hearts on their iniquity." Nor should we forget, while treating of sin-offerings, that Jesus Christ is often spoken of under that character. Thus, in Rom. viii. 3, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin (лɛρ auaρtias, by a sin-offering) condemned sin in the flesh." In 2 Cor. v. 21, it is said, that "He was made sin (or a sin-offering, auaptian) for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." And in Heb. ix. 28, it is added, that he “was once offered to bear the sins of many; but unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin, (or without a sin-offering, xopis auaρτias) unto salvation." Indeed, the apostle to the Hebrews clearly applies these offerings for sin as types of Christ; "For the bodies of those beasts," says he, "whose blood was brought into the sanctuary by the high priest, or by any of the priesthood for sin, were burnt without the camp; wherefore, Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.""

The third kind of offerings were called trespass-offer· ings (D,) and they differed from sin-offerings in the following respects:-They were appointed for persons who had either done evil unwittingly, or were in doubt as to their own criminality, or who had been guilty of certain things that required reparation, or who stood in such a specific situation as required sacrifices of that kind. Accordingly, they were divided by the Jews into two kinds-the doubtful and the undoubted.

The doubtful, or the cases in which their consciences surmised, but their understandings were in doubt, whether they were criminal, will best be understood by se

a Heb. xiii, 11, 12,

b

lecting a case or two as given in Scripture. Thus in Levit. v. 2-5, When a person touched, unknown to himself at the time, any unclean thing; or sware to do good or evil without having seen sufficiently the nature and consequences of his oath; or, in general, transgressed any of the commandments of God unwittingly." When he came to the knowledge of his fault he was enjoined to bring a trespass-offering of a ram, a female lamb, or kid for a sin-offering. If unable to bring any of these, he might bring two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons; the one to be offered for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering: and if very poor, the law was contented with the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense, as a sin-offering. But the Jewish doctors, in later times, added a variety of other cases. Thus he that ate the fat of the inwards, which was forbidden to be eaten, but which might be applied to other purposes, if he did it wittingly, was to be cut off; and if he did it unwittingly, and came to the knowledge of it afterwards, was to offer a sin-offering: but if it chanced to be at a table, among fat that might be eaten (for they were not restricted from eating the fat in general, but only the fat of the inwards in particular,) and if he feared that he had tasted of it, then he was bound to bring a doubtful trespass-offering; and if he afterwards learnt for certain that he had tasted of it, he had also to bring a sin-offering. They mention a second case of two men who happened to be together, and one of them offended, but neither of them could say who it was: they were, therefore, both enjoined to bring a suspense trespass-offering. In Dr. Lightfoot's treatise on the Service of the Temple, and in Maimonides, many other

d

a Lev. v. 17-19. d Neh. viii. 10.

e

b lb. v. 6-13.

De Noxiis Imprudenter Admissis, cap. ix.

lb. iii. 17; vii. 23–25. e Ch. viii, sect, 3.

cases are quoted, but these will shew what they understood by trespass-offerings in the cases of doubt. They were evidently intended to keep the conscience tender, and to make men shun the very appearance of evil. With respect to the certain or undoubted trespass-offerings, so called because the cases included in it were specifically mentioned, they were the five following: those regarding things stolen, unjustly gotten, or detained; the trespassoffering for sacrilege; that in the case of the bondmaid; that in the case of the Nazarite; and that in the case of the leper. As these will most naturally explain the law, we shall attend to each of them.

The first of the cases, or that regarding things stolen, unjustly gotten, or detained, is fully described in Lev. vi. 2-7; Num. v. 5-8. The person was to restore what belonged not to him, together with a fifth part more out of his own property: and while he thus did justice to his neighbour, and repaired the injury he had done to him and to society, he was also enjoined to bring a trespass-offering to Jehovah, as a sense of the injury he had done to religion. The trespass-offering, in such a case, was to be a ram without blemish, which was to be killed in the place where they killed the burnt-offering, or on the north side of the altar; its blood was to be sprinkled round about upon the altar; but in after times it was enjoined to be done in the form of the Greek letter gamma (y,) by throwing it against the northeast and south-west corners, below the red line, in such a manner as to make it extend to both the sides of the corner at once; the rump, which in the sheep of these countries is a lump of fat of many pounds weight, the fat that covered the inwards, and the kidneys and caul, with the fat that was on them, were, in the next place, all burnt on the altar; after which, the flesh was the priest's and appointed to be eaten in the Holy Place,

that is, in the Court of the Tabernacle of the congregation, while the Tabernacle stood; and in the Court of Israel, or of the Priests, after the building of the Temple. Strabo tells us, that the Persians and their magi covered those parts of the victims which they offered with fat, that they might be more completely consumed. Rous says the same thing of the Greeks, and Persius, of the Romans; for they accounted it unlucky if it did not consume entirely; a circumstance which made Gregory Nazianzen speak of the gods as "delighting in fat" (xvioon xaupovτes ;) and which may serve to explain, why fat was so strictly enjoined to be offered as a part of the Jewish sacrifices. Indeed, in Lev. iii. 11. 16, it is called "the food of the offering made by fire unto the Lord," or that which would assist the fire in consuming it.

2. The case of sacrilege is treated of in Lev. v. 16. The person was understood to have done it from ignorance; the thing wasted, or taken, was to be restored, with the addition of the fifth of its value, according to the estimation of the priest; and the trespass-offering was a ram, killed and treated as in the former case.

3. With respect to the injury done to the bondmaid, it is mentioned in Lev. xix. 20-22, where we see of how little account females in a state of servitude were, in a political point of view. Indeed, they never were of the tribes of Israel, but were always the children of heathens, either purchased or taken captive. They appear to have had no rights. No pecuniary, or matrimonial reparation is enjoined; and the only thing mentioned is a trespass-offering.

4. In the case of the Nazarite, as fully described in

Lev. vii. 1-7. Num. xviii. 9, 10. Ezek. lxii. 13.

Geog. lib. xv. p. 504.

Archeologiæ Atticæ, lib, ii. cap. 9.

d Sat. ii. 47.

• Lev. xxv. 44.

Num. vi. 2-21, the trespass-offering was enjoined to be a lamb of the first year, and treated every way as in the former cases.

5. The trespass-offering enjoined for the leper was, indeed, somewhat different. For a part of the blood of the he-lamb was to be put upon the tip of his right ear, the thumb of his right hand, and the great toe of his right foot. And as it was accounted by the Jews as one of those sacrifices that were less holy, it was not killed on the north side of the altar, but on the south; and, instead of being eaten solely by the males of the priesthood in the Court of Israel, or the Priests, it might be eaten by others, and even in the city of Jerusalem. This distinction of sacrifices, into more and less holy, is frequently mentioned in the Jewish writings; and the eating of the more holy, in the Court of Israel, or the Priests, is commonly called by them "the eating within the curtains," in allusion to the Court of the Tabernacle, which was inclosed with curtains.-We have often mentioned, while treating of the sacrifices, that the priests ate them in the Court of Israel, or of the Priests, thereby including all the space within the wall that surrounded these Courts; but we never mentioned either the particular place in that Court, or the particular time. Let it be remarked then, that although the place where the priests ate the sacrifices in the Court of Israel, or of the Priests, be not particularly mentioned by the Jewish writers, it is generally understood to have been under the piazza, or covered walk that surrounded the Court, during the summer season; and in the rooms Gezith, Muked, Nitsuo, or some of the chambers adjoining the Temple, during the winter. The time when they sat down to eat, is particularly stated to have been

a Num. vi. 12. VOL. I.

d