ALEXANDRIA The inhabitants of Alexandria were divided into three classes: 1. The Macedonians, the original founders of the city; 2. the mercenaries who had served under Alexander; 3. the native Egyptians. Through the favour of Alexander and Ptolemy Soter, the Jews were admitted into the first of these classes, and this privilege was so important that it had great effect in drawing them to the new city. their ecclesiastical dependence upon Jerusalem | ultimate result of this appeal is not known, but and its temple, and formed a separate establish- the Jews of Alexandria continued to be harassed ment of their own, in imitation of it, at a place during the remainder of Caligula's reign; and about twelve miles north of Heliopolis, and their alabarch Alexander Lysimachus (brother called Onion, from Onias, the expelled high- of Philo) was thrown into prison, where he priest, by whom it was founded. remained till he was discharged by Claudius, upon whose accession to the empire the Alexandrian Jews betook themselves to arms. This occasioned such disturbances that they attracted the attention of the emperor, who, at the joint entreaty of Herod and Agrippa, issued an edict conferring on the Jews of Egypt all their ancient privileges. The state of feeling in Alexandria which these facts indicate, was very fa from being allayed when the revolt of the Jews in Palestine caused even those of the nation who dwelt in foreign parts to be regarded as enemies, both by the populace and the government. In Alexandria, on a public occasion, they were attacked, and those who could not save themselves by flight were put to the sword. Only three were taken alive, and they were dragged through the city to be consigned to the flames. The indignation of the Jews rose beyond all bounds at this spectacle. They first assailed the Greek citizens with stones, and then rushed with lighted torches to the amphitheatre, to set it on fire and burn all the people who were there assembled. The Roman prefect Tiberius Alexander, finding that milder measures were of no avail, sent out a body of 17,000 soldiers, who slew about 50,000 of the Jews, and plundered and burned their dwellings. The dreadful persecution which the Jews of Alexandria underwent in A.D. 39, shows that, notwithstanding their long establishment there, no relations of friendliness had arisen between hem and the other inhabitants, by whom in fact they were intensely hated. This feeling was so wen known, that at the date indicated, the Roman governor Avillius Flaccus, who was anxious to ingratiate himself with the citizens, was persuaded that the surest way of winning their affections was to withdraw his protection from the Jews, against whom the emperor was already exasperated by their refusal to acknowledge his right to divine honours, which he insanely claimed, or to admit his images into their synagogues. In consequence of the counivance of Flaccus, the unfortunate Jews were treated with every species of outrage and insult. Their synagogues were levelled with the ground, consumed by fire, or profaned by the emperor's statues. They were deprived of the rights of citizenship, and declared aliens. Their houses, shops, and warehouses were plundered of their effects, and they themselves were pent up in one arrow corner of the city, where the greater part were obliged to lie in the open air, and where the supplies of food being cut off many of them died of hardship and hunger; and whover was found beyond the boundary, whether he had escaped from the assigned limits, or had come in from the country, was seized and put to leath with horrid tortures. At length king Herod Agrippa, who stayed long enough in Alexandria to see the beginning of these atrocities. transmitted to the emperor uch a report of the real state of affairs as induced him to send a centurion to arrest Flaccus, and bring him a prisoner to Rome. This put he rioters in a false position, and brought some elief to the Jews; but the tumult still continued, and as the magistrates refused to acknowledge the citizenship of the Jews, it was at length agreed that both parties should send delegates five on each side, to Rome, and refer the lecision of the controversy to the emperor. At the head of the Jewish delegation was the celebrated Philo, to whom we owe the account of these transactions; and at the head of the Alexandrians was the noted Apion. The latter chiefly rested their case upon the fact that the Jews were the only people who refused to consecrate images to the emperor, or to swear by his name. But on this point the Jewish delegates defended themselves so well, that Caligula himself said, These men are not so wicked as ignorant and happy, in not believing me to be a god! The After the close of the war in Palestine, new disturbances were excited in Egypt by the Sicarii, many of whom had fled thither. They endeavoured to persuade the Jews to acknowledge no king but God, and to throw off the Roman yoke. Such persons as opposed their designs and tendered wiser counsels to their brethren, they secretly