mentioned as belonging to the altar, all of which were to be made of brass. (1) pans or dishes to receive the ashes that fell through the grating. (2) shovels for cleaning the altar. (3) vessels for receiving the blood and sprinkling it on the altar. (4) large forks to turn the pieces of flesh or to take them off the fire (see 1 Sam. ii. 13). (5) fire-pans; the same word is elsewhere translated censers, Num. xvi. 17; but in Exod. xxv. 38, 'snuff-dishes.' 2. The altar of burnt-offering in Solomon's temple was of much larger dimensions, twenty cubits in length and breadth, and ten in height' (2 Chron. iv. 1), and was made entirely of brass. It is said of Asa that he renewed, that is, either repaired (in which sense the word is evidently used in 2 Chron. xxiv. 4) or reconsecrated the altar of the Lord that was before the porch of the Lord (2 Chron. xv. 8). This altar was removed by king Ahaz (2 Kings xvi. 14); it was 'cleansed by Hezekiah; and in the latter part of Manasseh's reign was rebuilt. 3. Of the altar of burnt-offering in the second temple, the canonical scriptures give us no information excepting that it was erected before the foundations of the temple were laid (Ezra iii. 3, 6) on the same place where it had formerly been built. From the Apocrypha, however, we may infer that it was made, not of brass, but of unhewn stone. 4. The altar of burnt-offering erected by Herod is thus described by Josephus: Before this temple stood the altar, fifteen cubits high, and equal both in length and breadth, each of which dimensions was fifty cubits. The figure it was built in was a square, and it had corners like horns, and the passage up to it was by an insensible acclivity from the south. It was formed without any iron tool, nor did any iron tool so much as touch it at any time.' The dimensions of this altar, however, are differently stated in the Mishna. On the south side was an inclined plane, 32 cubits long and 16 cubits broad, made likewise of unhewn stones. A pipe was connected with the south-west horn, through which the blood of the victims was discharged by a subterraneous passage into the brook Kedron Under the altar was a cavity to receive the drink-offerings, which was covered with a marble slab, and cleansed from time to time. On the north side of the altar several iron rings were fixed to fasten the victims. Lastly, a red line was drawn round the middle of the altar to distinguish between the blood that was to be sprinkled above and below it. II. The second altar belonging to the Jewish worship was the altar of incense, called also the golden altar (Num. iv. 11). It was placed between the table of shew-bread and the golden candlestick, in the most holy place. 1. This altar in the tabernacle was made of Shittim-wood overlaid with gold plates, one cubit in length and breadth, and two cubits in height. It had horns (Lev. iv. 7) of the same materials; and round the flat surface was a border of gold, underneath which were the rings to receive the staves made of Shittim-wood, over laid with gold to bear it withal' (Exod. xxx. 1-5). 2. The altar in Solomon's Temple was similar, but made of cedar (1 Kings vi. 20; vii. 48; 1 Chron. xxviii. 18) overlaid with gold. ALTARS 3. The altar in the second temple was taken away by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc. i. 21), and restored by Judas Maccabæus (1 Mace. iv. 49). On the arch of Titus there appears no altar of incense. ALTARS, FORMS OF. In the preceding article the reader is furnished with all the positive information which we possess respecting the altars 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. The direction to the Israelites, at the time of their leaving Egypt, to construct their altars of unhewn stones or of earth, is doubtless to be understood as an injunction to follow the usage of their patriarchal ancestors; and not to adopt the customs, full of idolatrous associations, 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 levelled 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 described as being built.' The provision that they might be made of earth, applies doubtless to situations in which stones could not be easily obtained, as in the open plains and wildernesses. Familiar analogies lead to the inference that the largest stones that could be found in the neighbourhood 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. 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 are diversified 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 or the Kistvaens. It seems to us that the arguments preponderate in favour 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 [ARK]. Cromlechs, as is well known, are somewhat in the form of a table, one large stone being supported, in a horizontal or slightly inclined position, 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 circular 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 'horus' of the Jewish altar (Ps. cxviii. 