[A man is not held blameless when he violates the laws of the land because he did it unwittingly : he is obnoxious to a penalty, though from the consideration of his ignorance that penalty may be mitigated. Nor does any man consider ignorance as a sufficient plea for his servant's faults, if that servant had the means of knowing his master's will : he rather blames that servant for negligence and disrespect in not shewing greater solicitude to ascertain and perform his duty.
With respect to God, the passage before us shews in the strongest light, that even the slightest error, and that too in the observance of a mere arbitrary institution, however unin- tentionally committed, could not be deemed innocent : on the contrary, it is said, " He shall bring his offering ; he hath cer- tainly trespassed against the Lord." Much more therefore must every violation of the moral law be attended with guilt, because there is an inherent malignity in every transgression of the moral law ; and because man's ignorance of his duty, as well as his aversion to duty, is a fruit and consequence of the first transgression. Hence is there an eternal curse denounced against every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do theme.
It is yet further evident that ignorance is no excuse before God, because St. Paul calls himself a blasphemer, and inju- rious, and a persecutor, yea, the very chief of sinners, for persecuting the Church, notwithstanding he thought he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus f. And God declares that men perish for lack of knowledge6, and that, because they are of no understanding, he will therefore shew them no favour11.]
The only remedy for sins, how light soever they may appear to us, is the atonement of Christ —
[The high-priest was appointed particularly to offer for the errors of the people1. And as soon as ever an error, or unintentional transgression, was discovered, the person guilty of it was to bring his offering k, and to seek for mercy through the blood of atonement. There was indeed a distinction in the offerings which different persons were to bring ; which dis- tinction was intended to shew that the degrees of criminality attaching to the errors of different people, varied in proportion as the offenders enjoyed the means of information.
If a priest erred, he must bring a bullock for an offering1 ; if a ruler erred, he must offer a male kidm; if one of the
e Gal. hi. 10. f Acts xxvi. 9. with 1 Tim. i. 15. s Hos. iv. 6. " Isai. xxvii. 11. i Heb. ix. 7. with Ezek. xlv. 19, 20.
k The offering was to be of proper value according to the priest's "estimation." Lev. xxvii. 2 — 8.
1 Lev. iv. 3. m Lev. iv.22, 23.