a plain Law that whosoever cursed his Father or Mother should die XXI Exod. 17. from whence they might justly infer he was to be so punished who cursed his heavenly Father there being also another Law against those that reviled the Judges and Rulers XXII Exod. 28. And therefore I take it they only doubted what kind of death he should die about which Moses consulted the Divine Majesty Ver. 13. Verse 13 And the LORD spake unto Moses saying It 's likely Moses went into the Sanctuary to enquire of God who from the Mercy-seat pronounced the following Sentence against him and also made a perpetual Law about this Case with some others Ver. 14. Verse 14 Bring forth him that cursed without the Camp This is the Sentence pronounced by the mouth of God from whom they expected it And first he orders the Criminal to be carried forth out of the Camp as an unclean V Numb 2 3. nay an accursed thing VII Josh 24. And let all that heard him Next he orders the Witnesses to be produced who heard him speak the blasphemous words Lay their hands upon his head This was a peculiar thing in this Case Hands being laid upon no Man's head condemned by the Sanhedrim but only upon a Blasphemer By which Ceremony they solemnly declared that they had given a true testimony against him and thought him worthy of the Death he was condemned to suffer And perhaps prayed God that all the punishment of this Sin might fall upon this Man and not upon them nor the rest of the People And so the Jews tell us their manner was to say Let thy blood be upon thy own head which thou hast brought on thy self by thy own guilt And let all the Congregation stone him This was the last part of the Sentence that when they that heard him Curse had taken off their hands all the Congregation should stone him Which is the same Punishment the Law inflicted on him that cursed his Father or his Mother XX. 9. See there Ver. 15. Verse 15 And thou shalt speak unto the Children of Israel saying Upon this occasion a new Law is made in express terms against Blasphemy Whosoever curseth his God Some of the Hebrews understand this of a Gentile who lived among them and was not yet solemnly made a Proselyte of the Gate that if he cursed the God which was worshipped in his Country he should die for it See Selden Lib. II. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. ult And Procopius Gazaeus extends the words to such Persons as cursed the God they worshipped though he were a false God Which is according to the common Rule of the Talmudists that where we find these words isch isch man man which we well translate whosoever they comprehend Gentiles as well as Jews But no doubt this Law particularly concerned the People of Israel whom God intended by this Law to preserve from such horrid impiety as is here mentioned Shall bear his sin Be stoned See XX. 9. If the word curseth be understood in the proper sense Procopius well observes that nothing could be more sensless than this Sin and upon that account deserved stoning for he that curseth his God upon what God will he call to confirm his curse But the Hebrew words seems to import only speaking contemptuously of God Ver. 16. Verse 16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death c. It is uncertain whether this be an higher degree of the Sin mentioned in the foregoing Verse or only a repetition of the same Law with a more express declaration of the punishment he should bear for his sin The Jews unreasonably understand it of him alone that expressed the Name i. e. the most holy Name of God as they say in Sanhedrim cap. 7. num 5. where Joh. Ã Coch observes out of the Hierusalem Targum on XXXII Deut. that it is thus explained Wo unto those that in their Execrations use the holy Name which is not lawful for the highest Angel to express But this is a piece of their Superstition the meaning undoubtedly is That if any Man reproached the most High he should die for it but the meer pronouncing his holy Name could be no Crime when Men might swear by it though not take it in vain VI Deut. 13. XX Exod. 7. All the Congregation shall certainly stone him As they were ordered to do with the present Offender v. 14. As well the stranger as he that is born in the Land c. By Stranger may be meant a Proselyte like the Egyptian whose Offence was the occasion of this Law But the Jews extend it to Samaritans and Gentiles only they say such were to be punished by the Sword and not by Stoning Ver. 17. Verse 17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death This Law was given before XXI Exod 12. And it is not easie to give an account why it is here repeated after the Case of a Blasphemer Perhaps it was upon the occasion of the last words in the foregoing Verse As well the stranger as he that is born in the land when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD shall be put to death For after the following Laws they are repeated again as a general Rule v. 22. that no Man might think it hard a Stranger should be punished for Blasphemy as much as an Israelite when in other Cases the same Judgment passed upon them both Procopius Gazaeus thinks a Murderer is joyned with a Blasphemer because they have the same mind and intention the one desiring to destroy God if it were possible as the other doth his Neighbour Therefore the Law puts them together just as on the contrary when it commands the love of God it couples with it the love of our Neighbour So he Ver. 18. Verse 