ALTARS, FORMS OF (al'terz, farms ov or fur). In the preceding article the reader is fur nished with all the positive information which we possess respecting the altars as mentioned in Scripture; but as, with regard to material objects so frequently named as altars, we feel a desire to have distinct images in the mind, some further remarks respecting the forms which they probably bore may not be unacceptable.
(1) Unhewn Stone. The direction to the Israel ites, at the time of 'their leaving Egypt, to con struct their altars of unhewn stones or of earth, is doubtless to be understood as an injunction to fol low the usage of their patriarchal ancestors; and not to adopt the customs, full of idolatrous as sociations, which they had seen in Egypt, or might see in the land of Canaan. As they were also strictly enjoined to destroy the altars of the Canaanites, it is more than probable that the direction was leveled against such usages as those into which that people had fallen. The conclusion deducible from this, that the patriarchal altars were of unhewn stones or of earth, is confirmed by the circumstances under which they were erected, and by the fact that they are always de scribed as being 'built.' The provision that they might be made of earth applies doubtless to situ ations in which stones could not be easily ob tained. as in the open plains and wildernesses. Familiar analogies lead to the inference that the largest stones that could be found in the neigh borhood would be employed to form the altar, but where no large stones could be had, that heaps of smaller ones might be made to serve.
(2) Cromlechs. As these altars were erected in the open air, and were very carefully preserved, there is at least a strong probability that some of those ancient monuments of unhewn stone, usually called Druidical remains, which are found in all parts of the world, were derived from the altars of primitive times. These arc various in their forms, and their peculiar uses have been very much disputed. It is admitted, however, that some . of them must have been altars, but the difficulty is to determine whether these altars are to be sought in the Cromlechs.
The arguments preponderate in favor of the opinion that the Cromlechs are the representatives of the primitive altars, and that the Kistvaens (stones disposed in a chest-like form) are analogous to the arks of the Jewish ritual and of some of the pagan religions. (See ARK OF COVENANT.)
Cromlechs, as is well known, are somewhat in the form of a table, one large stone being sup ported, in a horizontal or slightly inclined posi tion, upon three or more, but usually three stones, set upright. That they were used as altars is almost instinctively suggested to every one that views them, and this conclusion is strengthened when, as is often the case, we observe a small cir cular hole through which probably the rope was run by which the victims, when slaughtered, were bound to the altar, as they were to the angular projections or 'horns' of the Jewish altar (Ps. cxviii ;27).
(3) Cairn Altars. It was natural that where a sufficiency of large stones could not be found, heaps of smaller ones should be employed, and that, when practicable, a large flat stone would be placed on the top, to give a proper level for the fire of the sacrifice. Such are the cairn altars, of which many still remain; but as they arc sometimes found in places where stones of large size might have been obtained, it seems that in later times such altars had a special ap propriation. and Toland (Ilist. B. Druids, 101) shows that the sacred fires were burned on them, and sacrifices offered to Bel, Baal, or the Sun.
high, and that only a particular mode of ascent was forbidden. The altar of the temple was not less than ten cubits high, and some means of as cent must have been provided. The usual repre sentations of Solomon's altar are formed chiefly from the descriptions of that in I lerod's temple given by Jusephus and the Rabbins. and although this last was almost one-third higher and larger than the other, it was doubtless upon the same model. The altar of the first temple had been seen, and could be described, by many of those who were present when that of the second temple was erected, and the latter was known to those by whom flerod's altar was built. Very different figures, however, have been formed from these descriptions, and that which we here introduce is perhaps the best and most probable of them.