lect from the opposition there appears to be between the curse in verse 23, and the blessing in verse 24. So the author may make his charge, if he pleases, not only against Deborah and Jael, but against the angel also. However, I make no question but a fair account may be given of the whole thing: or if, for want of light into all circumstances, we may happen to come short, yet the presumption certainly will lie on the side of Deborah, and the "angel of the Lord," against any man's judgment whatsoever, and is alone sufficient to decide the doubt.

1. I observe first, that it was prophesied beforehand, in relation to this fact of Jael's, that the Lord should SELL SISERA INTO THE HAND OF A WOMAN. And this was intended for a rebuke and a punishment to Barak for his backwardness, that he refused to go to war, unless Deborah would go with him: for she said to him 2, THE JOURNEY THAT THOU TAKEST (or rather, THE WAY THOU TAKEST; this behaviour of thinea, viz. in refusing to go without me) SHALL NOT BE FOR THINE HONOUR: FOR THE LORD SHALL SELL SISERA INTO THE HAND OF A WOMAN. Which was to intimate, that since Barak so much insisted upon a woman's attending him to the battle, a woman should divide the honour of the day with him: and so it proved.

2. We are next to consider, that what is done in very uncommon cases, and upon occasions very extraordinary, is not to be judged of by common rules. The Israelites had been under servitude now twenty years, during which time the oppressors imagined that their conquests over Israel were so many conquests over the God of Israel, as was natural enough to think. But now the time was come for God to manifest himself in a signal manner, and to make the world know that his power was paramount to every thing, and that he was "above all gods." The

battle to be that day fought was the Lord's battle, and the cause to be maintained was the Lord's cause. Any coldness (where help might be expected) was interpreted a kind of deserting the true God; as in the case of Meroz, who "came not to the help of the Lord." Neutrality or faintness in as many as owned the God of Israel, at such a time, was criminal. It is a poor thought to imagine, that the favours done to the people of Israel were for the sake only of that people. They were raised up, and placed in the view of the whole world, to be, as it were, God's throne, or theatre, whereon to display his wonders, and to proclaim his power to all the heathen countries round about. This was the Divine method of spreading the knowledge of himself among mankind, that the idolatrous nations might thereby learn and know (if disposed to attend to it) that he, and he only, was the true God. I say then, that God showed by his prodigies, during the battle of that day, that his honour was nearly concerned in it; besides that a forty years' rest to his people depended upon it. In these circumstances, Jael acted her part on the side of the God of Israel, to whom she was infinitely more obliged than she could be either to the enemy's captain Sisera, or to Jabin king of Hazor. It can scarce be doubted, but that Jael had some Divine direction or impulse to stir her up to do what she did. The enterprise was exceeding bold and hazardous, above the courage of her sex: and one would think that, had she been left to herself, she would have been content to let Sisera have lain there, till Barak should come and surprise him, who was then pursuing him. The resolution she took appears very extraordinary, and so has the marks and tokens of its being from the extraordinary hand of God. In this view all is clear and right: and the Objector will not be able to prove there was any treachery in it. For she ought to obey God rather than man: and all obligations to man cease when brought in competition with our higher obligations towards God.

b Wits. Miscellan. tom. i. p. 352.

JUDG. IX. 13.

AND THE VINE SAID UNTO THEM, SHOULD I LEAVE MY WINE, WHICH CHEERETH GOD AND MAN, AND GO TO BE PROMOTED OVER THE TREES?

