'one of the commandments of the Lord which shall not be done' — 'and he shall not have known it and shall trespass,' that is, unwillingly he sinned through ignorance, he commands a ram to be offered, not a she-goat or a female from the sheep, as above he had appointed in such a generality of sins. What, then, does this mixture mean? Unless perhaps because here he says: 'For he trespassed a trespass before the Lord,' by this that he says 'before the Lord' he wished the trespass to be understood in those things which are done before the Lord, that is, by which the Lord is served in the tabernacle: whence he had said something a little before, when he said: 'he sinned in the holy things,' and we understood 'he usurped something of the holy things,' since he had also commanded it to be restored.
And by this, one can sin in these matters not only if something be usurped from them through forgetfulness, but also in many other ways can anyone through ignorance trespass in those things which are rendered to the service of the Lord. This kind of trespasses he afterward wished to mention generally, and therefore both there and here he commanded a ram to be offered. But the Scriptures are full when it is said 'before the Lord' and nothing is understood except that which is rendered to the Lord, such as a sacrifice or first-fruits or some service in sacred things. It is also asked whether that which is said is everywhere to be taken:
'If his hand is not able to afford what suffices for a sheep, he ought to offer a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons, and if he is not able for this either, a certain quantity of fine flour.' For if it is understood to be permitted everywhere thus, it cannot indeed be said that a priest does not have a calf, or the whole congregation, or that a ruler does not have a he-goat or a sheep. And if it is so, what need was there afterward to say that the unspoken perjury of anyone, or a touched unclean thing, and perjury committed through ignorance, is purged by the sacrifice of a lamb and a she-goat, when the same sacrifices were commanded also in that generality of sin, to which generality these too could have pertained? But if by this these are distinguished,
that for these it was permitted that turtledoves and pigeons or even, if this were not available, fine flour be offered, but there, where it was not said, it was not permitted — it does not seem that provision was made for the poor, since there could be many trespasses not specially expressed which would be referred to that generality, where the needy would be burdened, if only a female she-goat and a lamb from the sheep and those little birds and fine flour were permitted to be offered. Unless perhaps someone should say that these excepted and specifically expressed sins are distinguished from those which are generally mentioned by this, that here he said 'a lamb,' there 'a sheep,' so that the age of the cattle makes some difference, provided nevertheless it be understood that provision was equally made for the poor, so that, if they had no quadruped animals,
they might offer either the mentioned birds or fine flour for the sins of their ignorance. But if it troubles anyone why, when he had generally concluded all sins of ignorance, and had distinguished the sacrifices not according to the difference of the sins — which he had not made — but according to the difference of persons, he afterward wished also to distinguish sins and to prescribe different sacrifices for their diversity, as though not all things pertained to that generality: the exception made afterward must be understood in this way, that whatever remained beyond these exceptions, which he mentioned by name and specifically, we understand to be spoken of in that generality. This mode of expression is not to be found elsewhere; but in the holy Scriptures there is such a case as that where the Apostle says:
'Every sin whatsoever a man commits is outside the body.' For here he seems to have omitted no sin, since he says: 'every sin whatsoever a man commits'; yet afterward he excepted fornication, when he brought in: 'but he who fornicates sins against his own body.' Which, according to the custom of our manner of speaking, would be said thus: 'Every sin whatsoever a man commits, except fornication, is outside the body; but he who fornicates sins against his own body.'
So also here, when first he said generally that all sins of ignorance were to be expiated by those sacrifices which he mentioned, yet afterward he excepted those for which, being expressly and distinctly set forth, he applied a definite purgation of sacrifices, so that, these being excepted, whatever remaining ones there were might pertain to that generality. 'He shall offer a ram from the sheep without blemish, at a price for that in which he trespassed.' It is not to be distinguished as though it were 'at a price for that in which he trespassed,' meaning for which price he trespassed, but: 'if he offer a ram, he shall offer it at a price,' that is, bought. For this too seems to have been meant to pertain to the sacrament of some signification, since he did not define the price itself.
