projecting in any direction after the manner of a horn (not necessarily like a horn in shape) ; and there is no reason to doubt that the horns of the successive altars of burnt-offerings resembled those corners projecting upwards which are seen in many The first figure is taken from Calmet's original work, and exhibits the form which, with slight variation, is also preferred by Bernard Lamy, and by Prideaux (Connection, i. 200). It is excellently conceived ; but is open to the objection that the slope, so far from being insensible,' as Josephus describes it, is steep and inconvenient ; and yet, on the other hand, a less steep ascent to an object so elevated must have been inconveniently extended.
Calmet gives the above only as in accordance with the Rabbinical descriptions. His own view been then known that steps actually existed in Solomon's altar, or in that of the second temple, this would have been regarded as a serious departure from the strict letter of the law, not to be repeated in the new altar. In a similar way the student Of the Bible may account for some other discrepancies between the temples of Solomon and Ezekiel, and that of Herod.
of the matter is conveyed in the annexed figure. This is certainly a very handsome altar in itself, but it would be scarcely possible to devise one more unsuitable for the actual, and occasionally extensive, services of the Jewish altar. None of these objections apply to the next figure, derived from Surenhusius (lIfislina, torn. ii. p. 261), which,
for use and effect, far exceeds any other representa tion that has hitherto been attempted. An ascent by an inclined plane to an altar so high as that of Solomon must either have been inconveniently steep, or have had an unseemly extension— objections obviated by the provision of three ascents, of four steps each, conducting to successive platforms. In the description of Ezekiel's temple, ' steps' are placed on the east side of the altar (Ezek. xliii. 17) ; and as it is generally sup posed that the details of that description agree with those of Solomon's temple, it is on that authority the steps are introduced. If they actually existed, it may be asked how this was consistent with the law, which forbade steps altogether. The obvious answer is, that, as public decency was the ostensible ground of the prohibition (Exod. xx. 26), it might be supposed that it was not imperative if steps could be so disposed that decency should not be violated ; and that, if a law may be interpreted by the reason of its enactment, this law could only be meant to forbid a continuous flight of steps, and not a broken ascent. If it is still urged against this view that, according to Josephus, the ascent in the temple of Herod was by an insensible slope, an answer is found in the fact, that, at the time of its erection, a mode of interpreting the law accord ing to the dead letter, rather than the spirit, had arisen ; and we have no doubt that even had it