assassinated, according to their custom. But the principal Jews in Alexandria having in a general assembly earnestly warned the people against these fanatics, who had been the authors of all the troubles in Pa lestine, about 600 of them were delivered up to the Romans. Several fled into the Thebaïd, but were apprehended and brought back. The most cruel tortures which could be devised had no effect in compelling them to acknowledge the emperor for their sovereign; and even their children seemed endowed with souls fearless of death, and bodies incapable of pain. Vespasian, when informed of these transactions, sent orders that the Jewish temple in Egypt should be destroyed. Lupus the prefect, however, only shut it up, after having taken out the consecrated gifts: but his successor Paulinus stripped it com pletely, and excluded the Jews entirely from it. This was in A.D. 75, being the 543rd year from the building of the temple by Onias. St. Mark is said to have introduced the Christian religion into Alexandria, which early became one of the strongholds of the true faith The Jews continued to form a principal portion of the inhabitants, and remained in the enjoy ment of their civil rights till A.D. 415, when they incurred the hatred of Cyril the patriarch, at whose instance they were expelled, to the Lumber of 40,000, and their synagogues destroyed. However, when Amrou, in A.D. 640, took the place for the caliph Omar, he wrote to his master in these terms: I have taken the great city of the west, which contains 4000 palaces, 4000 baths, 400 theatres, 12,000 shops for the sale of vegetable food, and 40,000 tributary Jews.' From that time the prosperity of Alexandria very rapidly declined; and when, in 969, the Fatemite caliphs seized on Egypt and built New Cairo, it was speedily reduced to the rank of a secondary Egyptian city. The discovery of the passage to the East by the Cape, in 1497, almost annihilated its remaining commercial importance; and although the commercial and maritime enterprises of Mehemet Ali have again raised it to some distinction, Alexandria must still be accounted as one of those great ancient cities whose glory has departed. The number of Jews does not now exceed 500. The whole population at the present time (1843) is between 36,000 and 10,000, of whom 4876 are foreigners. ALGUM, or AL'MUG TREES (1 Kings x. 11; 2 Chron. ix. 10, 11). With regard to Ophir, the place from which these trees were brought to us, there appears no doubt that it was to the southward of the Red Sea, and was most probably in some part of India. Various trees have been attempted to be identified with the almug, but the balance of evidence seems to be in favour of the sandal-wood, which is known and highly esteemed in India. The tree which produces it is a native of the mountainous parts of the coast of Malabar, where large quantities are cut for export to China, to different parts of India, and to the Persian and Arabian gulfs. The outer parts of this tree are white and without odour; the parts near the root are most fragrant, especially of such trees as grow in hilly situations and stony ground. The trees vary in diameter from 9 inches to a foot, and are about 25 or 30 feet in height, but the stems soon begin to branch. This wood is white, fine-grained, and agreeably fragrant, and is much employed for making rosaries, fans, elegant boxes, and cabinets. 25 [Santalum album.] As sandal-wood has been famed in the East from very early times, it is more likely than any other to have attracted the notice of, and been desired by, more northern nations. ALLEGORY That it, therefore, might have attained cele brity, even in very early ages, is not at all un likely; that it should have attracted the notic of Phoenician merchants visiting the west coast of India is highly probable; and also that they should have thought it worthy of being taken as a part of their cargo on their return from Ophir. That it is well calculated for musical instruments is confirmed by the authority of Professor Wheatstone, who says, I know no reason why sandal-wood should not have been employed in ancient days for constructing musical instruments. It is not so employed at present, because there are many much cheaper woods which present a far handsomer appearance. Musical instruments would appear very unfinished to modern taste unless varnished or French-polished, and it would be worse than useless to treat fragrant woods in this way. Formerly perhaps it might have been more the fashion to delight the senses of smell and hearing simultaneously than it is with us, in which case odoriferous woods would be preferred for things so much handled as musical instruments are.' ALLEGORY. This word is found in the Authorized Version of Gal. iv. 24, but it does not actually exist as a noun in the Greek Testament, nor even in the Septuagint. In the passage in question Saint Paul cites the history of the free-born Isaac and the slave-born Ishmael, and in proceeding to apply it spiritually, he says, not as in our version, which things are an allegory, but which