27). 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 and the sacrifice. Such are the cairn-altars, of which many still remain; but as they are sometimes found in places where stones of large size might have been obtained, it seems that in later times such altars had a special appropriation; and that the sacred fires were burned on them, and sacrifices offered to Bel, Baal, or the Sun. 28. The injunction that there should be no ascent by steps to the altar appears to have been imperfectly understood. There are no accounts or figures of altars so elevated in their fabric as to require such steps for the officiating priests; but when altars are found on rocks or hills, the ascent to them is sometimes facilitated by steps cut in the rock. This, therefore, may have been an indirect way of preventing that erection of altars in high places which the Scriptures so often reprobate. It is usually supposed, however, that the effect of this prohibition was, that the tabernacle altar, like most ancient altars, was so low as to need no ascent; or else that some other kind of ascent was provided. The former is probably right, for the altar was but three cubits high, and was designed to be portable. There is one error in these and other figures of the Jewish altars composed from the descriptions; namely, with regard to the horns,' which were placed at the corners, called the horns of the altar' (Exod. xxvii. 2; xxix. 12; 1 Kings ii. 28), and to which the victims were tied at the time of sacrifice. The word horn was applied by the Jews as an epithet descriptive of any point projecting in any direction after the manner of a hora (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 ancient altars. These are shown in the view depicting the probable form of the Jewish altar of burnt-offerings. By the time of Solomon it appears to have 29. been understood that the interdiction of steps of ascent did not imply that the altar was to be low, but rather that it was to be high, and that only a particular mode of ascend was forbidden. The altar of the temple was not less than ten cubits high, and some means of ascent must have been provided. The usual representations of Solomon's altar are formed chiefly from the descriptions of that in Herod's temple given by Josephus 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 Herod'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. THE ALTAR OF INCENSE, being very simple in its parts and uses, has been represented with so little difference, except in some ornamental details, that one of the figures designed from the descriptions may suffice. It is not our object to describe the altars of other nations; but, to supply materials for comparison and illustration, a group of the altars of the principal nations of Oriental and classical antiquity is here introduced. One obvious remark occurs, namely, that all the Oriental altars are square or oblong, whereas those of Greece ALTAR AT ATHENS. St. Paul, in his admired address before the judges of the Areopagus at Athens, declares that he perceived that the Athenians were in all things too superstitious, for that, as he was passing by and beholding their devotions, he found an altar, inscribed, To THE UNKNOWN GOD;' and adds, with unexpected force, Him whom ye worship without knowing, I set forth unto you' (Acts xvii. 22, 23). The questions suggested by the mention of an altar at Athens, thus inscribed to the unknown God,' have engaged much attention. Different opiaions have been entertained on the subject, and "arious conjectures made regarding it. No certain information, however, can now be obtained respecting the precise reference of the apostle, AMALEKITES and we are content to rest in the conclusion of Professor Robinson: 'So much at least is certain, that altars to an unknown god or gods existed at Athens. But the attempt to ascertain definitively whom the Athenians worshipped under this appellation must ever remain fruitless for want of sufficient data. The inscription afforded to Paul a happy occasion of proclaiming the Gospel; and those who embraced it found indeed that the being whom they had thus “ignorantly worshipped," was the one only living and true God.' A'LUSH, one of the places at which the Hebrews rested on their way to Mount Sinai (Num. xxxiii. 13). It was between Dophkah and Rephidim. The Jewish Chronology makes it twelve miles from the former and eight from the latter station. AM'ALEK, a son of Eliphaz (the first-born of Esau) by his concubine Timna: he was the chieftain, or Emir, of an Idumæan tribe (Gen. xxxvi. 16). AM'ALEKITES, the name of a nation inhabiting the country to the south of Palestine between Idumæa and Egypt, and to the east of the Dead Sea and Mount Seir. The Amalekite dwell in the land of the south' (Num. xiii. 29). Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah unti! thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt (1 Sam. xv. 7). David went up and invader the Geshurites, and Gezrites, and the Amalekites for those nations were of old the inhabitants of the land as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt' (1 Sam. xxvii. 8). In 1 Chron. iv. 42, it is said that the sons of Simeon went to Mount Seir and smote the rest of the Amalekite that were escaped. According to Josephus the Amalekites inhabited Gobolitis and Petra, and were the most warlike of the nations in those parts and elsewhere he speaks of them as reaching from Pelusium of Egypt to the Red Sea. We find, also, that they had a settlement in that part of Palestine which was allotted to the tribe of Ephraim. The first mention of the Amalekites in the Bible is Gen. xiv. 7; Chedorlaomer and his confederates returned and came to En-Mishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote ali the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar. The Amalekites were the first assailants of the Israelites after their passage through the Red Sea (Exod. xvii.). It has been thought improbable that in so short a period the descendants of Esau's grandson could have been sufficiently numerous and powerful to attack the host of Israel; but within nearly the same period the tribe of Ephraim had increased so that it could muster 40,500 men able to bear arms, and Manasseh 32,200 and admitting in the case of the Israel ites an extraordinary rate of increase (Exod. i. 12, 20), still, if we consider the prostrating influence of slavery on the national character, and the absence of warlike habits, it is easy to conceive that a comparatively small band of marauders would be a very formidable foe to an undisciplined multitude, circumstanced as the Israelites were, in a locality so adapted to irregular warfare. It appears too that the attack was made on the most defenceless portion of the host. Remember (said Moses) what Amalek did unto thee by the way when ye were come : AMARIAH of Amariah and his son Ahitub; and it is therefore sufficiently certain that they never were high-priests in fact, although their names are given to carry on the direct line of succession to Zadok. 2. AMARIAH, high-priest at a later period, the son of Azariah, and also father of a second Ahitub (1 Chron. vi. 11). In like manner, in the same list, there are three high-priests bearing the name of Azariah. 3. AMARIAH, great-grandfather of the prophet Zephaniah (Zeph. i. 1). forth out of Egypt; how he met thee by the way and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were fecble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary' (Deut. xxv. 17, 18). In the Pentateuch the Amalekites are frequently mentioned in connection with the Canaanites (Num. xiv. 25, 43, 45), and, in the book of Judges, with the Moabites and Ammonites (Judg. iii. 13); with the Midianites (Judg. vi. 3; vii. 12: The Midianites, and the Amalekites, and all the children of the East lay along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude; and their camels were without number, as the sand by the sea-side for mul- 1. AMA'SA (burden), son of Abigail, a sister titude'); with the Kenites (1 Sam. xv. 6). By of king David. As his name does not occur divine command, as a retribution for their hosti- prior to Absalom's rebellion (2 Sam. xvii. 25), lity to the Israelites on leaving Egypt (1 Sam. he must have been neglected by David in comxv. 2), Saul invaded their country with an army parison with Joab and Abishai, the sons of his of 210,000 men, and utterly destroyed all the other sister Zeruiah, who had before then been people with the edge of the sword,' but he pre- raised to great power and influence. This appaserved their king Agag alive, and the best of rent estrangement may perhaps be connected the cattle, and by this act of disobedience for- with the fact that Abigail had married an Ishfeited he regal authority over Israel. About maelite called Jether, who was the father of twenty years later they were attacked by David Amasa. This is the more likely, as the fact is during his residence among the Philistines (1 pointedly mentioned (1 Chron. ii. 17), or covertly Sam. xxvii.). It is said that he smote the land indicated (2 Sam. xvii. 25) whenever the name and left neither man or woman alive: this of Abigail occurs, whereas we are quite ignorant language must be taken with some limitation, who was the husband of the other sister, Zeruiah, for shortly after the Amalekites were sufficiently and father of her distinguished sons. We may recovered from their defeat to make reprisals, thus form a conjecture of the grounds on which and burnt Ziklag with fire (1 Sam. xxx.). Da- Amasa joined Absalom, and obtained the comvid, on his return from the camp of Achish, sur- mand of the rebel army. He was defeated by prised them while celebrating their success, his cousin Joab, who commanded the army of eating, and drinking, and dancing,' and 'smote David. This transaction appears to have made