For if he had defined it, it might have seemed that he prescribed this lest a cheap beast be offered, so that, even if he who offered did not buy it, he might nevertheless offer such a one as would be worth so much. But with the addition not only of a price, so that a bought ram be offered, but also of shekels — 'a holy shekel' — for so he says: 'at a price of silver of shekels, by the holy shekel' — he wished the ram to be bought for several shekels, not for one shekel. But what he means by 'holy shekel,' we have already discussed where it seemed fitting. But as to the fact that, when he had said: 'and for his trespass he shall offer to the Lord a ram from the sheep without blemish at a price,' he then added: 'for that in which he trespassed,' it is to be understood: 'he shall offer for that in which he trespassed,' that is, for that matter, on account of that matter.
'And the priest shall take away the whole burnt offering which the fire has consumed, that whole burnt sacrifice, from the altar.' What shall he take away, if it has been consumed? For he commanded the priest to take away, after the fire of the whole night, the whole burnt offering, that is, the holocaust which the fire had consumed. Or what does he mean by that too which he added: 'that whole burnt sacrifice,' when this is understood as the whole burnt offering that is the holocaust? Unless perhaps that is true which we found in a certain Greek copy; for it does not say: 'he shall take away the holocarposis,' but: 'he shall take away the katacarposis,' that is, the remains of the whole burnt offering which the fire has consumed. But these remains, such as ash and coal, he called 'that whole burnt sacrifice' by the name of the thing which was consumed, calling the remains by the name of the consumption itself.
But as to what he said above: 'this is the law of the whole burnt offering,' and then, expounding what that same law is, he says: 'this holocaust upon its burning upon the altar the whole night until morning, and the fire of the altar shall burn upon it; it shall not be extinguished' — it would be plainer, according to the manner of speaking of our custom, if it did not have the 'and'; for with this conjunction removed, the sense is thus connected: 'this holocaust upon its burning upon the altar the whole night until morning, the fire of the altar shall burn upon it,' that is, upon the altar. Then, to the heaping up of the expressed thought, he brought in: 'it shall not be extinguished'; for this had already been said by 'the whole night.' 'And he shall put on another robe and shall cast the whole burnt offering outside the camp into a clean place.'
He calls this 'holocarpoma' that which has already been burnt up; but this in that Greek is read as 'katakarposis.' But certain Latins added: 'that which is burnt up,' and so interpreted it: 'and he shall cast away the whole burnt offering, that which is burnt up, outside the camp into a clean place.' 'And the fire upon the altar shall burn from it and shall not be extinguished'; that is, from that fire in which the holocaust burned until morning. For he does not wish the fire to be entirely extinguished, but, when the holocaust has burned until morning, the remains of the consumption having been taken away from there, that not even so should the fire be extinguished, but from it should be renewed again the fire by which the other things which are placed on it may burn. But as to what follows and he says:
'And the priest shall burn wood upon it morning by morning, and shall pile the whole burnt offering upon it, and shall place upon it the fat of the peace offering; and the fire shall always burn upon the altar, it shall not be extinguished' — it must be seen whether by 'morning by morning' he wished it understood daily, so that no day be passed over on which a holocaust and the fat of the peace offering were not found, or 'morning by morning' meaning that on whatever day it were placed, it be placed only in the morning. For if we understand it daily, what if no one should bring anything?
But if the priests, as it were from public funds or from their own, provided the daily holocausts, upon these very ones were placed those things which he commanded to be placed upon the holocausts, offered by the people for sins, and it was not necessary for one offering sacrifices for sin also to offer a holocaust upon which that should be placed, except when a pair of turtledoves was offered or two young pigeons; for there he altogether determines that one be offered for the sin, the other for a holocaust, and first for the sin, then for the holocaust.
Then it can be asked whether the holocaust which he commanded to be placed morning by morning also itself burned through the whole night until the next morning, or whether that which he says ought to burn the whole night was the evening holocaust, and thence he began to speak of the law of the whole burnt offering, so that he might begin from the evening holocaust: which is strange, if he kept silence and did not admonish that such things ought to be offered in the evening. 'And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: This is the gift of Aaron and of his sons which they offer to the Lord on whatever day you shall anoint him.'