things are allegorized. This is of some importance; for in the one case the Apostle is made to declare a portion of Old Testament history an allegory, whereas in truth he only speaks of it as allegorically applied. Allegories themselves are, however, of frequent occurrence in Scripture, although that name is not there applied to them. An ALLEGORY has been sometimes considered as only a lengthened metaphor; at other times, as a continuation of metaphors. But the nature of allegory itself, and the character of allegorical interpretation, will be best understood by attending to the origin of the term which denotes it. Now the term Allegory,' according to its original and proper meaning, denotes a representation of one thing which is intended to excite the representation of another thing. Every allegory must therefore be subjected to a twofold examination: we must first examine the immediale representation, and then consider what other representation it is intended to excite. In most allegories the immediate representation is made in the form of a narrative; and, since it is the object of the allegory itself to convey a moral, not an historic truth, the narrative is commonly fictitious. The immediate representation is of no further value than as it leads to the ultimate representation. It is the application or the moral of the allegory which con stitutes its worth. Every parable is a kind of allegory; and as an example, especially clear and correct, we may refer to the parable of the sower (Luke viii. 515). In this we have a plain narrative, a statement of a few simple and intelligible facts, such, probably, as had fallen within the observation of the persons to whom our Saviour addressed himself. When he had finished the narrative, or ALLIANCES the immediate representation of the allegory, he then gave the explanation or ultimate representation of it; that is, he gave the allegorical interpretation of it. And that the interpretation was an interpretation, not of the words, but of the things signified by the words is evident from the explanation itself: The seed is the word of God; those by the wayside are they that hear,' &c. (ver. 11, &c.). The impressive and pathetic allegory addressed by Nathan to David affords a similar instance of an allegorical narrative accompanied with its explanation (2 Sam. xii. 1-14). But allegorical narratives are frequently left to explain themselves, especially when the resemblance between the immediate and ultimate representation is sufficiently apparent to make an explanation unnecessary. Of this kind we cannot have a more striking example than that beautiful one contained in the 80th Psalm: Thou broughtest a vine out of Egypt,' &c. The use of allegorical interpretation is not, however, confined to mere allegory, or fictitious narratives, but is extended also to history, or real narratives. And in this case the grammatical meaning of a passage is called its historical meaning, in contradistinction to its allegorical meaning. There are two different modes in which Scripture history has been thus allegorized. According to one mode, facts and circumstances, especially those recorded in the Old Testament, have been applied to other facts and circumstances, of which they have been described as representative. According to the other mode, these facts and circumstances have been described as mere emblems. The former mode is warranted by the practice of the sacred writers themselves; for when facts and circumstances are so applied, they are applied as types of those things to which the application is made: but no such authority in favour of the latter mode of allegorical interpretation can be produced. ALLELUIA. [HALLELUJAH.] ALLIANCES. From a dread lest the example of foreign nations should draw the Israelites into the worship of idols, they were made a peculiar and separate people, and intercourse and alliance with such nations were strongly interdicted (Lev. xviii. 3, 4; xx. 22, 23). The tendency to idolatry was in those times so strong, that the safety of the Israelites lay in the most complete isolation that could be realized; and it was to assist this object that a country more than usually separated from others by its natural boundaries was assigned to them. It was shut in by the sea on the west, by deserts on the south and east, and by mountains and forests on the north. Among a people so situated we should not expect to hear much of alliances with other nations. By far the most remarkable alliance in the political history of the Hebrews is that between Solomon and Hiram king of Tyre, which may primarily be referred to the affection which the latter entertained for David (1 Kings v. 2). He 'sent carpenters and masons' to build David an house (2 Sam. v. 11), and wishing to cultivate the friendly intercourse thus opened with the Hebrew nation, on the death of David he sent an embassy to condole with Solomon on the death of his father, and to congratulate him on his ac cession (1 Kings v. 1). The plans of the young king rendered the friendship of Hiram a matter of