« PoprzedniaDalej »
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. Aš 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 ab. solute 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
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, XOTA GYVolav, 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 nato ayvosav. 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 tn ayvola etraGupcais, 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
, , gether with its root 212, 730, or qiw, is found, in numerous passages of Scripture, to signify the spe
-which to ,משגה or ,שגגה force of the original term
* 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, ignorantiâ 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 1727 ta, 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 "220, 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 ayvoer, and 790, are used in.the sense here given, as extending to all sins that were not of the class of presumptuous, or such as by the law were necesssarily to be punished with death. Rosenmüller adds, that for every sin, except those to which death was annexed, atonement was made on the day of expiation. Now it is remarkable, that for the sins atoned for on that day, the very word which is used by the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews, (ix. 7.) is ayvonuata.* But, in fact, the opposition already alluded to in Numb. xv. 27, 30, seems at once to decide the point. For there we find the sins implied by the word najz, directly opposed to sins of presumption : that is, to
* Schleusner in his Spicileg. Lexic. in Int. Græc. V. T. p. 3. thus explains the words ayvoew and
αγνοημα. Αγνοεω notat simpliciter pecco, sine adjunctâ notione ignorantiæ. Erravit Bielius, qui ayvoer tantum ex ignorantiâ peccare no. tare dicit. Cf. Sirac. v. 18. sv Meycaw xab pebrew hin ayrosby perde ev: h. e. nullum plane peccatum committe, nec grave nec leve. Hæc notio etiam ex Hebraicis verbis daw, bus, et naw, quibus ayuoen in verss. græc, respondet, apparet.”
Agvonuara, peccata simpliciter. 1 Macc. xiii. 39. ubi cum vocabulo apagonucta permutatur. (Cf. Levit. xxvi. 39. ubi Hebraicum 110 Aqu. ayroiav reddit.) Locum e Philone huc facientem dedit cl. Loesnerus ad Hebr. ix. 7. Sic
ayuwa poveiv apud Xen. Hist. Græc. I. 7. 10. simpliciter inique agere notat : ubi benc præcipit S. R. Morus, verba apud Græcos, vi originis scientiam aut inscientiam exprimentia, uti in omnibus linguis, notare virtutes et vitia, quæ illam scientiam et inscientiam, vel necessario, vel plerumque sequi soleant."
Loesner also remarks thus on the words, υπερ εαυτ8 και TWY T8 GE AINOHMATNN, in Hebr. ix. 7.—56 Apud Alexandrinos Interpp. locis plaribus αγνοιας vel αγνοηματα de peccatis et delictis quibusvis ad exprimendum Hebraicum ONON dici, ignotum esse harum literarum amantibus non potest. Adjungamus Philonem lib. de Plant. Noe. p. 229. c. Scribentem, θυσιαι υπομιμνησκεσι τας εκανών ΑΓΝΟΙΑΣ τε και
drapagtuas, victimæ in memoriam revocant singulorum pec cata et delicta."
The observations also of Danzius, on the word ayvonuata in the aforementioned passage of Hebr. deserve particularly to be attended to. 6 Peccata quæ expianda sunt, vocantur hic ayvonuata. Quæ Socinianis haud alia sunt, quam qux vel ignorantiâ sive oblivione juris alicujus divini, vel ex ignorantiâ facti et circumstuntiarum, vel etiam ex humanâ quádam imbecillitate proficiscuntur. Equidem concedendum omnino est, agronpata hinc inde in scriptis sacris ac profanis pro hujus generis extare peccatis, Quod autem et voluntaria ac graviora haud raro decotet, satis superque docent dicta Psal. xxv. 7. ubi pw(quod quam magnum designet peccatum, mox dicturi sumus) LXX reddiderunt per aprovar. Hoseæ iv. 15. spiritualis Israelitarum scortatio per verbum ayroew, pro Ebraico 773} positum, exprimitur; quæ sane leve ac ex ignorantiâ commissum peccatum non fuit : prouti ex toto hoc capite satis clare apparet. Etiam Jud. v.
19, 20, pro quibusvis delictis idem vocabulum ponitur. Hinc et Syrus interpres pro ayvonuao Apostoli in loco citato, (viz. Hebr. ix. 7.) posuit 120820: quâ voce quævis designantur peccata (vide Matth. xviii. 35), etiam illud ab Adamo perpetratum (vid. Rom. v. 16. sqq.), quod certe nec leve fuit, nec ex ignorantiâ commissum. Imo ex collatione loci Lev. xvi. sole lucidius patet, hic sub voce Twy ayvonuatwom. nis generis contineri peccata. Siqnidem ibi satis perspicue docetur, omnia peccata, in anniversario isto sacrificio expi. ari. Et quidem omnia illa, quæ supra vocibus pW, vwo, ac nnin erant expressa. Atque sub se continent quidquid pino venit sub peccati nomine.” The writer then proceeds,