Page 297.—_A goat for a sin-offering._] The directions for sin-offerings are found, Lev. iv. Num. xv. 22. From these passages it appears, that these offerings were prescribed in the case of sins of ignorance; unintentional, and at the time unobserved, violations of the Levitical law. The sacrifice of Helon in the text, appears to be represented by the author as a voluntary expression of remorse for his unjust conduct; a purpose very foreign from the design of the sin-offerings spoken of in the passages above quoted. It may also be observed, that the law takes no notice of the case of a priest incurring guilt: perhaps he might be included under the general term ruler. Besides sin-offerings, (called הטאת) trespass-offerings אשם were also to be presented, Lev. v. vi. xiv. 12, 13. xix. 20. 22. Num. vi. 11, 12.; chiefly in cases of the breach of some social duty, and in addition to the penalties provided against the offence, but also for Levitical defilement and sins of ignorance. They differed chiefly in this, that a sin-offering was sometimes made for the whole congregation; a trespass-offering only for individuals; a bullock was never sacrificed for a trespass-offering, and the blood of the latter was sprinkled at the bottom of the altar, not dropped on the horns. Jennings’s Jew. Ant. ii. 332. Lightfoot, Works, i. 929. &c. Page 302.—The ritual for the day of atonement will be found, Lev. xvi. xxiii. 27-32. Num. xxix. 7-11. What is described in the text beyond the warrant of these passages, is derived from Rabbinical authority. See the treatise Joma יומא i. e. _the_ day κατ’ ἐξοχὴν) in Surenh. Mischna, ii. 206. et seq. Lightfoot, i. 961. It is doubtful whether a substitute were chosen to fill the place of the high-priest; for Josephus (xvii. 6. 4.) mentions an instance in which, having incurred pollution just before the day of atonement, it was necessary to create another for the rites of this day. As the high-priest had on this day to perform the office of a common priest, for which his splendid robes of ceremony would have been inconvenient, he went through this part of his duties in the ordinary sacerdotal dress of byssus, i. e. probably at this time cotton. The word by which the material of the priest’s dress is described in the Mosaic law is שש or בד, בוץ (byssus) not occurring in any of the books of Scripture before the captivity. As the Jewish ritual was formed in so great a degree upon that of Egypt, where the priests certainly wore linen garments, in a country early celebrated for its flax, (Exod. ix. 31.) it is probable that the garments of the priests were directed by the law to be made of this material, but that when the use of cotton was learnt, it was substituted for linen. This appears to have been the case in Egypt also; for Herodotus (ii. 81.) describes the priests as wearing κιθῶνας λινεόυς, but the mummies as being swathed, σινδόνος βυσσίνης τελαμῶσι (85.) while Pliny (N. H. xix. 1.) says, “Superior pars Ægypti,