importance, and accordingly a league' was formed (1 Kings v. 12) between them and that this league had a reference not mere., to the special matter then in view, but was a general league of amity, is evinced by the fact that more than 250 years after, a prophet denounces the Lord's vengeance upon Tyre, because she remembered not the brotherly covenant' (Amos i. 9). Under this league large bodies of Jews and Phoenicians were associated, first in preparing the materials for the Temple (1 Kings v. 6-18), and afterwards in navigating the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean (1 Kings ix. 26-28). The disastrous consequences of even the seemingly least objectionable alliances may be seen in the long train of evils, both to the kingdom of Israel and of Judah, which ensued from the marriage of Ahab with Jezebel, the king of Tyre's daughter [AHAB; JEZEBEL. These consequences had been manifested even in the time of Solomon; for he formed matrimonial alliances with most of the neighbouring kingdoms, and to the influence of his idolatrous wives are ascribed the abominations which darkened the latter days of the wise king (1 Kings xi. 1-8). The prophets, who were alive to these consequences, often raised their voices against such dangerous connections (1 Kings xi. 11; 2 Chron. xvi. 7; xix. 2; xxv. 7, &c.; Isa. vii. 17), without effect. The Jewish history, after Solomon, affords examples of several treaties with different kings of Syria, and with the kings of Assyria and Babylon (see 1 Kings xv. 16-20; 2 Kings xvi. 5, &c.; 2 Chron. xviii. 16, &c.). In later times, the Maccabees appear to have considered themselves unrestrained by any but the ordinary prudential considerations in contracting_alliances. The most remarkable alliance of this kind was the treaty made with the Romans by Judas Maccabæus, which, having heen concluded at Rome, was graven upon brass and deposited in the Capitol (1 Macc. viii. 22-28; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10). Anterior to the Mosaical institutions, such alliances with foreigners were permitted, or at least tolerated. Abraham was in alliance with some of the Canaanitish princes (Gen. xiv. 13); he also entered into a regular treaty of alliance, being the first on record, with the Philistine king Abimelech (xxi. 22, sq.), which was renewed by their sons (xxvi. 26-30). Even after the law, it appears, from some of the instances already adduced, that such alliances with distant nations as could not be supposed to have any dangerous effect upon the religion or morals of the people, were not deemed to be interdicted. The treaty with the Gibeonites is a remarkable proof of this. Believing that the ambassadors came from a great distance, Joshua and the elders readily entered into an alliance with them; and are condemned for it only on the ground that the Gibeonites were in fact their near neighbours (Josh. ix. 3-27). From the time of the patriarchs, a covenant of alliance was sealed by the blood of some victim. A heifer, a goat, a ram, a turtle dove, and a young pigeon, were immolated in confirmation of the covenant between the Lord and Abraham (Gen. xv. 9,. The a..imal or animals sacrificed were cut in two (except birds, ver. 10), to typify | the doom of perjurers. For allusions to this usage see Jer. xxxiv. 18; Sus. 55, 59; Matt. xxiv. 51; Luke xii. 46. The perpetuity of covenants of alliance thus contracted is expressed by calling them covenants of salt' (Num. xviii. 19; 2 Chron. xiii. 5), salt being the symbol of incorruption. The case of the Gibeonites affords an exemplary instance, scarcely equalled in the annals of any nation, of scrupulous adherence to such engagements. The Israelites had been absolutely cheated into the alliance; but, having been confirmed by oaths, it was deemed to be inviolable (Josh. ix. 19). The prophet Ezekiel (xvii. 13-16) pours terrible denunciations upon king Zedekiah, for acting contrary to his sworn covenant with the king of Babylon. In this respect the Jews were certainly most favourably distinguished among the ancient nations; and, from numerous intimations in Josephus, it appears that their character for fidelity to their engagements was so generally recognised after the Captivity, as often to procure for them highly favourable consideration from the rulers of Western Asia and of Egypt. ALLON-BACHUTH (the oak of weeping), a place in Bethel, where Rebekah's nurse was buried (Gen. xxxv. 8). ALMON, one of the three cities which belonged to the priests in the tribe of Benjamin (Josh. xxi. 18). It is supposed to be the same as the Alemeth of 1 Chron. vi. 60. AL'MON-DIB'LATHAIM, one of the stations of the Israelites on their way from Mount Hor to the plains of Moab, round by Mount Seir (Num. xxxiii. 46). ALMOND TREE (Gen. xliii. 11; Num. xvii. 8; Eccles. xii. 5; Jer. i. 11). This tree is a native of Syria and Palestine, and is highly ornamental from the beauty of its blossoms. 26. [Almond Tree.] The form of the almond would lead to its selection for ornamental carved work (Exod. xxv. 33, 34; xxxvii. 