There are other sacrifices which he mentioned in Exodus, by which the priests are sanctified over seven days, that they may begin to exercise their priesthood, and it is another thing which he now mentions, what the high priest is to offer when he is appointed, that is, when he is anointed. For this follows, and he says: 'on whatever day you shall anoint him.' He did not say: 'you shall anoint them,' although he commands the second-order priests also to be anointed. Then he states the sacrifice itself: 'a tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a perpetual sacrifice.' It is asked how it is perpetual, if it is offered on that day on which the high priest is anointed, by him who has been anointed — unless in the sense that this be always offered on the day on which a high priest is anointed, that is, through the successions of priests.
Although even in that manner it can be understood as everlasting — not this thing itself, but what it signifies. 'The half of it,' he says, 'in the morning, and the half of it after midday,' which the Greek has as δειλινόν (in the afternoon). 'In a frying-pan,' he says, 'it shall be made with oil'; 'kneaded, he shall offer it, fresa' — that is, that fine flour. Then he says 'fresa,' if indeed this has been correctly translated from what the Greek has as ἐφθά (boiled/prepared), and he set it in the plural in the neuter gender. For he does not say 'fresam' as though it were the same fine flour which he had called 'kneaded.' But he says that this 'fresa' is a sacrifice made from fragments. Whether therefore he calls the fragments themselves 'fresa,' that is, things ground small, or whether he called the very tiny grinding of the fine flour 'fresa,' is not evident. But there follows, and he says:
'A sacrifice unto the Lord for an odour of sweetness. The anointed priest who out of his sons shall do it in his stead.' Perhaps it was on this account that he had said 'everlasting,' namely that every high priest should do this, when he succeeds to one who has died, on the day when he shall have been anointed; for he added and said: 'an eternal law,' though 'eternal' can also be understood according to that which it signifies. And there follows: 'the whole shall be consumed,' which the Greek has as ἐπιτελεσθήσεται, and some translators have rendered: 'the whole shall be laid on.' Here he wishes it to be understood that it is a holocaust, because nothing remains thereafter. Finally he adds: 'and every sacrifice of the priest shall be a holocaust, and it shall not be eaten.' This therefore is what he had said: 'the whole shall be consumed.'
When he was speaking of the sacrifice for sin, he says: 'the priest who shall offer it up, shall eat it.' Not that which he offers up shall he eat — for that shall be consumed by fire — but what shall have remained of it; for it is not a holocaust, that it should be wholly burned upon the altar. But he says afterwards: 'all things which are for sin, of whose blood something has been brought into the tabernacle of testimony to make expiation in the sanctuary, shall not be eaten, but shall be burned up with fire.' How then do the things that remain of the sacrifices for sins pertain to the priests to be eaten? This is to be understood, that those are excepted from whose blood that altar of incense in the tabernacle of testimony is touched.
For he commanded this to be done above concerning the bullock which the priest should offer for his own sin, and concerning the bullock which he should offer for the sin of the whole congregation, that the flesh which remained should be burned outside the camp; and now too he has briefly recalled this. 'And this is the law of the ram which is for a trespass: they are most holy' — that is, they pertain to the priests to be eaten. What is the meaning of this, that when he had spoken of the ram for a trespass and had set forth the law of the sacrifice, he says: 'as that which is for sin, so also that which is for a trespass; there is one law for them'? It is asked what difference there is between sin (peccatum) and trespass (delictum), since, if there were none, it would in no way be said: 'as that which is for sin, so also that which is for a trespass.'
For although the law and its sacrifice differ in nothing — since there is one law for them — yet the two are nevertheless distinct. Of these, one is the sacrifice, that is, sin and trespass; if they differed in nothing among themselves and if there were two names for one thing, Scripture would not take such careful pains to commend that the sacrifice of both is one. Perhaps therefore sin is the committing of evil, and trespass the forsaking of good; so that, just as in a praiseworthy life it is one thing to turn away from evil, another to do good — as we are admonished by Scripture saying: 'Turn away from evil and do good' — so in a blameworthy life it is one thing to turn away from good, another to do evil, and the former is trespass, the latter sin. For if the very word be examined, what else does 'delictum' (trespass) sound but 'derelictum' (something forsaken)?