18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good beast for beast It was not incongruous as the same Procopius speaks to annex unto the Law against Murder a Law against other Injuries And concerning this see XXI Exod. 33 34. For the Hebrew word Behemah here used signifies such domesticktame Beasts as are there mentioned Ver. 19 20. Verse 19 20. If a man cause a blemish in his neighbour as he hath done so shall it be done to him c. This Law concerns only free Persons not their Slaves and hath been explained XXI Exod. 24 25. Ver. 21. Verse 21 And he that killeth a beast he shall restore it and he that killeth a man he shall be put to death This is a short repetition of the two first Laws here mentioned v. 17 18. to make them the more regarded Ver. 22. Verse 22 Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the stranger as for one of your own Country In these and in all other Cases as well as Blasphemy v. 16. you and the Stranger shall be judged by one and the same Law For I am the LORD your God Who will neither favour
Imposition of Hands belongs to Confession See Dr. Owtram de Sacrif Lib. I. cap. 15. n. 8. And it is observable that the High-Priest made Confession three times on this day First for himself and then for his Brethren the Priests and now for the whole Congregation saying this Prayer as they tell us in Joma cap. 6. sect 2. I beseech thee O LORD this People the House of Israel have done wickedly and been rebellious and sinned before thee I beseech thee now O LORD expiate the Iniquities the Rebellions and the Sins which thy People the House of Israel have done wickedly transgressed and sinned before thee According as it is written in the Law of Moses thy Servant viz. in the 30th Verse of this Chapter on that day he shall make an Atonement for you to cleanse you that you may be clean from all your Sins before the LORD Which last word LORD as soon as all the Priests and the People that were in the Court heard pronounced by the High-Priest they bowed and fell down flat upon their Faces and worshipped saying Blessed be the LORD let the Glory of his Kingdom be for ever All the iniquities of the Children of Israel and all their transgressions in all their sins These three words Iniquities Transgressions and Sins are the very words used by the High-Priest in his Confession before-mentioned which comprehend all manner of Offences whether committed deliberately or not against Negative or Affirmative Precepts as they call them Grotius in his Notes on this place hath thus distinguished them but whether exactly or not cannot be determined But it is probable that Sins signifie Offences committed by Error not deliberately Iniquities such as were deliberately committed against the prohibiting Precepts and Transgressions those that were deliberately committed against commanding Precepts All except those to which cutting off was threatned which were not expiated by any Sacrifice Putting them upon the head of the Goat By putting his hands on the head of the Goat and confessing their Sins over him with Prayer to God to remit them they were all charged upon the Goat and the punishment of them transferred from the Israelites unto it Just as the Sins of all Mankind were afterwards laid upon our Saviour Christ as the Prophet speaks LIII Isa 6. who his own self bare our sins in his own body saith S. Peter 1. II. 24. the punishment passing from us to him who was made Sin for us 2 Corinth V. 21. Which Expressions are manifest Allusions unto this Sacrifice on the great Day of Expiation which was the most illustrious Figure of the Sacrifice of Christ and shows beyond all reasonable contradiction that Christ suffered in our stead and not meerly for our benefit For it is very evident the Sacrifice offered on this day was put in the place of the People and all their Sins that is the punishment of them laid upon its head And it appears by the form of all other Sin-offerings which were occasionally offered at other times that he who brought them put off the guilt which he had contracted from himself and laid it on the Sacrifice which was to die for him Which he did by laying his hand on the head of it at the door of the Tabernacle while it was yet alive Then with his hand so placed he made a Confession of his Sins for which he desired forgiveness by the offering of this Sacrifice That is he prayed by these Rites that the Beast being offered and slain he might be spared from punishment which was a plain transferring the guilt from himself unto his Sacrifice Which being yet alive and thus laded with his guilt was then brought to the Altar and there slain for the guilty Person That is it died in his stead for there was no other reason of its being put to death there and in that manner I have insisted the longer on this because nothing can better explain the true meaning of Christ's dying for us which was by transferring the suffering due to our Sins upon him as the manner was in the Legal Sacrifices Which was a thing let me add so notorious in the World that other Nations from hence derived the like custom to that here mentioned by Moses Particularly the Egyptians as David Chytraeus hath long ago observed and since him many others out of Herodotus who tells us Lib. II. cap. 39. that they made this Execration over the Head of the Beast which they sacrificed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that if any evil was to fall either on themselves who sacrificed or upon the