past; or having sworn concerning something future and possible, and lawful for them, did, through forgetfulness, otherwise than they had sworn they would do. The Jews reckon four kinds of oaths.* The first they call an oath of testimony; as of witnesses before a tribunal, of which enough has been said already. The second is called an oath about a pledge: as when persons swear concerning any thing that belongs to another person, either intrusted to them, or found, or taken away by fraud or force ;† which we shall presently notice. The third is a vain oath: this kind is described as including four sorts. The first relates to something present, and that manifestly false: as if any one were to swear that marble is gold. The second also relates to something present, and that manifestly true, which it is impossible to doubt: as if any one should swear that marble is marble. The third respects a thing altogether unlawful; as if any one were to swear that thenceforward he would never perform any particular duty. The last respects any thing evidently impossible as if any one were to swear that he would fast for ten days. And concerning this kind, comprehending all these sorts, they maintain, that whoever sinned in this way with knowledge was to suffer the punishment of scourging; but that whoever committed this sin in ignorance, repentance alone was sufficient for its expiation without any piacular victim. The fourth kind of swearing, which is the only one referred by them to the present subject, they distinguish by an appellation taken from the scriptures, calling it a pronounced oath. Of this kind they make four sorts: the two first respect something * In Shebuoth, c. 1. + Levit. vi. 2, 3. + Levit. v. 4. past, one affirmative, the other negative; as if any I one were to swear that this or that had or had not been done. The other two relate to any thing future, one affirming, the other denying; as if any one were to swear that he would sleep, or would not sleep, today. And concerning this kind of oath, including all its varieties, it is affirmed by the Jews, that whoever knowingly committed this sin, was not to offer an expiatory victim, but to be scourged; and that whoever sinned in this way through ignorance, it was commanded in the law, that the offence, when discovered, should be expiated by a sacrifice greater or less, according to the circumstances of each individual. Thus say the Jews: but what is the language of Moses on this subject?* " If a soul swear, pro"nouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, "whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with "an oath, and if it be hid from him; when he knoweth "of it, he shall confess that he hath sinned, and he -- “If "shall bring a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid, "for a sin offering," if he were able to procure either; but if not, he was commanded to bring to the priest two turtle doves, or two young pigeons, one to be -sacrificed as a sin offering, the other as a burnt offering: and any one who was too poor to procure such -birds, was allowed to substitute the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour. But these words, "If a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to "do good," refer, whatever may be pretended by the Jews, to no other kind of oath than what relates to something future. The phrase," to do evil," is to be understood of punishments permitted by the law; such as the demand of retaliation, revenge against a homicide, and other punishments of the same kind. * Levit. v. 4-13, 149. CHAFTER XIII. The Piacular Victims called Trespass Offerings. FROM the sin offerings we proceed to the Trespass Offerings. Of these, according to the Jews, there were two kinds, the doubtful trespass offering, and the certain trespass offering. The victim for a doubtful trespass, they say, was enjoined upon those who conceived a suspicion that they had committed any sin, which, if ascertained, would require to be expiated by the definite sin offering: so that the sins to be expiated by both these kinds of sacrifice were evidently of the same nature, but were not objects of equal consciousness. Thus, if any person was cer-, tain that he had through ignorance eaten fat, or blood, or any of the peace offerings that had been kept beyond the time appointed, this offence, they affirm, was to be expiated by the definite sin offering; but if a person was only suspicious of his having committed such a sin, and not certainly conscious of it, in this case, they maintain that the law prescribed the doubtful trespass offering; and that this offence, if it were afterwards clearly ascertained, would require to be expiated again by the definite sin offering: for that the doubtful trespass offering was no otherwise available than to suspend the punishment till the offence should be ascertained beyond all doubt. II. If you inquire for the law by which the doubtful trespass offering was instituted and enjoined, the Jews produce the following passage, in which they suppose it to be contained; "And if a soul sin, and "commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord; though "he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity and he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass "offering unto the priest: and the priest shall make 66 an atonement for him concerning his ignorance "wherein he erred, and wist it not, and it shall be for"given him."* And indeed there can be little doubt that the same sins are designated in this law, as in the law concerning the definite sin offerings; because, as every one must perceive, they are described in the same terms. Nor is it any more to be doubted, that these two laws prescribe two different kinds of victims. For one requires from every private person a female lamb or kid; the other, a ram from a person of any class. How came it to pass, then, that the same sins were to be expiated sometimes by one kind of victims, sometimes by another? Because the same sins were the objects, in some cases of certain consciousness, and in others of uncertain suspicion. And this, the Jews say, is expressly taught by Moses, who commands a sin offering to be immolated only when it was certain that the sin had been committed; but the victim of which we are now treating, when there was only a suspicion of the crime, but no certain knowledge of it. Whence they call every such victim a doubtful trespass offering. III. The certain trespass offering, like almost all the other piacular sacrifices, was appointed for the purgation of certain corporeal impurities, as well as for the expiation of trespasses properly so called, And in this kind are enumerated five victims, applicable to five different cases. The first was prescribed for a Levit. v. 17. 18. + Compare Levit. iv. 2. 22. 27, with Levit. v. 17. 66 66 เ Nazarite, defiled in consequence of "any man dying very suddenly by him."* The second was to be offered by a leper, at the time of his purification.† The third was commanded for any man who violated the chastity of a Hebrew "bondmaid betrothed to an husband."‡ Nearly allied to this was the crime of those Jews who married Gentile women. Wherefore some priests, who during their exile in Babylon had "taken strange wives," expiated their offence, after their return to Judea, by this kind of sacrifice. § This, however, as is correctly observed by the Jews, was not required by any precept of the law. Jarchi says: 'This was the counsel of that hour.'|| And Aben Ezra: We find no precept requiring a trespass offering from a man who marries a strange 'wife: but, perhaps, this was done by the counsel of 'the Sanhedrim.'¶-The fourth victim of this kind was appointed for all who ignorantly committed any fraud or injury in the holy things; and who, on making a compensation exceeding by one fifth the amount of the damage, and offering the prescribed victim, were forgiven.** The last was enjoined upon those, who denied with an oath their having possession of any thing belonging to another person, which they had been intrusted with, or had found, or had seized by violence, or gained by fraud.tt In order to their obtaining pardon for this sin, it was also commanded, that the property falsely denied, with the addition of one fifth of its value, should be restored to the original owner; or, in case of his death, to his relatives; or, if he left no relatives, to the priests. ‡‡ Concerning |