meet him. Now Jephthah furely could not but know that the law made a difference between clean beasts and unclean. What then could he expect to come out of his house to meet him? Sheep, and bullocks, and all beafts fit to be offered in facrifice, are ufually inclosed in paftures, or shut up in folds and stalls, and could not be expected to come out to meet him. A dog is the most likely of any brute animal to come forth to meet him but a dog was an unclean animal, and could not be offered up for a burnt-offering. And therefore some have contended, and not without great fhew of reafon, that the words are to be understood of an human creature, and fhould be rendered-Whosoever cometh forth of the doors of my house, &c. and fo both the Septuagint and Vulgate tranflation render it. And this makes Jephthah purpofely and defignedly to vow an human facrifice. But this was not only an abomination, which God hated, and would not accept, and a thing which no man could vow who had any fenfe of humanity or justice, but it was what was not in his power to perform. Parents among the Jews had no power over the lives of their children. They could not punish with death even a ftubborn and rebellious fon, without firit applying to the magiftrates; much less could they devote an innocent and dutiful child to death. Nor can I find that they had any power of life and death over their fervants. An Hebrew fervant they had only a property in for fix years at moft, and were obliged to let him go free in the Seventh year. And a fervant bought with money they might smite, and chaftife, but could not put to death. Jephthah's daughter did indeed give her confent that he should do with ber according to that which had proceeded out of his mouth: but, as he could not antecedently affure himself of this, fo he could by no means expect the like compliance from any of his fervants. Befides, as was before faid, he could offer no facrifice without the concurrence of the priests, which in this cafe he had no reafon to expect, nor power to force. So that this vow of Jephthah, as it is commonly understood, is not only a rash vow, but fuch a vow as we can scarce conceive any man. in his fenfes capable of making, a vow abfolutely impracticable, and impoffible to be performed.' For thefe and other reafons which have been occafionally ́alledged, feveral writers have endeavoured to make it appear, that the words of the vow have been ufually misunderstood; that the Hebrew particle vau, v. 31, fhould not be rendered and, but or; that, confequently, the paffage in difpute should be tranflated, Whatfoever cometh forth to meet me shall surely be the Lord's, OR I will offer it up for a burnt-offering, viz. if it be a fubject proper to be offered. The The learned author of this difcourfe propofes à different interpretation of this claufe. He thinks that the pronoun relates to the Lord, the word immediately preceding and then, as an ellipfis of the prepofition or sign of the dative cafe between the verb and its fuffix is not uncommon in the Hebrew phrafeology, the words may be rendered, And I will offer to him (that is, to the Lord) a burnt offering. He farther obferves, that, if the pronoun had related to the perfon, or animal, who was to have come forth to meet Jephthah, and who was to have been offered up, the next word should regularly have been expreffed ; whereas now there is nothing in the Hebrew to answer the word for in our translation. According to this interpretation, Jephthah vowed two things to dedicate whatfoever, or whofoever, fhould come out of his houfe to meet him, and alfo to offer on this occafion a burntoffering to the Lord, of fome clean beaft, which was allowed by the law. Take the vow in this fenfe, and there is nothing absurd in it, nothing but what Jephthah might reafonably And this vow he religiously performed; he devoted his daughter to the fervice of God. Vow. In the remaining part of this difcourfe the author illuftrates the fequel of the hiftory, and obviates the moft material ob jections against the opinion which he endeavours to fupport. In the appendix he answers the objections of Cappellus, who not only maintained that Jephthah facrificed his daughter, but justified him in so doing, afferting that by the law concerning vows, Lev. xxvii. 28, 29. parents were allowed to devote their children to destruction; and that, when they had made fuch a vow, they were obliged to carry it into execution. This chapter, fays Dr. Randolph, treats of vows, and the redemption of things vowed. In the case of a common vow, or neder, rendered in our tranflation, a fingular vow, the perfon, or thing, vowed was allowed to be redeemed; and the rules to be obferved in fuch redemptions are here fet forth. Towards the latter end of the chapter we have the exceptions to these rules. First, the firfilings of clean beafts are not to be at all fanctified, or made the fubject of a vow. Secondly, perfons or things devoted by a cherem, by private perfons, out of their own property, are not to be at all redeemed, but are to be unalienably the Lord's. Laftly, perfons devoted or doomed to deftruc tion by proper authority, are not to be at all redeemed, but muft furely be put to death. Here we fee the twenty-ninth verfe does not come in improperly, or abruptly, but follows naturally, as another exception to the rules above delivered.' On thefe topics the author has propofed his fentiments with candor and moderation, and feems to have vindicated the fa cred writings in a rational and fatisfactory manner. 22. A new Efay on Job xix. 23-27. Wherein it is afferted and evinced, that that famous Paffage is in all appearance an Interpolation of a much later Date than the rest of the Book. In three Letters. By James Francis Barnouin, C. 8vo. Price Hawes. In the fcriptures and other antient writings there are, as it is natural to imagine, many obfcure and almost inexplicable paffages, which have occafioned innumerable difputes. But after one of thefe paffages has been canvaffed by a thousand writers, it has frequently happened, that fome fagacious critic has engaged to prove, that all the wrangling of his predeceffors was in vain, and that the paffage in queftion is an interpolation. Upon this principle Mr. Barnouin attempts to obviate all the difficulties attending the explication of thefe remarkable words, I know that my Redeemer liveth, &c. On one fide it has been obferved, that Job must allude to a future ftate; firft, because these words contain a very expreflive defcription of