scribed one, and in another the other. | that most of the offences which were to Lightfoot, guided by rabbinical authority, makes the difference to consist in this, that both indeed were offered for the same sort of transgressions, but the DEN âshẩm, or trespass-offering was to be offered when it was doubtful whether a person had transgressed or not; as for instance, suppose that he had eaten fat, and was afterwards in doubt whether it was the fat belonging to the mscular flesh, which was lawful to be eaten, or the fat of the inwards, which was unlawful; then he was to offer an DEN âsham. But if it were certain, und he knew that he had trespassed, he must offer the DП 'kattââh, or sin-offering. Maimonides is of opinion that the offences for which the DN âshậm was offered were inferior to those for which the 'hattâûh was offered. Bochart, on the other hand, and we think with much better reason, holds that the offences expiated by DN âshâm were more grievous than those expiated by 'hattââh. Aben Ezra makes D'hattââh to signify a sacrifice offered for purging offences committed through ignorance of the law; DUN âshâm for such as were committed through forgetfulness of it. Others again make the difference to be, that the 'hattââh was for offences proved by witnesses; the DN âshâm for secret faults known to others only by the offender's confession. But against all these hypotheses very specious objections may be urged, and it is therefore to the following that we are disposed to give the preference.

It is contended, and we think upon very plausible grounds, by several distinguished critics, that the class of offences to which the word UN âshâm is applied, although ultimately committed against God, were yet always, or generally, such as involved an injury towards one's neighbor; and in this sense they affirm that our English word trespass is its most suitable representative. It is certain, as a matter of fact,

be expiated by the Trespass-offering were of this character. Indeed, Outram, whose authority on this subject is per haps of more weight than that of any other writer, observes that in all cases where the DN ashâm was required, there was some wrong or injury done to a neighbor, except in the case of the Nazarite defiled by the dead, Num. 6. 12, and of the leper, Lev. 14. 12. Still we cannot positively affirm that this is the designed import of the terin, and are obliged therefore to leave the matter enveloped more or less in that cloud of obscurity which, as we have already remarked in the introduction to the preceding chapter, rests upon the distinction between the Sin and the Trespass-offering. Thus much however is clear, that the class of offences for which the Trespass-offering was to be brought included those which, though not amounting to wilful and presumptuous acts, were yet usually committed against knowledge, and were therefore of a higher grade of guilt than the sins of mere ignorance and infirmity which were contemplated by the Sin-offerings. Several such are mentioned in the commencement of this chapter, viz. the concealing of any part of the truth by a witness properly adjured; the touching any unclean person or thing; and the swearing rashly that he would do what might be sinful, or what he might not be able to perform. In all these cases a female lamb or kid was to be offered, and confession made of guilt. The ceremonies of oblation were precisely the same as those of the Sin-offering, except that the blood, instead of being put upon the horns of the altar, was to be sprinkled round about the altar. If the offender was too poor to give a lamb, he was to bring two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, the one for this particular sin which burdened his conscience, the other for a turnt-offering for his sins in general; making expia. tion first for that in which he had more

immediately offended. If even this was beyond his ineans, the tenth part of an ephah of flour, or about five pints, might be substituted.

Another class of offences to which this offering had reference, was that in which some trespass was committed ignorantly or undesignedly against the holy things of the Lord, Lev. 5. 15 compared with Lev. 22. These were things dedicated to the Lord under the ceremonial law, or prescribed or prohibited by its rules, and were very numerous. Thus if one had unwittingly kept back any of the required offerings, or had eaten within his private gates the tithes that belonged to the priests, or had failed to sanctify the firstlings of the males; in these cases he was to bring as a Trespass-offering a ram without blemish. But besides this, he was to make restitution, with the addition of the fifth part, according to the estimate formed by the priest. Nay, if he even only suspected that he had offended in any of these holy things, he was to bring the ram as a Trespass-offering, and to pay the estimated value, but without the addition of the twenty per

forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.'

On the general subject of the Sin and Trespass-offerings we may remark, that while the purpose and design of these various ceremonies have been disclosed so far as they can convey moral or spiritual knowledge to our minds, there is doubtless much in the external forms that must be referred to the sovereign will of God. No other satisfactory reason can be assigned for the requirement in certain cases of one of these species of offerings rather than another, than that it was the divine pleasure so to have it. In the ordinances before us it is clear, that the wilful sins for which a ram was the largest offering required, were greater than those infirmities for which a bul. lock was demanded. If the atonement had really lain in the type, this would have borne almost an appearance of injustice. But as it was no doubt intended by every kind of expiation to fix the attention upon the Great Atonement thereafter to be made for all sin, the intrinsic value of the particular offering was a matter of comparatively little importance. Indeed it is very conceiv A third class of offences were those able, as we have already remarked, of a somewhat deeper dye-certain that a sacrifice of less value may have open and wilful injuries and violatioas been ordained for sins of greater enorof law, such as thefts, violence, false-mity with the express purpose of conswearing, deceit and fraud. If a soul veying the intimation that the atoning sin and commit a trespass against the virtue was not in the sacrifice, but in Lord, and lie against his neighbor, &c.' the better blood which was to be shed Thus if one denied what had been com- at a future day on Calvary. Compared mitted to his trust, or dealt fraudulently with this every typical prefiguration, in any concern of partnership, or took even the most costly that could be de any thing away by open violence, or vised fell so infinitely short in value, secretly deceived his neighbor to his that it might have been a special aim loss, or denied having found that which of divine wisdom to ordain a less in was lost; in all these cases the delin- order the more forcibly to impress upquent must bring a ram for a Trespass on the mind the intrinsic inefficacy of offering, and must pay the value, esti- a greater. mated by the priest, of the injury done, But while it was not especially imwith the addition of the fifth part there-portant for the worshipper to know why of. Doing thus, it was said that the one animal was chosen to expiate one priest should make an atonement for sin, and another another, it was importhim before the Lord, and it should be ant for him to know that for every par

cent.

