his friends; also by the poor, the widow, servants, etc.:――――(h.) Wave and heave offerings――terms which refer to ceremonies of elevating or waving certain parts of the sacrifice. (5.) A much more important distinction in the Mosaic sacrifices lies between those which were _expiatory_ and those which were not specially so, the former class being slain animals whose fat at least was burned on the altar and whose blood was sprinkled in specified and various ways; the latter class having somewhat various objects, but chiefly that of expressing gratitude for blessings or joy in the God of their salvation. * * * * * Two other points in respect to sacrifices are of importance, viz.―― (a.) _The choice of animals to be slain in sacrifice._ (b.) The killing itself, coupled with the use made of the blood, of the fat, and in some cases of the flesh――with the attendant ceremonies. (a.) It should be carefully noted that animals for sacrifice were not taken up at random. It was not merely life and blood that were sought. They were not the wild, but the tame, domesticated; not the savage, flesh-eating animals, but the docile, grass-eating; not animals mostly or altogether useless to man, but precisely those which were most useful; not animals of the sort nobody loves or cares for, but those most loved and cared for, between whom and the human family there often arises a special intimacy and affection. In a word they were the representatives of utility, docility, and innocence. The ox, patient of toil, in his early years invaluable for food; the goat, useful for flesh and milk; the lamb――the symbol of affection, attachment, innocence:――these three classes of animals formed the staple material for bloody sacrifice. [Of birds, the turtle-dove and young pigeon, being less expensive, were permitted to the poor. As naturally representing innocence and loveliness, they are quite of the same class].――――It sometimes escapes notice that the Orientals brought these animals much nearer to their hearts and homes than our Western notions and habits know of. We forget that not infrequently to this day they live under the same roof along with sons and daughters. The prophet Nathan in that touching verse about the “one little ewe lamb” (2 Sam. 12: 3) drew not from his imagination but from Oriental life. “The poor man had nothing save one little ewe lamb which he had bought and nourished up, and it grew up together with him and with his children: it did eat of his own meat” [food] “and drank from his own cup and lay in his bosom, and was to him as his daughter.”――――Moreover, the Hebrew might not select for sacrifice the deformed, the torn, the lame, the sickly; but evermore, the unblemished, the perfect――those specially lovable and choice pets around which the hearts of the household, young and old, were wont to cling: of these must the worshiper take for the altar.