whole Country of Egypt it might be turned upon the head of that Beast And this he saith was the custom over all the Land of Egypt and the reason why no Egyptian would taste of the head of any Animal Nor was this the Notion of the Egyptians only but of other Countries also who called those Sacrifices which were offered for them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sacrificed in their stead and the Life of the Beast given for theirs Thus the Greeks sometimes sacrificed Men when some very heavy Calamity was fallen upon them whom they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expiations to purge them for their Sins by suffering in their room For they prayed thus over him who was devoted every year for the averting Evils from them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be thou our Cleansing that is our Preservative and Redemption or Ransom And with these words they threw him into the Sea as a Sacrifice to Neptune And thus the Massilienses did as Servius tells us upon the 3d Aenead in time of a Plague praying ut in ipsum reciderent mala totius Civitatis that on him might fall the Evils of the whole City And shall send him away As soon as the Confession was over the Goat was sent away By the hand of a fit man By a Man prepared before hand as the Ancients interpret it or that stood ready for this purpose Jonathan saith he was designed for it the year before others say only the day before and that the High-Priest appointed him who might appoint any body whom he thought fit but did not usually appoint an Israelite as they say in Joma cap. 6. n. 3. Into the wilderness It is not certainly known what Wilderness this was but the Hebrews call it the Wilderness of Tzuk which they say was ten Miles from Jerusalem And they say that at the end of each Mile there was a Tabernacle erected where Men stood ready with Meat and drink which they offered to him that went with the Goat lest he should faint by the way And the Nobles of Jerusalem they add accompanied him the first Mile further than which they might not go because this day was a Sabbath After which they that were in the first Tabernacle accompanied him to the next and they that were there to the third and so forward to the last that they might be sure to have this great work done of carrying their Sins quite
there But the Expiation of the High-Priest himself who was to make the Expiation of the Sanctuary preceded all the rest as is apparent from v. 11. Ver. 34. Verse 34 And this shall be an everlasting statute The repetition of this the third time See v. 29 31. shows of how great importance it was that this annual Solemnity should be observed Vnto you The High-Priests before-mentioned of whom he speaks in the Plural Number because none of them could continue always as I observed v. 32. but enjoyed the Office successively upon the death of their Predecessors To make an atonement for the Children of Israel for all their sins once a year This is only a repetition of what was said v. 30. that it should be incumbent on the High-Priest by a perpetual Obligation to make an Atonement for the Peoples sins on this day as it was incumbent on the People v. 29. to afflict their Souls upon this day And he did as the LORD commanded Moses The Service of this day was immediately performed by Aaron according to the fore-named order CHAP. XVII Ver. 1. Verse 1 AND the LORD spake unto Moses saying After he had ordered the great Anniversary Sacrifice in the foregoing Chapter he gives some Directions about other Sacrifices for which there would be occasion every day Ver. 2. Verse 2 Speak unto Aaron and his Sons and all the Children of Israel Who were all concerned in what follows and therefore this Command is directed to the whole house of Israel v. 3. to whom this was delivered it is likely by their Elders or else Moses himself went from Tribe to Tribe and spake to their several Families And say unto them This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded Enjoyned by a Special Law Ver. 3. Verse 3 Whatsoever man there be of the House of Israel that killeth an Ox or Lamb or Goat viz. For a Sacrifice or Offering as it follows v. 4. these being the only Creatures of the Herd and the Flock that were permitted to be brought to God's Altar There are those indeed who think Moses speaks of killing these Creatures for common use which it was lawful for them to do any where after they came to the Land of Canaan XII Deut. 15. but now they were not to kill them for their food unless they brought them to the door of the Tabernacle and there first sacrificed some part of them to the LORD before they tasted of them themselves By which their sacrificing to Daemons was prevented to which they were prone v. 7. and they also constantly feasted with God while they dwelt in the Wilderness But this is better founded upon XII Deut. 20 21. where it is supposed that they had thus done while they remained in the Wilderness and were so near to the House of God that they might easily bring thither every Beast they killed for ordinary use But they were dispensed withal as to this when they came into Canaan and could not possibly when they had a mind to eat Flesh go so far as to the Tabernacle or Temple which was many Miles from some of them Instead whereof they were bound to come at the three great Festivals and appear before God at his House wheresoever they dwelt In the Camp or that killeth it out of the Camp This seems to