A

CHAPTER V. ND if a soul sin, aand hear the voice of swearing, and is a a 1 Kings 8. 31. Matt. 26. 63.

witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bbear his iniquity.

b ver. 17. ch. 7 18, and 17. 16, and 19. 8, and 20. 17. Numb. 9. 13.

is adjured or put upon his oath as a witness of any fact which is brought into legal question. The precept does not, it would seem, relate to the duty of informing against a common profane swearer, but to the case of one who is summoned to give evidence before the civil magistrate. Judges, among the Jews, had power to adjure not only the witnesses, but the person suspected (contrary to the criminal jurisprudence of modern times, which requires no man to accuse himself), as appears from the high priest's adjuring our Savior, who thereupon answered, though he had be fore been silent, Mat. 26. 63, 64. So the apostle says, 1 Thess. 5. 27, 'I charge (adjure) you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.' Now if a person heard the voice of swearing,' i. e. if he were ad

ticular sin there was a remedy provided; so that no man need incur the divine wrath, either by reason of his most secret faults or his most flagrant violations of the law. This is the very essence of gospel truth. No sin, not even the smallest or most unintentional, could be forgiven without a sacrifice. But no man need await the judicial punishment. As soon as he knew his fault, or suspected it, he had his reme dy. He knew what he was to do. If he did it not the condemnation that ensued was self-procured. It was not the fault of the law, nor the fault of the judge, nor the fault even of his own zatural weakness or infirmity, if the evil he had committed was not forgiven him. This is the gospel. Whatever men may think of their natural condition as an extenuation of their sins; however they may venture to impugnjured by an oath of the Lord to testify the justice that assures their punishment; this at least cannot he gainsayed the remedy is provided; the atonement is made known; the mode of making it personably available is clearly stated; it is efficacious for every sin; it is within the reach of every sinner. Christ by his one oblation has made satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. If any man chooses to abide the consequences of his transgressions, rather than seek forgiveness in the way prescribed, the condemna tion is his own deliberate choice.

Various offences of Infirmity or Inadverlence for which the Trespass-offering was prescribed.

-In concealing Knowledge. 1. And hear the voice of swearing. Heb. 3 veshâmeâh kol âlâh, and hear the voice of adjuration, execration, or oath. That is, when one

what he knew in relation to any matter of fact in question, and yet through fear or favor refused to give evidence, or gave it but in part, he was to bear his iniquity;' i. e. to bear the punishment of his iniquity, if he repented not and brought not the appointed sacrifices It seems to be implied that such an one should be considered in the sight of God as guilty of the transgression which he has endeavored to conceal, as may be inferred from Prov. 29. 24, Whoso is partner with a thief, hateth his own soul: he heareth cursing and bewrayeth it not; i. e. he hears the words of the magistrate adjuring him, and binding his soul under the penalty of a 'curse' to declare the whole truth, yet he 'be. wrayeth,' or uttereth it not; he persists in wickedly stifling his evidence and concealing the facts; surely such an one is a 'partner' with the culprit, and by exposing himself to the consequences

BRA

OF T

of thus withholding the truth, may be
justly said to hate his own soul.'-
¶ And is a witness. The Hebrew can-
ons speak of four different kinds of
oaths; (1.) The oath of pronouncing a
thing (of which see v. 4); (2.) Vain
or rash oaths (forbidden Ex. 20. 7);
(3.) the oath concerning that which
was delivered to keep; (4.) the oath
of witness, here mentioned. This they
explain as follows; As when witnesses
can give testimony concerning goods,
and the owner requireth them to wit.
ness, and they deny that they can give
testimony, and swear that they cannot,
&c., for such an oath they are to bring
the sacrifice here appointed.' - Mai-
monides. Whether he hath seen or

2.-In touching an unclean Thing. 2. If a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be, &c. That is, either the dead body of a clean animal, or the living or dead body of an unclean creature. All such persons were required to wash themselves and their clothes in

clean water, and were considered as ́ unclean until evening, Lev. 11. 8, 24. 31.

known of it. That is, whether it be a matter which has come under his own personal knowledge, or which he has - If it be hidden from him. That learnt from the information of others. is, if he be not aware of the uncleanness The spirit of the precept seems to re- which he has contracted, and goes on quire a voluntary rendering of testimony to do those things which he would not when it was known that information be at liberty to do, provided he were was sought, as well as a true and faith-conscious of his defilement, such as enful declaration when summoned by le-tering the tabernacle or eating of holy gal process.—¶ He shall bear his ini- things, then when he comes to be acquity. Heb. 77 NW17 venâsâ avono. quainted with the fact he shall look The whole clause may perhaps be upon himself as unclean,' just as if he rendered, 'If he do not utter it, and knowingly touched the unclean thing, shall bear his iniquity,' i. e. shall con- and consequently excluded from divine sequently remain subject to the wrath worship till he had offered the sacrifice of God, and liable to condign punishappointed v. 6. ment; implying that this is a part of the sinful condition embraced under the hypothetic particle if,' which is not an improbable sense. And so in respect to the final clause of the three ensuing verses, we may regard it as

3.-In touching an unclean Person.

3. Or if he touch the uncleanness, &c. These different kinds of uncleanness are afterwards specified in detail, Lev. 11-15, where see Notes.