And what does he who trespasses (delinquit) forsake, but the good? The Greeks also imposed two customary names upon this pest. For among them trespass is called both παράπτωμα and πλημμέλεια. Indeed in this very place of Leviticus it is πλημμέλεια. But the Apostle, where he says: 'if a man be overtaken in any trespass,' the Greek has παραπτώματι. If the origin of these names be examined: in 'paraptoma' he who trespasses is understood as it were to fall down (decidere) — whence a corpse (cadaver), which the Latins named from falling (a cadendo), is in Greek called πτῶμα, from πίπτειν, that is, from that which is 'to fall.' He therefore who by sinning does evil, first by trespassing falls from the good. And πλημμέλεια is a name akin to negligence;
for in Greek negligence is called ἀμέλεια, because there is no care (cura) for that which is neglected. For thus the Greek says 'I do not care': οὐ μέλει μοι. The particle therefore which is added, πλήν, so that it be said πλημμέλεια, signifies 'beyond' (praeter); so that ἀμέλεια, which is called negligence, seems to sound 'without care,' while πλημμέλεια sounds 'beyond care,' which is nearly the same thing. Hence also certain of our own preferred to translate πλημμέλεια not as 'trespass' but as 'negligence.' But in the Latin tongue, what else is neglected (neglegitur) but what is not read (non legitur), that is, not chosen (non eligitur)? Whence also Latin authors have said that law (lex) is named from reading (a legendo), that is, from choosing (ab eligendo).
By these traces, as it were, it is gathered that he trespasses who forsakes the good and by forsaking falls from the good, because he neglects it, that is, does not choose it. But whence 'sin' (peccatum) was so called, which in Greek is called ἁμαρτία, does not for the moment occur to me in either tongue. It can also seem that trespass is that which is committed imprudently, that is, ignorantly, and sin that which is committed by one who knows. To this distinction these divine testimonies seem to accord: 'Who understands his trespasses (delicta)?' And that other: 'For thou hast known my imprudence (imprudentiam)'; for immediately following he added: 'and my sins (delicta) are not hidden from thee' — as though repeating the same sentence in another way. Nor does that saying of the Apostle which I mentioned a little before disagree with the same reasoning:
'if a man be overtaken in any trespass'; for from this, that he says 'overtaken' (praeoccupatum), he signifies that the man has slipped imprudently. But that sin pertains to one who knows, the Apostle James, as it were defining it, says: 'To him therefore who knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin.' But whether it be that or this or some other difference of sin and trespass, unless there were some, Scripture would not so speak as to say: 'as that which is for sin, so also that which is for a trespass; there is one law for them.' But for the most part they are used indifferently, so that both sin is called by the name of trespass and trespass by the name of sin. For neither, when it is said that in baptism remission of sins takes place, does remission not also take place of trespasses;
nor yet are both named, because in that one name both are understood. So also the Lord says that his blood is shed for many unto the remission of sins. Surely, because he does not also say 'and of trespasses,' will anyone therefore dare to say that in his blood there is no remission of trespasses? Likewise, what is written in the Apostle: 'for the judgment indeed was from one unto condemnation, but grace from many trespasses (delictis) unto justification' — what else is this but that under the name of trespasses sins too are comprehended? In this very Scripture of Leviticus also, by which we are compelled either to find or to believe some distinction between trespass and sin, thus it is read, when God was speaking concerning these very sacrifices which were commanded to be offered for sins:
'But if,' he says, 'the whole congregation of the children of Israel shall be ignorant, and the matter be hidden from the eyes of the congregation, and they shall do one of all the commandments of the Lord which ought not to be done, and shall trespass (deliquerint), and the sin which they have sinned therein shall become known to them.' Behold where he said 'and shall trespass,' there he immediately added 'the sin which they have sinned' — this very thing, namely, that they have trespassed. And a little after: 'But if,' he says, 'a ruler shall sin, and shall do one of all the precepts of the Lord his God which ought not to be done, unwillingly, and shall trespass.' Likewise in what follows:
