"be done by the commandments of the Lord; though "he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity and he shall bring a ram without blemish "out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass "offering unto the priest: and the priest shall make "an atonement for him concerning his ignorance "wherein he erred, and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him." And indeed there can be little doubt that the same sins are designated in this law, as in the law concerning the definite sin offerings; because, as every one must perceive, they are described in the same terms. Nor is it any more to be doubted, 'that these two laws prescribe two different kinds of victims. For one requires from every private person a female lamb or kid; the other, a ram from a person of any class. How came it to pass, then, that the same sins were to be expiated sometimes by one kind of victims, sometimes by another? Because the same sins were the objects, in some cases of certain consciousness, and in others of uncertain suspicion. And this, the Jews say, is expressly taught by Moses, who commands a sin offering to be immolated only when it was certain that the sin had been committed; but the victim of which we are now treating, when there was only a suspicion of the crime, but no certain knowledge of it. Whence they call every such victim a doubtful trespass offering. III. The certain trespass offering, like almost all the other piacular sacrifices, was appointed for the purgation of certain corporeal impurities, as well as for the expiation of trespasses properly so called. And in this kind are enumerated five victims, applicable to five different cases.-The first was prescribed for a Levit. v. 17. 18. + Compare Levit. iv. 2. 22. 27, with Levit. v. 17. 66 Nazarite, defiled in consequence of "any man dying very suddenly by him."* The second was to be offered by a leper, at the time of his purification.† The third was commanded for any man who violated the chastity of a Hebrew "bondmaid betrothed to an husband." Nearly allied to this was the crime of those Jews who married Gentile women. Wherefore some priests, who during their exile in Babylon had “taken strange wives," expiated their offence, after their return to Judea, by this kind of sacrifice. § This, however, as is correctly observed by the Jews, was not required by any precept of the law. Jarchi says: 'This was the counsel of that hour.'|| And Aben Ezra: We find no precept requiring a trespass offering from a man who marries a strange 'wife: but, perhaps, this was done by the counsel of 'the Sanhedrim.'-The fourth victim of this kind was appointed for all who ignorantly committed any fraud or injury in the holy things; and who, on making a compensation exceeding by one fifth the amount of the damage, and offering the prescribed victim, were forgiven.** The last was enjoined upon those, who denied with an oath their having possession of any thing belonging to another person, which they had been intrusted with, or had found, or had seized by violence, or gained by fraud.tt In order to their obtaining pardon for this sin, it was also commanded, that the property falsely denied, with the addition of one fifth of its value, should be restored to the original owner; or, in case of his death, to his relatives; or, if he left no relatives, to the priests. ‡‡ Concerning + Levit. xiv. 12. || Ad Ezr. x, 19. ¶ Ibid. * Num. vi. 9. 12. + Levit. xix. 20, 21. ** Levit. v. 15, 16. ‡‡ Num, v. 7, 8. damages done by one person to another, the law of Moses contained the following directions. Whoever made a spontaneous confession of a trespass committed against his neighbour, was required to make simple restitution, but nothing further.* Whoever denied a trespass, but whose crime was proved before the judges by upright witnesses, was not permitted to expiate his guilt by any piacular victim, but was commanded to make restitution, in some cases twofold, in others fourfold, in others fivefold, and in others only the simple amount of the damage done.† When any person was brought before the judges on a charge of trespass against his neighbour, and there were no witnesses to support the accusation, he was to exculpate himself by what was called "an oath of "the Lord." And in this case, according to the Jews, although he should perjure himself by denying the crime, yet if he should afterwards confess it, and restore to the injured party the whole amount, with an addition of one fifth of the amount, of the damage done, he was permitted to expiate his guilt by a piacular sacrifice: for that the privilege granted in other cases to the ignorance and imprudence of the sinner, namely the benefit of piacular sacrifice, was granted in this case to his repentance, and indeed to the general interest of the public. But no evidence of repentance could be more unequivocal than a clearly voluntary confession of a crime known to no witnesses and previously denied, and a compensation of the damage done. IV. But this opinion is strenuously opposed by Episcopius, who understands the law now under consideration, as having reference to no trespasses, but * Maimon. in Geniba. c. 1. + Exod. xxii. 4. 7. 1. 6. Exod. xxii. 11. those which were committed in ignorance or imprudence. 'It is no objection,' he says, 'that the text mentions a thing taken away by violence. For this ' crime may also be committed through error. As if ' a person believing a thing to be his own, which I really belongs to his neighbour, were to take it from 'his neighbour by force, and to claim it for himself."* But though this case may happen, yet many things forbid me to think that the law just mentioned had reference to no trespasses but such as arose from unintentional error. The terms in which it is expressed, "If a soul sin, and lie unto his neighbour in that "which was delivered to him to keep, or in fellow 66 ship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath "deceived his neighbour, or hath found that which "was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely;"-this is language so manifestly descriptive of trespasses of which the persons who commit them must be conscious, that it cannot without the greatest violence be applied to injuries which involve no culpable intention. Besides; in all passages which direct the oblation of piacular sacrifices for sins of ignorance, the misapplication of them to cases of intentional transgression is particularly guarded against, by the ignorance of the offending parties being expressly mentioned. § But in this passage not a word The word n when applied to verbal communications, as may be gathered from other passages, always includes the idea of deceit. The phrase denotes putting the hand fraudulently to another's property. (Exod. xxii. 8.) invariably signifies some kind of plunder. py is commonly used of a person who oppresses his neighbour in such a way as to involve himself in heavy guilt, which is rarely done in ignorance. And p generally denotes a falsehood which the speaker knows to be so at the time when he utters it. § Levit. iv. 13. 22. 27. v. 2, 3, 4. 18. is said of the ignorance of the offender, though, if the law related to unintentional errors, this was the more necessary to be specified, because the terms in which it is expressed, as must be evident to every reader, are so manifestly significant of transgressions committed with knowledge and design. Nor should it be forgotten, that the sacrifices appointed for those who sinned through ignorance, were commanded to be offered when they should know that they had sinned:* but nothing of this kind occurs in the law now under consideration; and for this obvious reason; because every person to whom it refers must be conscious of his sin at the time of its commission. V. Episcopius replies 'that this interpretation is contradictory to those passages, where God declares that "he" will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name ' in vain," and that whoever sinneth "presumptuously 'shall be cut off from among his people." Exod. 'xx. 7. Num. xv. 30.' But neither of these laws appear to me to afford any support to his argument. For, not to introduce any rabbinical subtleties on this subject, the first passage he cites, in which God declares that he will not hold him guiltless who taketh his name in vain, is a general law: and that which we are now discussing, is a special one. Now a special law is not limited by a general, but the general by the special. Consequently, the law here alleged by Episcopius ought always to be understood with the exception arising from this which we are now considering. Nor need we wonder, if the class of offenders designated in this law should be favoured with some peculiar mark of divine mercy. For they were persons who, when their guilt could not be |