25. Speak unto Aaron. We everywhere see how carefully God provided that the people should have no doubts about anything. And assuredly true religion is distinguished from false imaginations by this peculiar mark, that God Himself prescribes what is to be done. Nor can certainty, though religion ought to be based upon it, be derived elsewhere than from His own mouth. Now, because there was a difference between burnt-offerings and sin-offerings, it would have been natural to kill them separately in different, places, unless the error had been anticipated; but all doubt, is removed when God assigns the same place to them both. Whence, too, we gather that one law suffices for the proper worship of God, if men are not wise in their own conceits, but depend on His mouth. For how came it to pass that, whilst these two kinds of oblations differed from each other, the rule respecting them was the same on this point, except because it so pleased God? This passage, therefore, sufficiently reminds us with how great sober-mindedness and modesty it becomes us to follow what is pointed out to us in God’s word. A reason, however, is at the same time added, which may invite reverence to be paid to the sin-offerings, when especial sanctity is attributed to them, which, according to the idiom of the Hebrew language, is called “holiness of holinesses.” Moreover, Moses begins to distinguish between חטאה, chateah, (281) and אשם, asham, which the Latins translate peccatum, and delictum, though he had before used them indifferently to express the same thing. What the difference was, I confess, I know not; I see the guesses of others, but nothing certain.
(281) A. V. , “The sin-offering and the trespass-offering.” Michaelis has affirmed that the former was a sacrifice for sins of commission, and the latter for sins of omission: but the Hebrew lexicographer, J. Simons, has observed that this distinction is by no means compatible with the text in all instances. Professor James Robertson, “Clavis Pentat.,” in a note on Leviticus 4:3, gives other opinions about the distinction, but expresses himself as most approving of that which supposes the first to be an offering for offenses against the First Table of the Decalogue: the second for those against the Second Table. — W.