them from twilight even unto the evening of the David sensible of the neglect with which Amasa next day, and there escaped not a man of them had been treated; and he eventually offered him save 400 young men which rode upon camels, not only pardon, but the command of the army and fled' (1 Sam. xxx. 17). At a later period, in the room of Joab (2 Sam. xix. 13), whose we find that David dedicated to the Lord the overbearing conduct had become intolerable to silver and gold of Amalek and other conquered him, and to whom he could not entirely forgive nations (2 Sam. viii. 12). The last notice of the the death of Absalom. David, however, was too Amalekites as a nation is in 1 Chron. iv. 43, good a soldier himself to have made this offer, from which we learn that in the days of Heze- had not Amasa, notwithstanding his defeat, diskiah, king of Judah, 500 men of the sons of played high military qualities during his comSimeon went to Mount Seir, and smote the rest mand of Absalom's army. But on the breaking of the Amalekites that were escaped.' out of Sheba's rebellion, Amasa was so tardy i his movements (probably from the reluctance of the troops to follow him), that David despatched Abishai with the household troops in pursuit of Sheba, and Joab joined his brother as a volunteer. When they reached the great stone of Gibeon,' they were overtaken by Amasa with the force he had been able to collect. Joab thought this a favourable opportunity of getting rid of so dangerous a rival, and immediately executed the treacherous purpose he had formed. He saluted Amasa, asked him of his health, and took his beard in his right hand to kiss him, while with the unheeded left hand he smote him dead with his sword. Joab then put himself at the head of the troops, and continued the pursuit of Sheba; and such was his popularity with the army, that David was unable to remove him from the command, or to call him to account for this bloody deed: B.C. 1022 [ABNER; ABSALOM; JOAB]. In the book of Esther, Haman is called the Agagite, and was probably a descendant of the royal line (Num. xxiv. 7; 1 Sam. xv. 8). Josephus says that he was by birth an Amalekite. AMA'NA, a mountain mentioned in Cant. iv. 8. Some have supposed it to be Mount Amanus in Cilicia, to which the dominion of Solomon is alleged to have extended northward. But the context, with other circumstances, leaves little doubt that this Mount Amana was rather the southern part or summit of Anti-Libanus, and was so called perhaps from containing the sources of the river Amana [ABANA]. 1. AMARI'AH (whom Jehovah said, i. e. promised, equivalent to the Greek name Theophrastus), mentioned in 1 Chron. vi. 7, in the list of the descendants of Aaron by his eldest son Eleazer. He was the son of Meraioth and the father of Ahitub, who was (not the grandson and successor of Eli of the same name, but) the father of that Zadok in whose person Saul restored the high-priesthood to the line of Eleazer. The years during which the younger line of Ithamar enjoyed the pontificate in the persons of Eli, Ahitub, and Abimelech (who was slain by king Saul at Nob) doubtless more than cover the time 2. AMASA, a chief of Ephraim, who, with others, vehemently resisted the retention as prisoners of the persons whom Pekah, king of Israci, had taken captive in a successful campaign. against Ahaz, king of Judah (2 Chron. xxviii 12). AMASA'I, the principal leader of a considerable body of men from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, who joined David at Ziklag. The words with which David received them indicate some apprehension, which was instantly dissipated by a fervent declaration of attachment from Amasai (1 Chron. xii. 16-18). | AMEN 2. AMAZIAH, the priest of the golden calves at Bethel, in the time of Jeroboam II. He complained to the king of Amos's prophecies of coming evil, and urged the prophet himself to withdraw into the kingdom of Judah and prophesy there (Amos vii. 10-17). AMBER. The substance thus designated in 1. AMAZI'AH (whom Jehovah strengthens, i. e. the Authorized Version is in Hebrew called God-strengthened), son of Joash, and eighth king CHASMIL, and was probably a composition of of Judah. He was 25 years old when he began several sorts of metal, since even the term by to reign, and he reigned 29 years-from B.C. which the word is rendered by the Greeks fre838 to B.c. 809. He commenced his sovereignty quently signifies a composition of gold and silver. by punishing the murderers of his father; and The ancients were acquainted with the art of it is mentioned that he respected the law of amalgamating various species of metal; and the Moses, by not including the children in the doom Latin aurichalcum is said to have possessed the of their parents, which seems to show that a con- brightness of gold and the hardness of copper, and trary practice had previously existed. In the might not improbably have been our present twelfth year of his