moment, conveyed away by Diana, to be a priestess in her temple, and a white hind miraculously substituted in her place. With this view, it matters not to us, whether Jephthah was the man of enlightened piety which he is described by some writers, or the ignorant barbarian assumed by others. His conduct, at the worst, was not below that of the most illustrious characters of the most polished nations of his age: it was such as naturally sprung out of the habits and modes of thinking of the times but it was so overruled by Divine Providence, as to the express form of it, and so related in the Divine Word, as to be representative of a highly important fact and state in the Christian warfare, and to teach a momentous spiritual truth. And this is all that we have to do with it, considered as one of the narratives of Divine Revelation. (1.) It is not then my intention to attempt to decide the much disputed question, whether Jephthah's daughter was really put to death or not. My own opinion certainly is, that she was not but I am led to form this opinion, more from a spiritual consideration which will appear in the sequel, than from any elucidation of the literal history which I have met with; for after all the pains that have been taken by the learned to make the literal history itself point to this conclusion, I still think that the most unforced inference from the language of the original, and from the history in general, is, that the sacrifice took place.* But, it will then be asked, why is this? Why is the history couched in such terms as would seem to imply that the dreadful rite was performed, when a statement of the contrary, if that was the fact, would be so agreeable to the feelings of every one who peruses the narrative, and would have obviated the objections which are thence urged against its holy nature? Perhaps the only satisfactory * See this fully proved in the Appendix, No. VI. answer which can be given is, Because the subjects treated of in the spiritual sense could not have been so fully represented, had not such an appearance been permitted in the letter. And if both these facts are true, viz. that Jephthah's daughter was not put to death, and yet that the literal narrative, without positively affirming it, seems to point to that inference; it may be remarked, by the way, that we have here such an example of the manner in which the historical relations of the Scriptures are composed, as may tend to clear up some other difficulties in the literal accounts. For this will shew, that fully to convey the spiritual sense is the sole object regarded in the construction of the narrative. The circumstances recorded with this design are true; but perhaps they do not immediately exhibit the whole truth, as regards the mere history; other circumstances, without the knowledge of which the historical relation seems confused and imperfect, being omitted, ⚫ because the mention of them would have been incompatible with the spiritual lesson intended. This, I am satisfied, is the true cause of the elliptical style so often observable in the sacred writers, and which renders it frequently so difficult to arrive at certainty respecting positive facts. Just so much is recorded as conveys the true spiritual sense, and no more and Divine Wisdom, which only regards things eternal, deems it of no moment whatever, though an impression be thus left of transient events, different from the true one. Man's salvation and his advancement to eternity in spiritual wisdom, are the sole objects intended to be promoted by the gift of the Holy Word but these no more depend upon his knowing with certainty whether Jephthah's daughter was put to death or not, than upon his knowing with certainty whether Mary Queen of Scots was privy to the death of Darnley Both inquiries have exercised the pens of many profound and elegant scholars, because man, as living in or not. : time, takes an interest in temporal events: but He who is Eternal, and whose communications to man are addressed to him as an heir of eternity, regards his notions on both subjects as matters indifferent, and no more deems it important that the facts of the one history should be certainly known, than of the other. But when we say, that, notwithstanding the fact was otherwise, yet it is suffered to appear in the letter as if Jephthah's daughter was actually sacrified, because otherwise the subjects treated of in the spiritual sense could not have been fully expressed the elucidation may perhaps be thought to render the matter still more obscure. It may be asked, If human sacrifices were, in fact, the greatest abominations that could be offered to insult the Majesty of heaven, and were strictly prohibited in the divine law on that account, how can it be necessary that an appearance of the performance of one should occur in this history; especially when it evidently is not related to represent any thing profane and unholy, but the contrary? It may be answered, For the same reason as it was necessary for Abraham to believe that it was required of him by the Lord to sacrifice his only son, Isaac; and to act under the influence of this belief so far, as to "stretch forth his hand, and take the knife to slay his son."* In the case of Abraham, also, the actual deed was prevented; but the preparations proceeded far enough to shew, that the offering up of a child as a sacrifice, taken only in one point of view, has a holy signification; though, taken in another, it is in the highest degree profane. The same may be concluded with probability from this circumstance, that, by the Levitical law, the first-born of every thing was considered as belonging to the Lord: "The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Sanctify unto me all the * Gen. xxii. 10. first-born; whatsoever openeth the womb, among the children of Israel, both of man and beast it is mine."* This is the first instance where this law is delivered and here the offspring of man and beast are put on the same footing; and the only idea proposed is, the entire surrender of them, however they were to be afterwards disposed of, to the Lord. Now the first-born of clean beasts were to be offered in sacrifice, without any alternative :† and for the first-born of unclean beasts, a clean one was to be substituted and sacrificed also; as a lamb or kid for an ass. But because no animal was considered as an equivalent for the first-born of man, he was to be redeemed by the payment of a price :§ beside which, also, the whole tribe of Levi was taken in lieu of all the first-born of Israel || but as the actual putting of them to death would have been horrible in itself, and would have borne the profane signification which we have intimated, they were consecrated to the Lord in a different way, and dedicated to the sacred service of the tabernacle; which, however, was considered as a figurative sacrifice, and a death to the world. This is evident from its being instituted in reference to the death of all the first-born of Egypt; " All the first-born are mine for on the day that I smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the first-born in Israel, both man and beast: mine they shall be I am the Lord." The death of the first-born of Egypt, both of men and cattle, was evidently representative of the spiritual death, as to all the leading sentiments and affections of their minds, of those who would oppress and destroy the true church of God, or the sacred principles which compose it; or a death to every thing holy and heavenly, true and good; and the consecration to * Ex. xiii. 1, 2. + Numb. xviii. 17. Ver. 15. Ex. xiii. 13. xviii. 16. || Ch. iii. 12. ¶ Ver. 13. § Numb. God of all the first-born of Israel, both of man and beast, must certainly be intended to represent something exactly the opposite of the former; an entire devotion to the Lord of all the leading sentiments and affections of the mind, and a death to every thing selfish and earthly. Therefore, all the first-born of beasts were actually offered in sacrifice: and if the offering in sacrifice of the first-born of man could, to use the appropriate distinction made by Bishop Warburton, form merely a significative and not at the same time a moral action, it would have been commanded too, as the most complete mode of exhibiting the representation intended but as it would have been a moral action likewise, and would, in this respect, have been most flagitious, consecration to the service of the tabernacle was appointed in its stead. (2.) Here then we shall have a key to that otherwise inexplicable mystery, the practice of human sacrifices. Every one must be apt, on the first thought, to wonder how so horrible a superstition, so repugnant to some of the strongest feelings of human nature, as the sacrificing of human victims, and especially of children by their parents, could ever have been tolerated among mankind for a moment; much more, how it could have been so extensively and constantly practised among the various,—indeed, as it would appear, among all the nations of antiquity, as history assures us was the fact.* Even the most polished nations of those times, the Greeks and Romans, were not untainted with it; and we are assured that it was practised to an enormous extent in this now favoured island of Britain. It is evident from numerous passages of Scripture, that the custom was particularly prevalent among the original inhabitants of Canaan and the surrounding countries, especially in the worship of * See Bryant's Dissertation on the Human Sacrifices of the Ancients; or Magee on Atonement and Sacrifice, Vol. 1, No. V. |