damages done by one person to another, the law of Moses contained the following directions. Whoever made a spontaneous confession of a trespass committed against his neighbour, was required to make simple restitution, but nothing further.* Whoever denied a trespass, but whose crime was proved before the judges by upright witnesses, was not permitted to expiate his guilt by any piacular victim, but was commanded to make restitution, in some cases twofold, in others fourfold, in others fivefold, and in others only the simple amount of the damage done.† When any person was brought before the judges on a charge of trespass against his neighbour, and there were no witnesses to support the accusation, he was to exculpate himself by what was called "an oath of "the Lord." And in this case, according to the Jews, although he should perjure himself by denying the crime, yet if he should afterwards confess it, and restore to the injured party the whole amount, with an addition of one fifth of the amount, of the damage done, he was permitted to expiate his guilt by a piacular sacrifice: for that the privilege granted in other cases to the ignorance and imprudence of the sinner, namely the benefit of piacular sacrifice, was granted in this case to his repentance, and indeed to the general interest of the public. But no evidence of repentance could be more unequivocal than a clearly voluntary confession of a crime known to no witnesses and previously denied, and a compensation of the damage done.

IV. But this opinion is strenuously opposed by Episcopius, who understands the law now under consideration, as having reference to no trespasses, but Maimon. in Geniba. c, 1. + Exod. xxii. 4. 7. 1. 6. Exod. xxii. 11.

those which were committed in ignorance or imprudence. It is no objection,' he says, that the text ' mentions a thing taken away by violence. For this 'crime may also be committed through error. As if

6

a person believing a thing to be his own, which 'really belongs to his neighbour, were to take it from his neighbour by force, and to claim it for himself.”* But though this case may happen, yet many things forbid me to think that the law just mentioned had reference to no trespasses but such as arose from unintentional error. The terms in which it is expressed,

"If a soul sin, and lie unto his neighbour in that "which was delivered to him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath "deceived his neighbour, or hath found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely;"†-this is language so manifestly descriptive of trespasses of which the persons who commit them must be conscious, that it cannot without the greatest violence be applied to injuries which involve no culpable intention. Besides; in all passages which direct the oblation of piacular sacrifices for sins of ignorance, the misapplication of them to cases of intentional transgression is particularly guarded against, by the ignorance of the offending parties being expressly mentioned. § But in this passage not a word

The word 2 when applied to verbal communications, as may be gathered from other passages, always includes the idea of deceit. The phrase denotes putting the hand fraudulently to another's property. (Exod. xxii. 8.) 13 invariably signifies some kind of plunder. pʊy is commonly used of a person who oppresses his neighbour in such a way as to involve himself in heavy guilt, which is rarely done in ignorance, And p generally denotes a falsehood which the speaker knows to be so at the time when he utters it.

§ Levit. iv. 13. 22. 27. v. 2, 3, 4. 18,

is said of the ignorance of the offender, though, if the law related to unintentional errors, this was 'the more necessary to be specified, because the terms in which it is expressed, as must be evident to every reader, are so manifestly significant of transgressions committed with knowledge and design. Nor should it be forgotten, that the sacrifices appointed for those who sinned through ignorance, were commanded to be offered when they should know that they had sinned:* but nothing of this kind occurs in the law now under consideration; and for this obvious reason; because every person to whom it refers must be conscious of his sin at the time of its commission.

6

a

V. Episcopius replies 'that this interpretation is contradictory to those passages, where God declares that "he" will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name ' in vain," and that whoever sinneth "presumptuously 'shall be cut off from among his people." Exod. xx. 7. Num. xv. 30.' But neither of these laws appear to me to afford any support to his argument. For, not to introduce any rabbinical subtleties on this subject, the first passage he cites, in which God declares that he will not hold him guiltless who taketh his name in vain, is a general law; and that which we are now discussing, is a special one, Now a special law is not limited by a general, but the general by the special. Consequently, the law here alleged by Episcopius ought always to be understood with the exception arising from this which we are now considering. Nor need we wonder, if the class of offenders designated in this law should be favoured with some peculiar mark of divine mercy. For they were persons who, when their guilt could not be

proved by any witnesses, and there were no means of detecting it, yet of their own accord confessed their crimes, and repaired the damages they had caused. It is likewise a consideration not to be overlooked, that the general interest of the nation was promoted by the hope of forgiveness held out to these offenders; the tendency of which would naturally be to render every one, who had privately injured another, more disposed to make compensation, which, without some hope of forgiveness, no one would ever have rendered, Though it may also be doubted, whether those transgressors whose pardon was to be obtained by sacrifice, could be said to be "held guiltless" according to the meaning of the law: which declares respecting every such person, as the reason why he was obliged to offer a victim for the expiation of his guilt, that " he shall bear his iniquity."

VI, The other passage adduced by Episcopius, in which excision is denounced against presumptuous transgressors, has no reference whatever to the subject of our present inquiry. For this, as we have already remarked, is the case of those who knowingly committed some wrong unobserved by any witnesses; and who were instigated not by contempt of the law, but by criminal desires after the property of others. Such persons were chargeable with sinning "pre"sumptuously" or, as it is literally in the Hebrew, "with a high hand." None were guilty of this crime, but those who, as the words immediately following express, "reproached the Lord :"+ nor was any one considered as reproaching the Lord, but such as openly cast contempt upon his commands. Abarbinel restricts the crime of sinning with a high hand

to those who deny the law to be of divine origin, and that 'publicly, perversely and deliberately.** Abarbinel is followed by Grotius,† who contends that the phrase, “he that doeth ought presumptuously” is to be understood of one who obstinately denies the being of a God, or the divine inspiration of the 'law.' But this subject has been most judiciously illustrated by Maimonides: He sins with a high'hand, who casts off shame, and sins openly. Such a person transgresses the law, not merely because he is hurried into forbidden things by the impulse of 'his unbridled passion and corrupt desires, but because he denies the authority of the law, and deter'mines openly to resist it. Whence he is said to reproach God: a crime which ought certainly to be punished with death. For no person ever commits 'this sin without entertaining some opinion which 'subverts the authority of the law.' But such contempt of the law could not be imputed to one who of his own accord confessed an injury which he had privately done to his neighbour, and made compensation for it; although, under the influence of criminal desire for the property of another, he had before violated his conscience and perjured himself by denying the crime.

VII. Nor ought it to be objected that an apostle calls those sins " errors," which were expiated by the victims sacrificed on the annual day of atonement. For those victims were sin offerings; but we are now treating of another kind, namely trespass offerings, or rather of one particular sort of that kind: so that no conclusion can fairly be drawn from one sort of one kind to the whole of the other kind. ↑ Ibid. Moreh Nevoch, P. iii. c. 41 § Heb. ix. 7.

* Ad Num. xv.

Sins ex