reign Amaziah attempted to platina, which has been re-discovered in the re-impose upon the Edomites the yoke of Judah, Ural mountains, after having long been known as which they had cast off in the time of Jehoram. an American fossil. It is not improbable that this The strength of Edom is evinced by the fact that was the metal termed 'fine copper' (Ezra viii. 27). Amaziah considered the unaided strength of his AMBIDEXTER, one who can use the left own kingdom unequal to this undertaking, and hand as well as the right, or, more literally, one therefore hired an auxiliary force of 100,000 whose hands are both right hands. It was long men from the king of Israel for 100,000 talents supposed that both hands are naturally equal, of silver. This is the first example of a merce- and that the preference of the right hand, and nary army that occurs in the history of the Jews. comparative incapacity of the left, are the result It did Lot, however, render any other service of education and habit. But it is now known than that of giving Amaziah an opportunity of that the difference is really physical, and that manifesting that he knew his true place in the the ambidexterous condition of the hands is not Hebrew constitution, as the viceroy and vassal a natural development. of the king JEHOVAH [KING]. A prophet commanded him, in the name of the Lord, to send back the auxiliaries, on the ground that the state of alienation from God in which the kingdom of Israel lay, rendered such assistance not only useless but dangerous. The king obeyed this seemingly hard command, and sent the men home, although by doing so he lost not only their services and the 100,000 talents, which had been already paid, but incurred the resentment of the Israelites. who were naturally exasperated at the indignity shown to them. But the obedience of Amaziah was rewarded by a great victory over the Edomites, ten thousand of whom were slain in battle, and ten thousand more were savagely destroyed by being hurled down from the high cliffs of their native mountains. But the Edomites afterwards were avenged; for among the goods which fell to the conqueror were some of their idols, which, although impotent to deliver their own worshippers, Amaziah betook himself to worship. This proved his ruin. Puffed up by his late victories, he thought also of reducing the ten tribes under his dominion. In this attempt he was defeated by king Joash of Israel, who carried him a prisoner to Jerusalem. Joash broke down great part of the city wall, plundered the city, and even laid his hands upon the sacred things of the temple. He, however, left Amaziah on the throne, but not without taking hostages for his good behaviour. The disasters which Amaziah's infatuation had brought upon Judah probably occasioned the conspiracy in which he lost his life. On receiving intelligence of this conspiracy he hastened to throw himself into the fortress of Lachish; but he was pursued and slain by the conspirators, who brought back his boly upon horses' to Jerusalem for interment in the royal sepulchre (2 Kings xiv.; 2 Chron. xxv.). The capacity of equal action with both hands was highly prized in ancient times, especially in war. Among the Hebrews this quality seems to have been most common in the tribe of Benjamin, as all the persons noticed as being endued with it were of that tribe. By comparing Judg. iii. 15, xx. 16, with 1 Chron. xii. 2, we may gather that the persons mentioned in the two former texts as 'left-handed,' were really ambidexters. In the latter text we learn that the Benjamites who joined David at Ziklag werd 'mighty men, helpers of the war. They were armed with bows, and could use both the right hand and the left in hurling [slinging] and shooting arrows out of a bow."' There were thirty of them; and as they appear to have been all of one family, it might almost seem as if the greater commonness of this power among the Benjamites arose from its being an hereditary peculiarity of certain families in that tribe. It may also partly have been the result of cultivation; for although the left hand is not naturally an equally strong and ready instrument as the right hand, it may doubtless be often rendered such by early and suitable training. AMEN. This word is strictly an adjective, signifying firm,' and, metaphorically, faithful. Thus in Rev. iii. 14, our Lord is called the amen, the faithful and true witness.' In Isa. lxv. 16, the Heb. has the God of amen,' which ou version renders the God of truth,' i. e. of fidelity. In its adverbial sense Amen means cer tainly, truly, surely. It is used in the beginning of a sentence by way of emphasis-rarely in the Old Test. (Jer. xxviii. 6), but often by our Saviour in the New, where it is commonly translated 'Verily. In John's gospel alone it is often used by him in this way double, i. e. 'verily, verily. In the end of a sentence it often occurs singly or repeated, especially at the end of |