show that he doth not speak of killing these Beasts ad usum vescendi as St. Austin's words are for the use of eating for that they did not do out of the Camp but in their Tents but de Sacrificiis he speaks concerning Sacrifices For he prohibits as he goes on private Sacrifices lest every Man should take upon him to be a Priest c. Ver. 4. Verse 4 And bringeth it not unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation to offer an offering unto the LORD In ancient time every Man had performed the Office of a Priest in his own Family But now that liberty is taken away because they had abused it to Idolatry and every Man was bound to bring his Sacrifice to the House of God where none but the Sons of Aaron could officiate and had the most sacred Obligations on them to offer only to the LORD The very Heathens themselves in future times found it necessary to enact the very same as appears by Plato in the latter end of his Tenth Book of Laws where he hath these memorable words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let this be a Law imposed absolutely upon all that no Man whatsoever have a sacred place in private Houses but when he hath a mind to offer Sacrifice let him go to the publick Temples and deliver his Sacrifice to the Priests whether Men or Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose business it is to take care that these things be performed in an holy manner By which it appears that these were two established Principles of Religion in wise Mens minds to Sacrifice publickly and to bring their Sacrifices to the Priests who were to take care to offer them purely Unto which Moses adds one thing more that their publick Sacrifices should be offered only at one place which was a most efficacious preservative from all strange Worship nothing being done but under the Eye of the Ministers of Religion and the Governours of the People Insomuch that St. Chrysostom as our learned Dr. Spencer observes Lib. I. de Rit Leg. Hebr. L. I. cap. 4. sect 1. calls Jerusalem which was afterwards established to be this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a kind of bond or knot whereby the whole Nation were tied fast to the Judaical Religion Before the Tabernacle of the LORD Before the Divine Majesty which dwelt in the Tabernacle round about which they all inhabited and were so near it while they travelled in the Wilderness that as there was no trouble in bringing all their Sacrifices thither so they knew certainly whether to go And thus the Hebrew Doctors observe it was when they came into Canaan where while the Tabernacle was fixed in Shilo none might Sacrifice any where else But when it wandred uncertainly after Shilo was destroyed being sometimes in Mispeh sometimes at Gilgal and at Nob and Gibeon and the House of Obed-Edom they fancy it was lawful to Sacrifice in other places For so we find Samuel did 1. Sam. VII 9. IX 13. where he sacrificed in an high place XI 15. XVI 2. and David 2 Sam. XXIV 18. and Elias 1 Kings XVIII 23. But these may be thought extraordinary acts done by an immediate warrant from God for none of these Persons were Priests but Prophets guided by Divine Inspirations See Dr. Owtram Lib. I. de Sacrific cap. 2. Blood shall be imputed unto that man he hath shed blood He was to be punished as a Murderer that is die for it For to have Blood imputed to a Man in the Hebrew phrase or to be guilty of Blood is to be liable to have his Blood shed or to lose his Life Which as of old it was
are threatned to be cut off if they did not observe this Law Ver. 10. Verse 10 And what man soever he be of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among you See v. 8. That eateth any manner of blood This is forbidden before III. 17. and repeated again VII 26. See both those places where it is explained what Blood he means either of Birds or Beasts Nothing is said of Fishes because they were not offered at the Altar and have little Blood in them nor is there any direction given any where how they should be killed It is said indeed in this place that they should not eat any manner of Blood but the meaning seems to be neither of Blood offered at the Altar nor of Beasts killed for their own use Or else it is to be limited as before to the Blood of Beasts and Birds v. 13. for Fishes were not at all considered And here the reason is added why they should not eat Blood which was not mentioned in the fore-named places because it was the Life of the Beast and was therefore reserved to make Atonement for their Souls I will even set my face against that soul c. That is be extreamly angry with him and severely punish him by cutting him off as it here follows from the Body of the Nation Maimonides observes in the fore-named place More Nevoch P. III. cap. 46. that this is the same Expression which is used against him that offered his Children to Moloch XX. 3. and that this phrase is never used in Scripture concerning any other sin but only these two Idolatry and eating Blood For the eating of Blood gave occasion he shows to one kind of Idolatry in the worshipping of Daemons whose Food the ancient Idolaters imagined the Blood was by eating of which their Worshippers had Communion with them See XVI Psal 4. and Grotius there Ver. 11. Verse 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it to you upon the Altar to make an atonement for your souls c. Some think here are two distinct Reasons against eating of Blood but the words as they