Whereupon the Objector says, "What strange no❝tions must the bulk of mankind, could not their reason "direct them right, have of the Supreme Being, when "it is said, that WINE CHEERETH BOTH GOD AND "MAN?" We desire as much reason as possible to direct us right. But there is no reason at all in the inference which the author constantly aims at; namely, to reject Scripture, and to abide by reason alone. If he meant only, that men should in every thing make use of the reason which God had given them, (a point which nobody ever called in question,) why did he write all the tedious impertinence he has filled his book with? His design plainly is to teach us, not that reason is useful in interpreting Scripture, (which none can doubt of,) but that it is alone sufficient for every thing without Scripture; in which assertion he runs directly against reason, because no man with reason can reject Scriptures for reason duly attended to, as I before hinted, leads to Scripture, and takes Scripture in with it. But to return to our text. The Ob'jector would insinuate, that Scripture here suggests false and unworthy notions of the Supreme Being. He does not tell his readers that the words are part of a parable, ingeniously contrived by Jotham, the only then surviving son of Gideon. In a parable, or fiction, every word or sentence is not to be interpreted with utmost rigour; unJess we are to take it to be Scripture doctrine, that trees could talk. Jotham, to represent the forwardness and self-assurance of foolish persons, in undertaking high things which wiser and better men would decline, brings in a fable, setting forth how the olive-tree, the fig-tree, and the vine, and all the choice trees, had modestly re

b Christianity as Old, &c. p. 251.

fused a province not proper for them; but that the bramble, the unfittest of all, had accepted it notwithstanding, and was like to perform accordingly. Now the words here cited are the words of the vine, and probably run upon a Pagan hypothesis, allowable in a fable or apologue. So Castalio, Le Clerc, and others interpret the place: and they render the words, not God and man, but gods and men, which is better. Perhaps in such a kind of fiction, though it had a serious moral, it might be thought more decent to use the Pagan style of gods and men, than to introduce the true God, either by name or by implication: or Jotham, speaking to the idolatrous Sichemites, might adapt his speech to their notions, the better to be understood by them.

There is another construction which some have recommended, namely, that wine cheereth both high and low, elohim and anashim, princes and peasants; or else, princes and persons of quality. This last construction is maintained by Le Cene, and his translator Ross d. But I prefer the interpretation of Le Clerc above mentioned.

JUDG. XI. 30.

AND JEPHTHAH VOWED A VOW UNTO THE LORD, &c.

Jephthah's vow has been a subject of much debate in the learned world. However the more disputable points be determined, the Objector will never be able to prove what he aims ate, viz. that the God of Israel commanded or countenanced human sacrifices. Those that interpret that vow in the harshest sense call it rash or impious; and they censure Jephthah, as ignorant of the law of God. Others, who think the vow capable of a milder construction, acquit both the Scripture and Jephthah of all imputation in that affair. It would be tedious to enter into the detail of that matter; and it is needless, after what has

Ross's Essay for a New Translation of the Bible, p. 122.

Christianity as Old, &c. p. 96.

been done by many learned menf, to whose labours I can ad nothing. What is most probable is, that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter, nor intend any such thing. The words of the vow do not necessarily require it, since the Hebrew may be rendered, or I will offer, &c. as our margin renders, instead of, and I will offer, &c. All that is certain is, that he did devote her to the Lord; the result whereof probably was, that she was to continue a virgin all her days, and to serve in such a way as females might, for the use of the sanctuary; as in spinning, weaving, making vestments for the priests and Levites; or in grinding wheat, kneading flour, baking bread, or the like. Such kind of services, probably, she was condemned to for life. And thus was the vow executed. The reasons for this interpretation are produced at large by Le Clerc; and the chief of them are briefly summed up by Mr. Bedfords; whose words, because they are much to the purpose, and will not be long in transcribing, I shall here lay before the reader.

1. "If he had sacrificed her, the Scripture would, with"out doubt, have censured it as a very wicked and in"human act.

2. "In such a case, he would not have let her go up " and down upon the mountains for two months: for he "might suppose, that she would never have returned, " and then he could not have done as he had vowed.

3. "If she had gone upon the mountains, it would have "been to bewail her untimely end, whereas all that she "proposed was to bewail her virginity.

4. "The sacred story seems to favour this interpre"tation: that at the end of two months she returned to “her father, who did with her according to his vow that

f Le Clerc and Patrick on the text. Jenkins's Reasonableness, &c. vol. ii. cap, 18. Selden de Jure Nat. et Gent. lib. iv. cap. 11. Pfeiffer. Dub. Vexat. Centur. ii. Loc. 60. p. 393. In this last author are numbered up most of the writers, Jews and Christians, that have declared themselves either way upon the question. Himself takes the harshest side.

Bedford's Scripture Chronology, p. 522.