words in the Hebrew signifying literally, the ashes of the burnt sin-offering.* Purification for sin then is not the language of the original; and from this consequently nothing can be inferred. But admitting even, that the corporeal impurities arising from leprosy, puerpery, contact of the dead, and other such causes, are spoken of as sins committed by the persons labouring under them, in like manner as the direct and voluntary transgressions of the divine commands; admitting, that it is pronounced of the former, equally as of the latter, that in virtue of the atonement, the sin which had been COMMITTED, was FORGIVEN them: admitting, that the sin-offering, on these occasions, looked solely to the uncleanness, without having any respect to the general sinfulness and unworthiness of the person seeking to be restored to the privileges of the public worship of God: and admitting, that in looking to the particular instance of uncleanness, it could not have been intended (as the later Jews explain it, see p. 268.) through that, to have referred to that original guilt incurring the penalty of death, from which this and the other infirmities, of man's nature, had taken their rise; or to some specific crime, by which * See Ainsworth, Patrick, and Dathe, on Numb. xix. 17. also Richie's Pecul. Doctr. vol. i. p. 212. + See also Ainsworth, on Numb. xix. 16. Lev. xii. 7, and xiv. 32. 34. 49. and Jennings's Jew. Antiq. vol. i. p. 322. these bodily inflictions had been incurred:*-ad mitting, I say, all these things, (which however it would be extremely difficult to prove,) and consequently admitting, that the terms, sin, and sin-offering, as applied to these, could merely signify external uncleanness, and the appointed means of removing it; yet can this furnish no inference whatever, affecting those cases, in which the disqualification to be removed by the sinoffering, is expressly stated to be, not that of external uncleanness, but resulting from a trans. gression of the divine commands. This, however it may be called a legal offence, cannot be thereby divested of its intrinsic nature, but must still inevitably remain a moral transgression. And when atonement is said to be made for sins committed against any of the commandments of the Lord, it must surely be a strange species of interpreta tion, that can confound such sins with mere external pollution; and the forgiveness granted to such offences, with the mere cleansing from an accidental impurity. It will appear yet more strange, when we come to notice under the next head, some specific violations of the moral law, for which atonements were appointed. But it is contended, that those transgressions of the divine commands, for which atonements were appointed, were merely sins of ignorance * See Episcopius, de lepra, Inst. Theol. L. III. sect. ii, cap. 3. § 33.-also p. 268, of this volume. to which, as the writer in the Theol. Rep. pronounces, scarcely any moral character could attach; and which therefore might justly be ranked in the same class, with the former cases of accidental defilement. As this argument has been a good deal relied on, it becomes necessary to consider more particularly, the nature of those transgressions, for which atonements were appointed; and the force of that expression in the original, which has been usually understood as implying sins of ignorance. And 1. it must certainly be admitted, that sins of ignorance, in the direct sense of the word, are intended by the expression, since we find it ex pressly stated in some places that they wist it not; and again that the sins were done without their knowledge, and were hidden from them, and had come to their knowledge after they were committed. (Levit. iv. 13, 14, 23, 28. v. 2, 3, 17, 18. Numb. xv. 24.) Yet even here, the ignorance intended cannot have been of a nature absolute and invincible, but such as the clear promulgation of their law, and their strict obligation to study it day and night, rendered them accountable for, and which was consequently in a certain degree culpable. Thus Houbigant, on Lev. iv. 2. Nos per imprudentiam, ut multi alii per errorem; melius quam Vulgatus, per ignorantiam. Nam leges per Mosen promulgatas, et sæpe iteratas, ignorare Israelitæ non poterant. This is also agreeable to the general language of Scripture; in which, crimes said to be committed by persons, xαтα ayvolav, in ignorance, are nevertheless represented strictly as crimes, inasmuch as that ignorance might have been removed by a careful and candid search after their duty; and thus, being voluntary, their ignorance itself was criminal. See Acts iii. 17, where the Jews, who crucified Christ, are said to have acted nara αγνοιαν. ayvolav. St. Paul also ascribes the enormous wickedness of the Heathen world to the ignorance that was in them, Eph. iv. 18. And their vicious desires, St. Peter calls, ev tŋ ayvoia eñibupiais, lusts in ignorance, 1 Pet. i. 14.* Thus then, even though the expression in the original were confined to sins of ignorance, yet would it not follow, that it meant such acts as were incapable of all moral character, and might be classed with mere corporeal infirmities to which the notion of punishment could not possibly attach. But, that the expression, beside sins of ignorance, includes likewise all such as were the consequence of human frailty and inconsideration, whether committed knowingly and wilfully or otherwise, will appear from considering the true force of the original term, or na, which together with its root a, a, or a, is found, in numerous passages of Scripture, to signify the spe * See also Acts xvii. 30. Rom. x. 3. 1 Tim. i. 13. and numerous other passages of the New Testament. cies of offence here described, in opposition to that which involves a deliberate and presumptuous contempt of God's authority. Cocceius thus explains it—" Si, putantes licitum, fecerint illicitum, ignorantia verbi: aut, si præoccupatus egerit, quod novit esse illicitum." The word, he says, as it occurs in Numb. xv. 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, is directly opposed to, in verse 30, sinning with a high hand, that is, deliberately and presumptuously. He also explains it, as implying a full and entire engrossment of mind and affection, producing a temporary oblivion of what is right: which is nothing more than the common effect of any passion which has taken strong hold of the mind. For this he instances Isai. xxviii. 7. In like manner Doctor Taylor, in his Concordance, understands the word-", to err, to do what is wrong, through ignorance, mistake, bad advice, or persuasion-or through the violence of some strong passion or affection." Doctor Richie also, (Pecul. Doct. vol. i. pp. 226, 227.) adduces a great number of passages to prove, that the word in question" denotes any sin, which doth not proceed from a deliberate contempt of authority, but from human frailty or infirmity only." See also Hammond, Le Clerc, and Rosenmüller, in Hebr. ix. 7.-where they supply numerous instances to prove, that both ayvoe, and , are used in the sense here given, as extending to all sins that were not of the class of presumptuous, αγνοειν, |
