Having considered the "sweet savor" offerings, we now approach the "sacrifices for sin." These were divided into two classes, namely, sin-offerings and trespass-offerings. Of the former, there were three grades; first, the offering for "the priest that is anointed," and for "the whole congregation." These two were the same in their rites and ceremonies. (Compare ver. 3-12 with ver. 13-21.) It was the same in result, whether it were the representative of the assembly or the assembly itself that sinned. In either case there were three things involved,--God's dwelling-place in the assembly, the worship of the assembly, and individual conscience. Now, inasmuch as all three depended upon the blood, we find, in the first grade of sin-offering, there were three things done with the blood. It was sprinkled "seven times before the Lord, _before the vail of the sanctuary_." This secured Jehovah's relationship with the people, and His dwelling in their midst. Again, we read, "The priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation." This secured the worship of the assembly. By putting the blood upon "the golden altar," the true basis of worship was preserved; so that the flame of the incense and the fragrance thereof might continually ascend. Finally, "He shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of the burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." Here, we have the claims of individual conscience fully answered; for the brazen altar was the place of individual approach,--it was the place where God met the sinner. In the two remaining grades--for "a ruler" or "one of the common people," it was merely a question of individual conscience, and therefore there was only one thing done with the blood,--it was all poured "at the bottom of the altar of burnt-offering." (Comp. ver. 7 with ver. 25, 30.) There is divine precision in all this, which demands the close attention of my reader, if only he desires to enter into the marvelous detail of this type.[11] [11] There is this difference between the offering for "a ruler" and for "one of the common people:" in the former, it was "a _male_ without blemish;" in the latter, "a _female_ without blemish." The sin of a ruler would necessarily exert a wider influence than that of a common person, and therefore a more powerful application of the value of the blood was needed. In chapter v. 13, we find cases demanding a still lower application of the sin-offering--cases of swearing, and of touching any uncleanness, in which "the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour" was admitted as a sin-offering. (See chap. v. 11-13.) What a contrast between the view of atonement presented by a ruler's bullock and a poor man's handful of flour! And yet, in the latter, just as truly as in the former, we read, "It shall be forgiven him."