'But if,' he says, 'one soul among the people of the land shall sin unwillingly, in doing something of all the precepts of the Lord which ought not to be done, and shall trespass, and the sin which he has sinned therein shall become known to him.' Likewise elsewhere: 'Whatever soul shall swear, distinguishing with his lips to do evil or to do good, according to all that a man shall distinguish with an oath, and it shall be hidden from him, and he shall afterwards come to know it, and shall have sinned one of these things, and shall have confessed the sin for which he sinned against it, and shall offer for the things wherein he has trespassed to the Lord, for that sin which he sinned.' And a little after: 'And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying:'
'If a soul shall be hidden from itself by forgetfulness and shall sin unwillingly against the holy things of the Lord, then he shall offer for his trespass to the Lord a ram without blemish from the flock, at a price of silver shekels, by the shekel of the sanctuary, for that wherein he trespassed; and for that wherein he sinned against the holy things he shall make restitution, and shall add the fifth part upon it, and shall give it to the priest; and the priest shall make expiation for him in the ram of the trespass, and it shall be remitted to him.' It follows further, and he says: 'And whatever soul shall sin and shall do one of all the precepts of the Lord which ought not to be done, and shall not have known it, and shall have trespassed, and shall have received his sin, then he shall offer a ram without blemish from the flock, at a price of silver, for a trespass, to the priest;'
'and the priest shall make expiation for him for his ignorance wherein he was ignorant, and himself did not know, and it shall be remitted to him. For he trespassed a trespass before the Lord.' And further he speaks thus: 'And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying:'
'Whatever soul shall sin and, despising, shall despise the precepts of the Lord, and shall have lied concerning things pertaining to his neighbour — about a thing entrusted, or about a partnership, or about a robbery — or shall have done his neighbour some wrong, or shall have found what was lost and lied about it, and shall have sworn unjustly concerning one of all the things that a man does, so as to sin therein: then it shall be, when he has sinned and trespassed, that he shall restore the robbery which he robbed, or the wrong wherewith he harmed, or the thing entrusted which was deposited with him, or the lost thing which he found, of any matter concerning which he swore unjustly; and he shall restore it in full, and shall add its fifth part to it — to whom it belongs, to him he shall restore it, on the day when he is convicted; and for his trespass he shall offer to the Lord a ram from the flock without blemish, at the price wherein he trespassed;'
'and the priest shall make expiation for him before the Lord, and it shall be remitted to him for one of all the things that he did and trespassed therein.' Thus in almost all the deeds which he says are sins, he calls the same also trespasses. Wherefore both that they are said indifferently is manifest from many places of the Scriptures, and that there is some difference Scripture attests, when it says: 'as that which is for sin, so also that which is for a trespass.' 'You shall not eat any fat of oxen and sheep and goats. And the fat of carcasses and of what has been taken by a wild beast shall be put to every use, but for food it shall not be eaten. Everyone who eats the fat of the cattle from which you offer a victim to the Lord — that soul shall perish from among its people.' He had said above concerning fat:
'All the fat is the Lord's,' and we had asked whether it meant absolutely all the fat of every clean animal only — for concerning the unclean there is no question — and what should be done with the fat which he forbade to come into food. But now he has said what should be done with the fat of a carcass and of what is taken by a wild beast, namely that it be put to every use; 'every use' certainly meaning that use for which some such thing is necessary. Whence the question remained, what is to be done with the fat of the other animals which are clean for eating. But when he says that every soul shall perish from its people who eats the fat of those cattle from which offering is made to the Lord, he seems to have determined that only that fat is forbidden to be eaten which is of the clean cattle from which sacrifice is made — although we have heard that the Jews take no fat at all into food.