lie in the Hebrew may well be translated Because the life of the flesh of any Beast that is is in the blood therefore I have given it to you or appointed it for you upon the Altar to make an atonement c. Which is as much as to say The Life of the Beast lying in the Blood I have ordained it to expiate your sins that by its death in your stead your life may be preserved and therefore I require you not to eat that which is appointed for so holy an end For it would have been very unseemly if they had vulgarly used that to which they owed the favour of God and their very Lives Nothing could be more rational than this Precept viz. That a thing so sacred as to be peculiarly appointed for them upon the Altar should not lose that honour and esteem that was due to it As the Blood would have done if it had been allowed to be commonly eaten for that is very contemptible which goes into the Draught as our Saviour speaks and at last becomes Ordure For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul The Blood that is of the Sacrifices which by God's appointment are offered to expiate your sins that is to preserve you from perishing For to make an Atonement and to be a Ransom are the very same thing as appears from XXX Exod. 12. compared with v. 15 16. And to be a Ransom is to deliver from Death as appears from the words in that place they shall every Man give a Ransom for his Soul unto the LORD that there be no Plague among them For the sins of the Sacrificer being laid upon the Beast which he offered by imposition of his hand on its Head and confessing them there they were taken away by the Blood of that Beast unto which they were translated And that not meerly by the Obedience of him that offered the Sacrifice which the followers of Socinus say God accepted but by the Blood of the Sacrifice it self as these words expresly declare which was offered in his stead Thus Theodoret upon these words God commanded the Soul of the Irrational Creature with its Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. to be offered instead of thy Rational and Immortal Soul And thus the Jews themselves understand it particularly Aben-Ezra upon these words saith the Soul instead of the Soul i.e. the Soul of the Beast was offered instead of the Soul of the Man And R. Solomon Jarchi to the same purpose One Soul comes and makes Expiation for another Soul And Maimonides more largely I have spared the Soul of the Man and given this Blood upon the Altar that the Soul of the Beast may make Expiation for the Soul of the Man And so Abarbanel and many more which may be seen in Dr. Owtram's most learned Book De Sacrificiis Lib. I. cap. 22. n. 11. Ver. 12. Verse 12 Therefore I said unto the Children of Israel No soul of you shall eat blood neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood What other reason soever there was before for not eating Blood See IX Gen. 4. this is the reason why God forbad it to the children of Israel and to all that joyned themselves unto their Religion Ver. 13. Verse 13 And whatsoever man there be of the Children of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among you which hunteth and catcheth any Beast or Fowl that may be eaten Though no other Beasts or Fowls be mentioned but those that were taken in Hunting that being a very common thing in those days yet the Precept extends to all those that were bred at home and were allowed by the Law for their Food So a MS. Author mentioned by J. Wagenseil in his Annotations upon Sota cap. 2. excerpt Gemarae n. 6. where he puts abundance of Cases upon this Subject He shall even pour out the blood thereof and cover it with dust Though it was not the Blood of a Sacrifice offered at the Altar but of a Beast or Bird killed for their own use they might not eat it but bury it in the Ground lest any Beast should lick it up as it is commonly interpreted Maimonides hath found a deeper reason for this which is That no Body might meet and feast about it By which means Moses broke their Society and Fellowship with Daemons who in those times were thought to feed upon the Blood in a Bowl or Hole whilst their Worshippers sate about it eating of the Flesh So he writes in the place often before-mentioned More Nevoch P. III. cap. 46. And this was the more necessary while they remained in the Wilderness because Daemons were wont to haunt such places and there appear but not in Cities or habitable Places See Mr. Selden Lib. II. de Synedr cap. 4. p. 201. If a Man
to be burnt XXI 9. and the Adulterer to be strangled as the Jews understand it If a man lay with a Virgin espoused to another man but not yet married they were both to be stoned by the express words of the Law XXII Deut. 23. But Adultery with a married Woman if we may credit the Jewish Doctors was punished with strangling See Selden Lib. III. Vxor Hebr. cap. 2. For when we meet with this phrase they shall surely die it is always meant of Death by the Sentence of the House of Judgment as they speak and if the Law add no more they resolve it to be by strangling If these words be added their blood shall be upon them then they say they were to be stoned This I observed before and shall add now that strangling as they describe it was not such a punishment as our hanging men by the neck but the Criminal being stuck up to the knees in dung they tied a Napkin about his Neck and drawing it hard at both ends choaked him There was such a thing as hanging men on a Gallows as we speak