And the better to accomplish this object, the rule went so far as to demand, that rich cakes should also be provided, to add to the attractiveness of the repast.*

For Sin and Trespass Offerings, which make the subject of the fourth and fifth chapters, and part of the sixth, the victim was to be, in different cases, male or female; but in either case, for the sake of attaching all venerable associations to the rite, it must be, as in Burnt and Peace Offerings, free from any bodily defect. It is needless to urge, that a lame or blind animal, which would have excited ridicule or contempt on the part of spectators, was unfit for the use in question. In Sin Offerings, the value of the victim was proportioned to the dignity of the offerer. For a Sin Offering of the whole people, or of a priest, a bullock was sacrificed; for that of a ruler, a he-goat; and for that of a common citizen, a female of the same animal.† In Trespass Offerings, the same distinction is not observed; but the circumstances of the suppliant are alone considered. If rich enough, he is to present a female lamb or kid; if too poor to afford one of these, then two turtle-doves, or, more penuriously still, two young pigeons, or, if not equal to so much as this, then the tenth part of an ephah of flour. Of the victim dedicated by a priest for a Sin Offering, the whole is to be burned, part on the altar of Burnt Offering, part by the heap of ashes, which has been collected without the camp, so that no portion shall remain, for his use, of the animal which his own fault has occasioned to be sacrificed. And the same course is to be taken with a Sin Offering for the whole congregation, to the end that the priest may have in no degree his personal interest advanced by any public sin. The silence which is observed respecting any

* Lev. vii. 12, 13. ‡ v. 6, 7, 11.

† iv. 3, 4, 13, 14, 22, 23, 27, 28.
§ iv. 10-12, 19-21.

such course, when the Sin Offering presented is for a ruler or a common citizen, is explained, when we come to read, that all of Sin and Trespass Offerings, which is not expressly directed to be burned, is to be a perquisite of the priests;* a circumstance, let me remark, which could not have failed to have an influence, useful to the public, (if not acting through a personal motive of the most elevated kind,) in making the priesthood vigilant for the detection of crimes, and assiduous in exhorting offenders to take the appointed steps for the expression of their penitence.

The female lamb or kid of Trespass Offerings, was to be treated in the same manner as the same animal in Sin Offerings. If two turtle-doves, or two pigeons were presented instead, one was to be burned whole, the other, when cleansed from its blood, appears to have belonged to the priest. If a Meat Offering were brought for the purpose, again all was his, except one handful which he burned. Thus Sin and Trespass, like Burnt Offerings, were "most holy"; an expression which means that no part of them belonged, as part of Peace Offerings did, to the worshipper.

The distinction between Sin and Trespass Offerings, though as definitively presented and carefully preserved in the original as in our version, has not, as far as I know, been satisfactorily pointed out by any commentator. That which is made by Michaelis, viz. that Sin Offerings were presented for offences of commission, and Trespass Offerings for those of omission, has, of late, perhaps, been most approved. But I think it will not bear

† v. 6.

* Lev. vii. 6, 7. ‡ v. 9, 10; vi. 26; vii. 7. § v. 12, 13. "The priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar." The handful was a memorial in the sense of a memento, a recognition of it, as having been offered for a sacred use.

*

examination; for some offences mentioned among trespasses are as much of a positive nature, as any of the transgressions indicated in a general way as requiring to be expiated by Sin Offerings, and the very occasion of a Trespass Offering is described in the language which most strictly applies to a positive violation of law. Nor can we make the distinction consist in the offence having been committed unawares in the one case, and not in the other; for if the person, bound to present a Sin Offering, is uniformly described as one who has "sinned through ignorance," the same too is the character of transgressions mentioned in connexion with Trespass Offerings. This only is manifest; that, as the word rendered "sin," is of stronger sense than that translated "trespass," so the sacrifice in the former case was more costly, in other words, the virtual penalty was heavier, than in the latter; and that in some instances, at least, of the latter case, provision is made for indemnity to one who has been wronged by the trespasser, of which we see no appearance in the former.§ In view of these two circumstances, I suggest the following hypothesis; that it was discretionary with the priest, having looked at the aggravating or mitigating circumstances of an offence which had been committed, and perhaps, too, at the personal circumstances of the perpetrator, to class it with Sins or Trespasses, and demand a sacrifice to be presented accordingly. Offences, abstractly of different degrees of criminality,

See Lev. v. 2, 3.-I may conveniently remark here on a peculiar expression which occurs in this context; "if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing [of adjuration], and is a witness, if he do not utter it," &c. The reference is to the Jewish form of a legal oath, which was an adjuration by the magistrate. Compare Prov. xxix. 24, Matthew xxvi. 63. ‡ v. 2, 3, 15.

f Lev. v. 17-19.

§ See v. 16, which relates to the priest's having been defrauded in his perquisite; vi. 5.

would demand, abstractly, to be punished by the imposition of heavier or lighter burdens. The same offence, in the same person, would be more or less criminal, when attended with different accompaniments, and would demand a more or less expensive expiation. The same offence, under the same circumstances, committed by different persons, would, in justice, be atoned for at greater or less cost; since what would be a heavy fine for a poor man, would be scarcely felt by his opulent neighbour. And, once more, I am inclined to think, that, when the offence was one which admitted of indemnity, then the policy of the law was to account it technically a Trespass, and so treat it with little severity; since, in such cases, it was a necessary accompaniment of the offering, (without which, the worshipper obtained no reconciliation,) to make compensation to whomsoever he had injured, adding an amount equal to a fifth part of what he had fraudulently taken or withheld, in order to indemnify the injured for his trouble and anxiety, and be a discouragement to himself from the repetition of the offence.

The excellent uses of such a system are sufficiently manifest. If an offence were committed in ignorance, the offender, it is true, would not be culpable, except for having neglected to inform himself concerning the character of his act. But his sin done unawares might injure his neighbour as much as if it had been committed against light; and society is interested in preventing that ignorance of the law among its members, which allows them to do it harm. He who had unintentionally transgressed a law, then, being called on, as soon as he came to know the illegality of what had been done, to put himself to expense because of it, found himself addressed by a motive to avoid such a mistake in future; in other words, to acquaint himself

with the law. The presumptuous offender was punished, in the form of a Sin or Trespass Offering, by a fine, by which he "made atonement," just as in our day, a man has made his atonement, or his reconciliation, with the society whose laws he has violated, when he has served out the time of his sentence in prison, or paid the prescribed pecuniary penalty. To a man who had offended without detection, except by his own conscience, the system would have an admirable application. It would never suffer his conscience to sleep, till he had informed against himself. It would be perpetually addressing him with the offer to restore him to a fair standing, and to self-respect, as soon as he would come forward, avow his offence, present his offering, or (to phrase it differently) pay his fine, and make restitution to those whom he had injured, if the case was such as to admit of this being done. And, once more, the system was of excellent influence in putting the legal penalty of fine in the form of a religious offering. The wrong-doer, while he gave satisfaction to the state, and paid the fine of his delinquency, was thus reminded, that it was not only against the state that he had offended, and was at the same time made to express the penitence of his heart to God.

The names "Wave Offering," "Heave Offering," and the like,* apparently adopted from more ancient use, I understand to refer merely to the gestures, by which those parts of the victim that belonged to the priest were claimed and set aside by him for his own. He lifted and waved them upwards, to denote that, in a sense, they were consecrated to God, and then put them by as the appointed portion of God's ministers.

In all offerings, the whole of animal victims was

* Ex. xxix. 27; Lev. vii. 14, 34; viii. 29; x. 14.