On the other hand, the human conscience can readily grasp the full amount of a human claim, and can readily take cognizance of any interference with such claim. How often may we have wronged God, in His holy things, without ever taking a note of it in the tablet of conscience--yea, without having the competency to detect it. (See Mal. iii. 8.) Not so, however, when man's rights are in question. The wrong which the human eye can see, and the human heart feel, the human conscience can take notice of. A man, "through ignorance" of the laws which governed the sanctuary of old, might commit a trespass against those laws without being aware of it, until a higher light had shone in upon his conscience; but a man could not "through ignorance" tell a lie, swear falsely, commit an act of violence, deceive his neighbor, or find a lost thing and deny it. These were all plain and palpable acts, lying within the range of the most sluggish sensibility. Hence it is that the expression, "through ignorance" is introduced in reference to "the holy things of the Lord," and omitted in reference to the common affairs of men. How blessed it is to know that the precious blood of Christ has settled all questions, whether with respect to God or man--our sins of ignorance or our known sins! Here lies the deep and settled foundation of the believer's peace. The cross has divinely met ALL. Again, when it was a question of trespass "in the holy things of the Lord," the unblemished sacrifice was first introduced; and afterward, "the principal" and "the fifth." This order was reversed when it was a question of the common affairs of life. (Comp. chap. v. 15, 16 with chap. vi. 4-7.) The reason of this is equally obvious. When the divine rights were infringed, the blood of atonement was made the great prominent matter; whereas when human rights were interfered with, restitution would naturally assume the leading place in the mind. But inasmuch as the latter involved the question of the soul's relation with God as well as the former, therefore the sacrifice is introduced, though it be last in order. If I wrong my fellow-man, that wrong will undoubtedly interfere with my communion with God; and that communion can only be restored on the ground of atonement. Mere restitution would not avail; it might satisfy the injured man, but it could not form the basis of restored communion with God. I might restore "the principal" and add "the fifth" ten thousand times over, and yet my sin remain, for "without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb. ix. 22.) Still, if it be a question of injury done to my neighbor, then restitution must first be made.--"If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." (Matt. v. 23, 24.)[18]