalowed. but afterward he returned to inſtruct the people. Iohn Baptiſte went a parte, but yet for certayne dayes, & baptiſed and preached. So ſome of the fathers went ſometime a part, wher they gaue themſelues both to prayers and godly meditations, wherby they might returne the better inſtructed to preach. But I can in no caſe allow the perpetuitye of ſolitarye life: for wee are not borne to oure ſelues, but to other alſo. But that in the olde time there were ſome whiche were Nazarites for euer, that was not don by the inſtitution of man, but by the commaundement of God: which thing is written to hauehave happened to Sampſon and Iohn Baptiſt. Otherwiſe Nazarites vowed but onelyonly for a time. Wherfore that which the Rabbines clayme, is falſe: for there was no ciuill death by the law, whereby men or women were for euer depriued of matrimonye.
Kimhi ſayth that this letter Vau maketh ſomtimes a propoſition diſiunctiue. I graunt that the ſame is found in certayne places of the ſcripture. But it is not a fyrme argument, if we ſhall ſay: It is thus founde in ſome places, therfore it is ſo alſo in this place. But rather for the moſt part Vau maketh not a diſiunctiue propoſition, but a copulatiue. And vndoubtedly here it is brought in by expoſicion. It ſhalbe the Lords ſayth hee. After what manner? For I will offer it for a burnt offringe.
Farther they reaſon: The mayden deſyred ſpace of time, wherin to bewayle her virginity: neither ſaith ſhe, her ſoule or life. This argument hath a ſhew, but no ſtrength. For if death be to be lamented, vndoubtedlye then is it muche more to be lamented when it hath a bitter condicion annexed wyth it. The mayden was ſure to dye at ſome certaine time, but that ſeemed vntounto her very hard, that ſhe ſhould dye without childrē. Therfore that condicion is expreſſed, which made the cauſe more miſerable. He ſayth moreouer: It is not writen that Iiphtah offred her for a burnte offringe, but onelye that he dyd accordynge to hys vow. I aunſwere. That there is ſufficientelye ſayde, when it is ſayde that he did according to his vow. And it is often ſene, that in narrations the ſharpeſt thinges are not expreſſed. And althoughe the woordes be not all one, yet is it ſufficient, if they be equall.
Leui Ben Gerſon reaſoneth of this, that it is written, and ſhee knewe no man. Therfore ſayth he, ſhe liued, but maried not. But this reaſon hath no force. For this ſentence is an expoſition of the wordes that go before. For why did the virgins bewayle her? Becauſe ſhe was vnmaried, and was not coupled to anye manne.
But Liranus ſayth: The ſprite of the Lorde came vponupon Iiphtah, wherefore he vowed not his daughter for a burnt offring. This reaſon Auguſtine (as we hauehave hearde) aunſweareth. That ſpirite vndoubtedlye was the ſprite of ſtrength and warrelike knowledge. Neither can al that Iiphtah afterward did, be ſaid to hauehave come from the ſame ſpiryte. Moreouer ſayth Liranus, ther was twoo monethes ſpace betwene, wherin he aſked counſel of the prieſtes, and thei gaue him counſell to ſaue his daughter a Virgin. Yea but the auncient Iewes affirme that he was ſo ſtubburne that he woulde not aſke counſell of the prieſtes. And for that cauſe he is reproued by the Chaldey Paraphraſt. Neither is it any newe thinge, that men ſomtimes ſinne, becauſe they thinke not that they hauehave nede of counſel, and that is wont moſt of al to happen vntounto princes. For they hauehave a high mind and proude ſtomackes, wherfore they think that they hauehave counſell inough. But he is numbred among the ſayntes. To this Auguſtine aunſweareth alſo, that other were alſo numbred amonge the Sayntes, whiche yet greuouſlye ſinned. Laſtly he ſaith: If he had ſacrificed his doughter, he ſhould not hauehave fulfilled, but contaminated his vow. I graunt that. Neither is it any maruaile, that he erred, ſeyng he was a man, and might fall.
Now ſhoulde remayne to declare what I thinke of vowes in vniuerſall: but bycauſe of that matter, I hauehave written aboundauntly in an other place, namely in my Apology againſt Smith, therefore I remitte the reader to reade ouer that booke,