death and the refurrection: fecondly, because it does not appear that he had any hopes of being reestablished in his former profperity: thirdly, because the introductory verfes (23, 24) prepare us to hear fomething great and extraordinary and laftly, because he immediately adds, my reins are confumed within me. q. d. "I feel myself already decay this body will foon be deprived of all ftrength;" language that never could (pring from a firm hope of future reeftablishment,, : : On the other had, fays this writer, after a careful perufal of this excellent book, I have not been able to discover a fingle paffage, except the place in queftion, from which I could reafonably conclude, that Job had any idea of a future exiftence. That holy man every-where reprefents death as the last period of happiness or mifery. If he had entertained any hopes of retribution in another life, it is natural to imagine that he would have made use of this confideration to confole himself in his affliction, and filence the reproaches of his friends. If we fuppofe that a future ftate was revealed to him at this juncture, it is furprising, that neither he nor his friends fhould afterwards take any notice of that important fubject; and it is particularly remarkable, that nothing of this kind is mentioned at the end of the book, where the Deity is introduced to juftify the innocence and reward the patience of his fervant Job. From From thefe obfervations it appears, that the words in difpute do not at all correfpond with the general tenor of the book; our author therefore concludes, that they could not be the words of Job, and confequently muft have been interpolated. He then proceeds to fhew that they interrupt the thread of Job's difcourfe. • Have pity upon me, fays he, have pity upon me, O my friends! for the hand of God hath touched me (even to the removing from me all hope, as a tree which is cut down, ver. to) why do ye perfecute me as God, and are not satisfied with my flesh? After these words come thofe in queftion, and then in ver 28, all of a fudden quitting fo fine and confolatory a subject, he afresh prefers the fame complaint as at ver. 22, and cries out: But ye fhould Jay, why perfecute ave him, feeing the root of the matter is found in me? i. e. as Grotius explains it, quia caufa mea bona habet fundamenta; or as Job himself, chap. vi. my righteousness is in it. What connection is there between these laft words and those which go immediately before? None at all. The cafe is not the fame with thofe of ver. 21, 22. In the fubfequent part of this effay Mr. Barnouin anfwers fome objections which may be raifed againft his hypothefis; and he fhews, that it is no more unwarrantable to fuppofe, that this paffage has been interpolated, than to affert the same thing of all the laft chapter of Deuteronomy, and other parts of fcripture, as many learned writers have not fcrupled to do. But however this opinion may be received, the author deferves commendation for the hint, and the ingenuity, modefty, and Candor with which it is propofed. Part I. 23. The New Oeconomy of Human Life. In three Parts. Of the Imperfections and Folly of Man confidered as a Relative and Social Being. Part II. Of the Duties of Man as a Member of the Community and an Individual. Part III. Of the leffer Duties of Life incumbent on Man as a Dependant Creature. 12mo. Pr. 15. Griffin. A celebrated piece entitled The Oeconomy of Human Life, which was published in 1750, has occafioned a number of imitations; of which this is not the meaneft. It is not, we.must confefs, diftinguished by any fuperior excellences, fuch as novelty and elevation of thought; beauty, force, and dignity of expreffion; but it contains many ufeful precepts, calculated to make the reader wiser and better, and enable him to direct his conduct in every fituation of life. 24. A Plan for Raifing Two Hundred and Eighty-two Thousand Pounds, for the Purpose of dfcharging the Debt remaining due to the Artificers of London Bridge; Completing the Bridge at Blackfriars, and Redeeming the Toll thereon; Embanking the North Side of the River Thames, between Paul's Wharf and Milford Lane; Repairing the Royal Exchange; and Rebuilding the Goal of Newgate. By a Citizen of London. 4to. Pr. 15. Rivington. The public is well acquainted with the name and refpectable. character of the gentleman who is the author of this plan, which he introduces by candidly recounting various late inftances of public fpirit in the citizens of London, and with a detail of the caufes that render the railing the propofed fum neceffary. As his propofal for embanking the north fide of the river Thames between Paul's Wharf and Milford Lane is new, and his reafons for it ferve to clear up fome objections that have been made to that noble erection of Black-friars bridge, which will do honour to the prefent age, we fhall lay it before our readers. But there is another improvement, which the course of the river and prefent form of the fhore between Paul's Wharf and Milford Lane, make very defireable, if not abfolutely neceffary. The wharfs within thofe limits, by their different and very unequal encroachments, not only form an irregular and difagreeable outline, but afford the owners of fome an undue preference and advantage over others; at the fame time that the reflected fett of the tides, both of ebb and flood, throws the force of the fiream upon the Surry fhore, oppofite to Blackfryars, and of confequence flackens the current on the London fide; this, together with the large fewers that empty themselves in the neighbourhood, occafions a conftant accumulation of fand, mud, and rubbili, which not only deftroys great part of the navigation at low water, but renders the wharfs inacceffible by the loaded craft even at high water, unless at fpringtides. The mud and filth thus accumulated in spite of the frequent expence the wharfingers are at to clear it away, when not covered with water, is extremely offensive in summer, and often dangerous to the health of the neighbouring inhabitants. The depth of water being by this circumftance thrown towards the Surry fhore, fo as to occafion a difference of eightyfeven feet, between the middle of high and low water, it was found abfolutely neceffary to place the center arch of the new bridge, if not upon, yet near the deepest water, and confequently much nearer the Surry than the London fhore. For, had the middle of that arch been placed exactly over the middle of high water, there would, at low water, have been 162 feet |