things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them :-he shall bring his offering, a young bullock,-a male kid,-a female kid,—or a 4. Common people." female lamb."* The omission of duties might for the most part be repaired by their punctual performance afterwards, which was considered in this case as preferable to sacrifices. And sins committed through imprudence in words and thoughts were too numerous for any flocks and herds to expiate them all; and therefore to every one who repented of them, they were forgiven without sacrifice. The last characteristic, that every sin to be expiated by this kind of victims was such as if committed with knowledge was to be punished with death, is considered by the Jews as placed beyond all doubt, by that passage where the appointment of this sort of sacrifice to atone for the guilt of persons sinning through ignorance, is immediately followed by a denunciation of death against all who should sin presumptuously.† Hence they conclude, that all sins to be expiated by these victims were of that kind which when perpetrated with knowledge were to be followed by excision. But the term presumptuous indicates no particular kind of sin, but a certain mode of sinning, which consists in despising God's commands, and throwing contempt upon his laws by transgression of any kind whatever. I should therefore think it probable, that what is called the definite sin offering was to expiate all offences against negative precepts committed through ignorance or incaution, except those which were expiated either by other sacrifices, respecting which we shall inquire hereafter, or by any other means. To this class I refer involuntary homicide, which was to * Levit. iv. 2, 3. 14. 23, 28. 32, + Num, xv. 27-30. be expiated, not by sacrifice, but by exile:* and offences in common life, undesignedly committed against a neighbour, and not denied by perjury; which were forgiven without sacrifice, on a compensation being made for the damage done. III. But to return to the Jews. They mention two kinds of sins, which, although when committed with knowledge they were to be punished with excision, yet when committed in ignorance might even be expiated by the greater or less sin offering. These were the offences of those, who either ate of the peace offerings, or entered into the sanctuary, when they were polluted by impurity.† Hence the rabbies conclude that the sins to be expiated by the definite sin offering were only forty-three, and those committed in ignorance. They are confident there were no more, if we except criminal words and sins of omission, and the two offences just named, against which excision was denounced when committed with knowledge. Twenty six of these sins are stated by the Jews to have arisen from illicit intercourse; all which prudence requires me to pass over. The rest were committed by persons-who consulted magicians and wizards ;-who sacrificed their children to Moloch;-who profaned the sabbath or the day of atonement by doing any work ;-who took any meat or drink on the day of atonement;--who tasted any thing leavened during the seven days of the passover ;-who ate of any peace offerings kept beyond the time appointed;-who ate any fat, or blood, or the fetid flesh of any victims;-who slew a victim in any other place than the sanctuary;-who offered the dissected * Num. xxxv. 9, &c. Deut. xix. 1-6. † Levit. vii, 20, 21. xv. 31. Num. xix. 20. ‡ Maimon, in Shegagoth, c. 1. members of a victim in any other place;-who made the sacred oil or incense for profane uses;—and who anointed themselves with that oil.* Such then were the sins which when committed in ignorance, almost all the Jews conclude, might be legitimately expiated by what they call the definite sin offering. The only rabbi who dissents from the general opinion on this subject, is Aben Ezra; who maintains that this kind of sacrifices was also prescribed for those sins which when committed with knowledge were to be punished with scourging. But the sins which when committed with knowledge were to be punished with stripes, are generally said by them to be two hundred and seven in number; so that the opinion of Aben Ezra is much nearer to ours than that of the rest of the Jews. But our opinion having been just stated, it is unnecessary to repeat it here. IV. The definite sin offering required from the high priest was a young bullock; from a ruler, a male kid; from any private individual, a female kid or lamb; but for defiled Nazarites, and for persons of any rank or either sex, who were to be purified from defilement caused by hemorrhages or other specified impurities, the appointed sin offering was a turtle dove or young pigeon; which was also to be accompanied with another bird of the same species, that was to be sacrificed as a burnt offering. Some have supposed that the requisition of sacrifices for the purification of all the grosser corporeal impurities, was designed to inculcate the far superior necessity Levit. xxiii. 29, 30. Exod xii. 15. * Levit. xx. 6. 4, 5. Exod. xxxi. 14. Levit. xix. 8. vii. 25. 27. 18. xvii. 4. + Ad Levit. iv. § Levit. iv. 4. 23. 28. 32. Num. vi. 10, 11. Levit. xv. 15, 30, of guarding against all impurity of mind; and that | symbolical significations and recondite senses of this kind were included in most of the precepts of the law of Moses. Let it also be observed, that those defilements which required to be purified by sacrifices were communicated by contagion, like an infectious disease; so that persons polluted by them were considered as having polluted and injured others, and therefore as needing sacrificial atonement.* But thus perhaps it was also signified, that the mortal and impure bodies of men are not to be consecrated for immortality, except by a sacrifice, that is, the sacrifice of the Messiah, of which all these were figures. Reverence for the sanctuary, however, demanded that no person who had been defiled by any gross corporeal impurity, should be permitted to re-enter it without being purified by an expiatory sacrifice: and whatever belonged to reverence for the sanctuary, was equally connected with reverence for the divine Being who resided in it. V. From the definite we proceed to the ascending and descending sin offering. And by these sacrifices, which were either more or less according to the ability of the offerer, were to be purged certain kinds both of sins and of impurities. The sacrifices of this sort were six. Two that were appointed for the purification of corporeal defilement, were so restricted by the law, that a person unable to procure a lamb or kid * Sciendum, inquit Grotius, in Syriæ locis et vicinis non minus TAY 6 yougar quam т≈ ɛμuna habere aliquid contagione nocens, unde ista < legibus, quæ a lepræ legibus non longe abeunt, constringuntur.' Ad Levit. xv. 2. Accedit etiam, quod lepra, ac sanguinis, seminisque fluxio ex vita minus sancte acta ortum sæpenumero haberet. Quo minus mirum si sacra lege cautum esset, ut morbis illis inquinati piaculari hostia purgarentur. was to offer a turtle dove and a young pigeon, one as a sin offering, and the other as a burnt offering. In the other four the provision was still further relaxed; a person who needed a sin offering, if in extreme poverty, being permitted to substitute an oblation of fine flour; which is commonly called the meat offering of the sinner, and which has been sufficiently noticed in a former chapter. VI. The first sacrifice of this kind was appointed to be offered after the removal of leprosy. For this law, as I have hinted in the last note, various reasons may be offered. The most important in the opinion of the Jews, is, that no one, as they apprehend, was ever afflicted with leprosy, except on account of some sin that required sacrificial atonement. Thus Abarbinel:* This sacrifice of the leper was offered on that account, because it is a foundation ' of the law, and a principal article of faith, that all 'things which happen to men happen under the di'rection of divine providence, according to the respective actions and deserts of each individual: so 'that every leper ought to consider himself polluted 'with leprosy on account of his sins and trespasses.' And the leprosy was thought by Maimonidest to have been the punishment of evil speaking; and by Grotius, of pride: which he supposes to have occasioned cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop to be used in the purification of a leper. The leprosy,' he says, 'is the punishment of pride, as is evident in the case of Miriam, Moses's sister, of Gehazi, and of 'Uzziah. The pride is emblematically signified by the cedar; the sin by the scarlet; and the hyssop ' denotes the opposite virtue of humility. For hyssop * Ad Levit. xiv. + Moreh Nevoch. P. iii. c. 4. ↑ Ad Levit. xiv. |