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 ayvonμata.* But, in fact, the

66

*Schleusner in his Spicileg. Lexic. in Int. Græc. V. T. p. 3. thus explains the words ayvoɛw and ayvonpa. Αγνοεω notat simpliciter pecco, sine adjunctâ notione ignorantiæ. Erravit Bielius, qui ayvov tantum ex ignorantiâ peccare notare dicit. Cf. Sirac. v. 18. εν μεγαλω και μικρω μη αγνοεί, penda ɛv: h. e. nullum plane peccatum committe, nec grave nec leve. Hæc notio etiam ex Hebraicis verbis aaw, ws, et naw, quibus ayvov in verss. græc. respondet, apparet.”— 66 Ayvonuara, peccata simpliciter. 1 Macc. xiii. 39. ubi cum vocabulo apaguara permutatur. (Cf. Levit. xxvi. 39. ubi Hebraicum Aqu. ayvolav reddit.) Locum e Philone huc facientem dedit cl. Loesnerus ad Hebr. ix. 7. Sic ayvwpovely apud Xen. Hist. Græc. I. 7. 10. simpliciter inique agere notat: ubi bene 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, vжEg EAUTY xal TWV TY A8 AFNOHMATON, in Hebr. ix. 7.-" Apud Alexandrinos Interpp. locis pluribus αγνοιας vel αγνοηματα de peccatis et delictis quibusvis ad exprimendum Hebraicum

dici, ignotum esse harum literarum amantibus non potest. Adjungamus Philonem lib. de Plant. Noe. p. 229. c. scribentem, θυσίαι υπομιμνήσκεσι τας εκάςων ΑΓΝΟΙΑΣ τι καὶ

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, directly opposed to sins of presumption: that is, to

dapagrias, victimæ in memoriam revocant singulorum pec cata et delicta."

The observations also of Danzius, on the word ayvonμata in the aforementioned passage of Hebr. deserve particularly to be attended to. "Peccata quæ expianda sunt, vocantur hic ayvonuara. Quæ Socinianis haud alia sunt, quam quæ vel ignorantiâ sive oblivione juris alicujus divini, vel ex ignorantiá facti et circumstantiarum, vel etiam ex humaná quâdam imbecillitate proficiscuntur. Equidem concedendum omnino est, ayvonpara hinc inde in scriptis sacris ac profanis pro hujus generis extare peccatis, Quod autem et voluntaria ac graviora haud raro denotet, satis superque docent dicta Psal. xxv. 7. ubi yup (quod quam magnum designet peccatum, mox dicturi sumus) LXX reddiderunt per ayvolav. Hoseæ iv. 15. spiritualis Israelitarum scortatio per verbum ayvos, pro Ebraico 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 ayvonμao Apostoli in loco citato, (viz. Hebr. ix. 7.) posuit : 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 ayvonμatar om. nis generis contineri peccata. Siqnidem ibi satis perspicue docetur, omnia peccata, in anniversario isto sacrificio expiari. Et quidem omnia illa, quæ supra vocibus y, pw, ac N erant expressa. Atque sub se continent quidquid omnino venit sub peccati nomine." The writer then proceeds,

such as proceeded, not from human frailty, but from a deliberate and audacious defiance of the divine authority, which appears to be the true meaning of presumptuous sins, as may be collected from Numb. xv. 30, 31. Exod. xxi. 14— and v. 2. compared with xviii. 11. Deut. i. 42, 43. xvii. 12, 13. xviii. 22, and various other passages. See Pec. Doct. vol. i. pp. 229, 230. also Maim. Mor. Nev. part 3. cap. 1. And hence it appears, that so far as the force of the original term is considered, the efficacy of the atonement was extended to all sins, which flowed from the infirmities and passions of human nature; and was withheld only from those, which sprung from a presumptuous defiance of the Creator.

The word ansσws, used by the LXX in the translation of the term, though it seems to imply an involuntary act, is yet by no means inconsistent with this exposition. The force of this term, as applied by the LXX, is evidently not incompatible with a perfect consciousness of the crime committed, and is used only in opposition to exσs, by which they every where describe such an act as

from a strict investigation of the exact sense of these Hebrew words, as well as from a copious enumeration of the opinions of the great Jewish doctors, to confirm his position, that in the word ayvonuata, as used by the apostle, (Hebr. ix. 7.) sins of every description are indiscriminately alluded to. See Danz. Funct. Pontif. Max. in Adyt. Anniv. in Meuschen's Nov. Test. ex Talm. p. 1007-1012.

is entirely spontaneous and deliberate, which in the words of Episcopius is performed, plena voluntate; or as he again explains it, which is done wilfully, and with a fixed and deliberate purpose of transgressing. (Inst. Theol. Lib. iii. sect. ii. cap. 3. § 9, 14.) Angσws then is not to be considered, as denoting an act strictly speaking involuntary; but as opposed to what was deliberate and wilful: it is therefore applied with propriety to all sins of infirmity. The use of the word Exσs in Hebr. x. 26, throws abundant light on the force of this expression. See Ainsworth on Lev. iv. 2. See also the authorities adduced by Elsner, Observat. Sacr. vol. i. p. 494.

But 2ndly, the conclusion, which has been here derived from the signification of the original word, is fully confirmed by the cases of atonement referred to in the text; since the offences there described are clearly such, as can by no means be brought within the description of sins of ignorance: it being impossible that a man could deny, or keep back, that which was entrusted to him by another; or take from another his property by violence or deceit; or deny upon oath, and withhold from the proper owner, what he had found, without a consciousness of the guilt. Besides, it is to be observed, that neither in these, nor in the case of the bond-maid, is it said that the sin was committed in ignorance: but, on the contrary, the very expressions used in the original, unequi

vocally mark a consciousness of crime in the several instances alluded to, as may be seen particularly in Outram De Sacrif. lib. i. cap. xiii. § 4. where this point is fully established in opposition to Episcopius. These crimes indeed of fraud, perjury, violent injustice, and debauchery, the writer in the Theol. Rep. seems disposed to treat as venial offences, being criminal, as he says, but in a low degree. (Vol. iii. p. 412.) But for the purpose of proving, that no atonements were appointed for transgressions of the moral law, it would be necessary to shew that these acts were not in any degree criminal: this however he has not attempted, and is consequently in the conclusion compelled to admit, (p. 414.) that the Levitical atonements extended to violations of the moral law. Sykes also, it must be observed, is obliged to confess, that the cases here alluded to, are cases of "known and open wickedness." (Scr. Doct. of Redemp. p. 331.) Hallet expressly says, "it is certain, that there were sacrifices under the law appointed to make atonement for moral evil, and for moral guilt; particularly for lying, theft, fraud, extortion, perjury, as it is written, Lev. vi. 1, 2, &c."-Notes and Discourses, vol. ii. p. 277, 278.

Now, that these atonements in cases of moral transgression, involved a real and literal remission of the offence, that is of the penalty annexed to it, will appear from considering, not only the