But what Scripture willed, not what they supposed, is to be sought. In fact they cannot find what rightly to do with the fat from which they abstain, and how to cast it away, since it was said: 'All the fat is the Lord's,' if they will have understood here not only the fat of the sacrifices but also that of those animals from which no sacrifice is made, albeit unclean ones. What does it mean, that concerning the peace-offerings he again admonishes and says that he who offers the gift of his peace-offering ought to give the breast and the shoulder to the priests?
yet in such a way that the fat of the breast should be offered to the Lord with the caul of the liver, whereas above, when speaking of the peace-offerings, he had commanded the caul of the liver to be offered to the Lord together with the fat of the belly and the kidneys and the loins, but was silent about the fat of the breast? Or is it that what he passed over there, he here recalls? Why then does he speak of the caul of the liver both there and here? Or perhaps is there some difference in that above he prescribes concerning the 'peace-offering,' while here he adds 'his own,' as though a 'peace-offering' were one thing and a 'peace-offering of one's own' another? When he was earlier recalling the sacrifices for sins, he said a bullock was to be offered for the sin of a priest who had made the people to sin:
and afterwards too, when Scripture narrated how the things which the Lord commanded were carried out with respect to Aaron and his sons, a bullock is said to have been offered for sin. But above he commanded the horns of the altar of incense to be touched with the blood of the bullock, and that some also of that blood be sprinkled against the holy veil, but that the remaining blood be poured out at the base of the altar of holocausts. Afterwards, however, when Aaron is sanctified, nothing is said about the sprinkling of blood against the veil, but concerning the horns of the altar it is said — yet 'of incense' is not added; and it is added that the blood is to be poured out 'at the base of the altar' — he did not say 'at its base,' as though it had been necessary to take that altar whose horns he had touched with blood.
Accordingly, although it is ambiguously stated, one is nevertheless free to understand the deed thus, as it had earlier been commanded concerning the bullock for sin: that we understand not the horns of that altar to have been touched at whose base the blood was poured, but that the horns of the altar of incense were touched, while the blood was poured at the base of the altar of sacrifices. Above, because he was giving a general command — if a priest should sin — he commanded that priest, anointed and consecrated, whom he wishes to be understood as the high priest, to offer these sacrifices; but now, when Aaron is sanctified, Moses offers them, and he himself takes the breast of the laying-on, which he had earlier declared was to be given to the priest.
And I think that it is called the breast of the laying-on because the fat was laid on from it, as he recalled above concerning the peace-offering. Since therefore the high priesthood appears to have begun from Aaron, what do we suppose Moses to have been? For if he was not a priest, how were all those things carried out through him? But if he was, how do we determine that the high priesthood began from his brother? Yet even that psalm, where it is said: 'Moses and Aaron among his priests,' may take away doubt, since Moses too was a priest. That priestly vestment, however, which contains a great mystery (sacramentum), Aaron is commanded to receive, and his successors the high priests.
In Exodus, before anything at all is commanded concerning the sanctifying and, as it were, ordaining of priests, when, as Moses ascends the mountain, the priests are commanded not to ascend — whom we cannot understand to be any others than the sons of Aaron, not because they already were priests, but because they were to be — Scripture has already then called them by this name by anticipation, as are very many such expressions: for the son of Nun too was called Jesus (Joshua), although Scripture relates that this name was imposed on him long afterwards. Both therefore, Moses and Aaron, were then high priests. Or rather Moses, and Aaron under him? Or was he too a high priest on account of the pontifical vestment, but the other on account of a more excellent ministry? For at the beginning it is said to him:
'You yourself shall speak to the people the things pertaining to them, and you to him the things pertaining to God.' It can also be asked: after the death of Moses, who anointed the successor of the high priest, who could not succeed except to one deceased? Or was it that, because he had already been anointed among the second priests — for it was the same oil with which both the high priest and the second priests were anointed — that pontiff took only the vestment, by which his supremacy might appear? And if it is so, did he take it himself, or did another clothe him, as after his death Moses clothed his brother's son? If therefore he was clothed by another, could a supreme priest possibly be clothed by a second one? Especially since the vestment was such that it was necessary for him to be clothed by another. Or was he clothed thus beforehand as also afterwards? For once clothed, he did not put it off;