the Amorites before Joshua. So God fought against the Philistines in Samuel's time. 1 Sam. vii. 10. So God fought for David. (See Notes on Ps. xviii. 7, &c.) So God seems to have fought against Sennacherib's army in Hezekiah's time, Isai. xxx. 30. "And so Hezekiah prophecied that God would appear against the enemies of his people." 1 Sam. ii. 10. And the reason why Deborah begins this song with taking notice that God appeared with thunder and rain for his people in the wilderness, ver. 4, 5, as he had done at the Red sea and at Mount Sinai, probably is because God never had so appeared for them in the deliverance that she celebrates in this song. God appeared so for his people when he took them first into covenant and made them his people; and now he had appeared in like manner again, and so appears to be still the same God; she therefore mentions it as celebrating his covenant faithfulness and then it is in no wise to be supposed that the river Kishon, that is elsewhere called a brook, Ps. lxxxiii. 9, was by any means sufficient to sweep away and drown an army, unless extraordinarily swelled by rain. Again it is probable, because the great battle in which the enemies of the church shall be destroyed, and that shall usher in the glorious times of the church that we read of in the xvi. chap. of Rev. is represented as being accompanied with thunder, and lightning, and hail; but it is compared to this battle at Megiddo, and therefore the place where it is fought, is said to be in the Hebrew tongue, Ar-Megeddon, i. e. the mount of Megiddo, and it is probable that the way Mr. Bedford mentions was the way in which the stars fought against Sisera: it is most likely that the stars fought against Sisera the same way that the sun fought against the Amorites, viz. by giving light to Israel, that they might be avenged of their enemies, Josh. x. 13. As this that God wrought now was parallel with that in Joshua's time, in that God fought against the enemies of Israel in a storm of thunder and lightning, so if we suppose the stars shone at night with miraculous brightness to help Israel against their enemies, it will in a good degree be parallel to another instance, for then the day was lengthened for them by the sun's standing still, and now the day is as it were lengthened by causing the stars in a miraculous manner to supply in a great measure the want of daylight; the sun fought then, and the stars now, and both by giving light, but only there is this difference, the sun fought standing still, but the stars fought in their courses or paths, as it is in the original. This instance is also very paraljel, also with that at the Red sea; for there God fought against their enemies with thunder and lightning, and drowned them in the Red sea; and here God fought against them with thunder and lightning, and drowned them with their horses and

chariots in the river Kishon. Hence we may possibly see a reason why the great destruction of God's enemies before the glorious times of the church is compared to this influence, rather than to either of those two great influences of God's wonderfully destroying his enemies, viz. because this is parallel to both, and what is peculiar to both, is here comprised, viz. the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red sea, which is peculiar to the first, has here an equivalent in the drowning of the host of Sisera in Kishon; and the sun's standing still and fighting, is here answered by the stars fighting in their courses, and the Holy Ghost might rather choose to compare it to this, because the sun's standing still was a representation of Christ's humiliation. (Vide Note on Josh. x. 12, 13, 14.) But Christ will be for them fighting as in a state of bumiliation at that time when introducing the glorious times of the church, and Christ will not then personally appear fighting as be did in his state of humiliation, but he will fight by his Spirit in his saints, which are called the stars of heaven.

Christ will fight by increasing their light, and so their enemies shall be destroyed, and they shall fight in their courses, and in running the race that God hath appointed them, and it is compared to this rather than the instance at the Red sea, for the children of Israel, and Moses, and the pillar of cloud being in the Red sea, was a type of Christ's humiliation.

That there should be such things at the battle with Sisera, and yet not mentioned particularly in the history, is not strange; for so there was thunder and lightning at the Red sea, and in the day when the sun and moon stood still, and at Baal-Perazim, and yet it is not mentioned in the history.

[364] Judg. vi. 37, 38, 39, 40. Concerning Gideon's fleece. There being first dew on the fleece, when it was dry upon all the earth besides, and then dew on all the ground, but dry upon the fleece, was a type of the Jews being in the first place the peculiar people of God, and favoured with spiritual blessings alone when all the world besides were destitute, and then the Jews being rejected, and remaining destitute of spiritual blessings when the Gentile nations all around them were favoured with them. Gideon was a type of Christ; his overcoming that innumerable multitude of Gentile nations with trumpets, and lamps, and earthen vessels, typifies Christ's conquering the Gentile world by the sound of the trumpet of the gospel, and by carrying the light of the gospel to them by ministers that are as earthen vessels; this event was accompanied with what was typified by the fleece. A sheep is a creature often used to typify Christ. The Jewish nation was as it were Christ's clothing; they are sometimes represented as such; first they only had the word and ordinances, and

the blessing of the Holy Spirit. It was remarkably poured out on them in the day of Pentecost: there was that plentiful of dew, that was a bowl full of water, when the Gentile nations were destitute; but afterwards the Gentile nations received the gospel, and God's Spirit was poured out on them, and the Jews were rejected, and have now remained dry for many ages.

[223] Judg. xi. 30, to the end. Concerning Jephthah's vow and his offering up his daughter. That Jephthah did not put his daughter to death and burn her in sacrifice, the following things evince.

