22. And if ye have erred. He teaches by what kind of sacrifice the sins of the whole people or of each individual are to be expiated, although he enumerates only two of the four classes which are mentioned in Leviticus; for a special atonement is there enjoined both on the priest and the ruler. But neither is the ceremony of sacrificing here described, since Moses only wished to refresh their memories by the way as to the manner in which, either publicly or privately, they were to be reconciled to God. This word “error,” ²⁶⁴²⁶⁴     “Ce mot d’inadvertence.” — Fr. as we have said, extends to incogitancy, which partakes of contempt of God, and arises from too great security, when men inconsiderately fall into the sins to which their lusts invite them; for deliberate impiety is afterwards brought into contrast with error, when men designedly rush into violations of the law. But since nothing is more easy than for men to err, this remedy was most necessary, lest they who had sinned should fall into despair. Lest, then, the people or private individuals, when they saw their guilt, should despair of pardon and throw away the pursuit of holiness, God anticipates them, and shews them by what means He is to be propitiated, so that the sins which had occurred should not interrupt His service. Since, however, Moses here only repeats what has already been explained, there is no need of dwelling largely upon it, except that in one point he seems to deliver a law different from the former one; for he there commands two bullocks to be slain for the reconciliation of the people, ²⁶⁵²⁶⁵     “This law differs from Leviticus 4:13, 14. Outram thinks the bullock was to be offered under that law when the whole congregation of Israel, though in other respects retaining their own rites and following the worship of the true God, yet, led away by one common error, transgressed, without knowing it, some prohibitory precept. The kid for a sin-offering, accompanied with a bullock for a burnt-offering, (see ver. 24,) Outram says he apprehends to have been required when the people, neglecting their ancient rites and unmindful of the divine laws, (which often happened under wicked kings,) were seduced into strange worship. What is recorded in 2 Chronicles 28:24, 29:3, 21, 24, Outram thinks adds much probability to his opinion. See Outram, D. 1, ch. 14, Section 2.” — Brightwell in loco. the one as a burnt-offering, the other as a sin-offering; yet, if the second were not easily obtained, the permission was given to substitute a goat. In Leviticus, therefore, the regular and perfect rite was delivered; the permissive alteration is only added here; nor does Moses contradict himself, though, for the sake of brevity, he only refers to one of the two modes. At the end a clearer explanation is subjoined, viz., that the same law should be common to all, since it was by no means expedient to introduce any diversity.