but it was after they were dead and only such as had been stoned and not all them neither but such alone as had been stoned for Blasphemy or Adultery See Joh. Carpzovius upon Schickard's Jus Regium cap. 4. Theorem XIV The greatest thing that can be objected against this account of the punishment of Adultery is that which St. John tells us the Jews said concerning the Woman taken in the very act of it Moses in the Law commanded us that such should be stoned VIII Joh. 5. But it may be answered that this Woman was espoused only and not yet married and so by the Law as I observed before was to be stoned XXII Deut. 23 24. If this seem absurd that the Adultery of one espoused should be accounted a greater Crime than of one married for stoning was an heavier punishment than strangling it ought to be considered that the love of those who were newly espoused was commonly more fervent than theirs who were married especially among the Jews who for light causes were wont to be divorced from their Wives And therefore no wonder if the Adultery of the former was judged a greater Crime than of the latter Ver. 11. Verse 11 And the man that lieth with his fathers wife c. This was condemned before as an heinous sin XVIII 8. and now the penalty of Death is inflicted upon the Offenders Their blood shall be upon them All the Hebrew Doctors agree that wheresoever we meet with this phrase it is meant of stoning as I before observed Ver. 12. Verse 12 If a man lie with his daughter-in-law both of them shall surely be put to death This was forbidden XVIII 15. and the same penalty is here enacted as against the former Crime They have wrought confusion By perverting the order which God hath appointed and making great disturbance in the Family c. It is the same word that is used for a more foul sin XVIII 23. and therefore shows this to be an abominable mixture Ver. 13. Verse 13 If a man also lie with mankind c. This also was condemned before XVIII 22. but the penalty not declared till now They shall surely be put to death c. By stoning unless one of them was under a force and then that Law took place which we find XXII Deut. 25 26. Ver. 14. Verse 14 And if a man take a wife and her mother it is wickedness See XVIII 17. They shall be burnt with fire Which was an higher punishment than stoning as that was higher than strangling R. Levi Barcelonita Praecept CCXXIV. describes the manner of it to have been thus They set the Malefactor in dung up to the knees and then tied a Cloath about his Neck which was drawn by the two Witnesses till they made his Mouth gape into which they poured hot melted Lead down his Throat which burnt his bowels And thus the rest of the Talmudists expound it But I see no good Authority they have for it the word for burning being the same that is used when mention is made of burning with Fire and Faggots as we speak And R. Elieser ben Zadock saith he saw a Priest's Daughter thus burnt for Fornication But the Doctors commonly say the Judges were ignorant of the Law or that they were Sadducees who then had got into the Seat of Judgment who followed the very Letter of the Scripture Both he and they That is both the Mother and Daughter if the Mother were consenting to it Otherwise only the Woman that offended From whence the Karaites formed this Rule after the same manner that men were obliged by a Precept in Scripture the Women were obliged also Selden Lib. Uxor Hebr. cap. 5. That there be no wickedness among you That others may be deterred from the commission of such enormous Crimes For the Hebrew word imports more than ordinary wickedness See XVIII 17. Ver. 15. Verse 15 And if a man lie with a beast he shall surely be put to death See XVIII 23. This Death was by stoning as appears from the next Verse And ye shall slay the beast Just as they were to destroy not only the Inhabitants of an Apostate City but their Cattel also c. XIII Deut. 15 16. to terrifie others from committing the like sin And as the Talmudists observe that there might be no Memorial left of so foul a Crime by Mens pointing at the Beast and saying There goes the Beast that such a Man lay with They might have added to prevent monstrous Births See Selden Lib. I. de Jure Nat. Gent. cap. 4. Maimonides gives a good reason why a Beast that killed a Man should be slain as a punishment to the Owner for looking no better after it but his application of it to this matter seems impertinent More Nevoch P. III. cap. 40. Bochartus his Gloss is far better The Beast was killed as an Instrument in the Crime just as a Forger of Deeds is hanged with his Pen and Counterfeit Seals and a Conjurer with his Magical Books and Characters And this also is useful for an Example though not to other Beasts yet to Men whose concern it is to consider that if Beasts were not spared who were not capable of sinning what would become of them who committed such Crimes against the known Law of God and the impressions of Nature it self Hierozoicon P. I. Lib. 2. cap. 16. Ver. 16. Verse 16 Their blood shall be upon them This relates to the Man and the Woman mentioned in these two Verses who committed this foul Crime for a Beast is not capable of punishment But as the Canon Law speaks Pecora inde credendum est jussa interfici quia tali flagitio contaminata refricant facti memoriam it is to be believed that the Beasts which were polluted with such a flagitious wickedness were therefore commanded to be slain because they rub'd up the memory of