I. The tenor of his vow, if we suppose it to be a lawful vow, did not oblige him to it; he promised that whatsoever came forth of the doors of his house to meet him, should surely be the Lord's, and he would offer it up for a burnt offering. He was obliged no more by this vow than only to deal with whatsoever came forth of the doors of his house to meet him, as those things that were holy to the Lord; and by right burnt offerings to God, were to be dealt with by God's own law, and the rules that he had given. Supposing it had been an ass, or some unclean beast that had come forth to meet him, as Jephthah did not know but it would, his vow would not have obliged him to have offered it in sacrifice, or actually to have made a burnt offering of it, but he must have dealt with it as the law of God directed to deal with an unclean beast that was not holy to the Lord, and that otherwise must have been actually a burnt offering to the Lord, had it not been for that legal incapacity of the impurity of its nature. All living things that were consecrated were to be as it were burnt offerings to God, i. e. they were actually to be offered up a burnt sacrifice, if not of a nature that rendered it incapable of this, and then in that case something else was to be done that God would accept instead of offering it up a burnt sacrifice. The direction we have in Levit. xxvii. 11, 12, 13. "And if it be any unclean beast of which they do not offer a sacrifice unto the Lord, then he shall present the beast before the priest, and the priest shall value it whether it be good or bad; as thou valuest it who art the priest, so shall it be. But if he will at all redeem it, then he shall add a fifth part thereunto of the estimation," i. e. it should be valued by the priest, and the man should, after it was valued, determine whether he would redeem it, or no, and if not he was to break his neck, if an ass. Exod. xiv. 12, 13, or if other unclean beast, it must be sold according to the priest's estimation. Levit. xxvii. 27, (as is elsewhere directed to be done to unclean beasts that were holy to the Lord, Exod. xxxiv. 20,) but if he would redeem it, if it were an ass, he was to redeem it with a lamb. Exod. xiv. 12, 13; if other unclean beast he was to add the fifth part to the priest's estimation, that is, he was to give the value of the beast, and a

fifth part more. And if Jephthah had done this in case an unclean beast had met him, he would have done according to his vow. If he had in such a case gone about to have offered an unclean beast a burnt sacrifice, he would dreadfully have provoked God, his vow could be supposed to oblige him to no other than only to deal with the unclean beast that was consecrated as the law of God directed to deal with it instead of offering it a burnt offering. And so when it was his daughter that met him, he might do to her according to his vow without making her a burnt sacrifice, if he did that to her which the law of God directed to be done to a dedicated person, instead of actually making them a burnt sacrifice, by reason of the incapacity which, by the mercy of God, attends a human person to be a burnt sacrifice. For to offer either a man or an unclean beast in sacrifice to God, are both mentioned as a great abomination to God, and as what were universally known so to be. Isai. lxvi. 3. "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man ; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood." But the more fully to clear up the difficulties that attend this matter I will particularly observe some things concerning the laws that related to persons that were consecrated, so as to become holy to the Lord.

1. Every living thing that was holy to the Lord, whether of men or beasts, was by right a burnt offering to God, and must be either actually made a burnt sacrifice, or something else must be done to it that God appointed to be in lieu of burning it in sacrifice. Thus the first born of men and beasts, they were all holy to the Lord, and must either be offered up a burnt sacrifice, or be redeemed, the first born of men and of unclean beasts were to be redeemed.

2. Persons that were devoted to God by a singular vow, unless they were those that were devoted to be accursed, (of which Levit. xxvii. 28, 29) were to be brought and presented before the Lord, that the priest might estimate them, and they were to redeem according to the priest's estimation. But beasts that might be sacrificed were to be sacrificed. Levit. xxvii. 7-9. (See $$$ on v. 2.)

3. Persons that were thus devoted to God by the vow of their parents, were yet to remain persons separate, and set apart for God after they were redeemed. This may appear from several things.

First. The redemption was only to redeem them from being slain in sacrifice; it was not to redeem them from being holy to the Lord, or persons set apart, and sanctified to him.

Secondly. The first-born were appointed to be given or consecrated to God. Exod. xiii. 2, and xxii. 19. And they were by God's law holy to the Lord, in the very same manner as persons

devoted to him by a singular vow, as is evident, because they were to be redeemed in the same mauner, and at the same price, as is evident by comparing the beginning of the xxvii. chapter of Levit. with Numb. xviii. 15, 16. God, in giving the rule for the redemption of the first-born in the latter place, evidently refers to what he had before appointed in the former place, concerning persons devoted by a singular vow, and so likewise the firstlings of unclean beasts were to be redeemed in the same manner as unclean beasts that were devoted, as appears by comparing Levit. xxvii. 11, 12, 13. with v. 27; but yet the first-born still remained separated to God as his special possession, after they were redeemed. Hence the Levites were accepted for the first-born to a tribe separated to God after the first-born were thus redeemed.

Thirdly. Persons that were dedicated to God by the vow of their parents, were Nazarites, as well as those that were separated by their own vows; the word Nazarite, signifies one that is separated; they might be separated by their parents' vows or their own. This is very evident in instances that we have in scripture. Thus Samuel was a Nazarite by the vow of his mother. 1 Sam. i. 11. "And she vowed a vow, and said, O Lord of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me and not forget thine handmaid, but will give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head." And so it was with respect to Samson, Judg. xiii. 5. But the Nazarite was to continue separated to God, as long as he remained under the vow by which he was devoted.

4. Those that were thus devoted to God to be Nazarites, were to the utmost of their power to abstain from all legal pollutions. Lam. iv. 7. With respect to defilements by dead bodies, they were required to keep themselves pure with greater strictness than the very priests, except the high priest alone, and were obliged to as great strictness as the high priest himself. Numb. vi. 6, 7. compared with Levit. xxi. 10, 11. And though only some legal impurities are expressly mentioned, as what the Nazarite was to avoid, yet it is to be understood, that he is to his utmost to separate himself from all legal defilements, agreeable to his name, a Nazarite, or a separate person. The Nazarite was to abstain from all legal impurities in like manner as the priests, and even as the high priest; there are like directions given to one as to the other; the high priest was on no account to defile himself with the dead, and was forbidden to drink wine, or strong drink when he went into the tabernacle of the congregation. Levit. x. 9. The priests were to abstain from all manner of legal defilement as far as in them lay. Levit. xxii., at the beginning.