19), independently of its form ALMS ing an esteemed esculent, as well as probably yielding a useful oil. In Eccles. xii. 5, it is said, 'The almond tree shall flourish, and the fruit of the caper droop, because man goeth to his long home.' This evidently refers to the profuse flowering and white appearance of the almond tree when in full bloom, and before its leaves appear. It is hence adduced as illustrative of the hoary hairs of age, in the same way as the drooping of the fruit of the caper seems to refer to the hanging down of the head. Dr. Kitto mentions the almond among the first trees that flower in January. There are two species of Amygdalus in Palestine: the common almond tree, and the peach tree, and both are this month in blossom in every part of Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan. It was doubtless from this winter blossoming of the almond tree, not less than from the snowy whiteness of the blossoms, that the hoary head of the aged man is, by a beautiful metaphor, said in Scripture to flourish like the almond tree' (Physic. Hist. of Palestine). ALMS. The regulations of the Mosaic law respecting property, and its benign spirit towards the poor, went far to prevent the existence of penury as a permanent condition.in society, and, consequently, by precluding beggary, to render the need of almsgiving unnecessary. Poverty, however, considered as a state of comparative want, Moses seems to have contemplated as a probable event in the social frame which he had established; and accordingly, by the appointment of specific regulations, and the enjoining of a general spirit of tender-heartedness, he sought to prevent destitution and its evil consequences (Lev. xxv. 35; Deut. xv. 7, &c.). The great antiquity of the practice of benevolence towards the poor is shown in the very beautiful passage which is found in Job xxix. 13 et seq. How high the esteem was in which this virtue continued to be held in the time of the Hebrew monarchy may be learnt from Ps. xli. 1; see also Ps. cxii. 9; Prov. xiv. 31. The progress of social corruption, however, led to the oppression of the poor, which the prophets, after their manner, faithfully reprobated (Isa. Iviii. 7); where, among other neglected duties, the Israelites are required to deal their bread to the hungry, and to bring the outcast poor to their house. See also Isa. x. 2; Amos ii. 7; Jer. v. 28; Ezek xxii. 29. However favourable to the poor the Mosaic institutions were, they do not appear to have wholly prevented beggary; for the imprecation found in Psalm cix. 10, Let his children be vagabonds and beg,' implies the existence of beggary as a known social condition. Begging naturally led to almsgiving, though the language of the Bible does not present us with a term for 'alms' till the period of the Babylonish captivity, during the calamities attendant on which the need probably introduced the practice. From Dan. iv. 27 it would appear that almsgiving had come to be regarded as a means of conciliating God's favour and of warding off evil. At a still later period this idea took a firm seat in the national mind, and alms-deeds were regarded as a mark of distinguished virtue. That begging was customary in the time of the Saviour is clear from Mark x. 46. And that it was usual ALOES for the worshippers, as they entered the temple, to give relief, appears from the context, and particularly from the fine answer to the lame man's entreaty, made by the apostle Peter. The general spirit of Christianity, in regard to succouring the needy, is nowhere better seen than in 1 John iii. 17: Whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? With the faithful and conscientious observance of the royal law' of love, particular manifestations of mercy to the poor seem to be left by Christiauity to be determined by time, place, and circumstances; and it cannot be supposed that a religion, one of whose principles is that, if any would not work, neither should he eat' (2 Thess. iii. 10), can give any sanction to indiscriminate almsgiving, or intend to encourage the crowd of wandering, idle beggars with which some parts of the world are still infested. The emphatic language employed by the Lord Jesus Christ and others (Luke iii. 11; vi. 30; xi. 41; xii. 33; Matt. vi. 1; Acts ix. 36; x. 2, 4) is designed to enforce the general duty of a merciful and practical regard to the distresses of the indigent; while the absence of ostentation, and even secrecy, which the Saviour enjoined in connection with almsgiving, was intended to correct actual abuses, and bring the practice into harmony with the spirit of the Gospel. In the remarkable reflections of Jesus on the widow's mite (Mark xii. 42) is found a principle of great value, to the effect that the magnitude of men's offerings to God is to be measured by the disposition of mind whence they proceed; a principle which cuts up by the very roots the idea that merit attaches itself to almsgiving as such, and increases in proportion to the number and costliness of our alms-deeds. One of the earliest effects of the working of Christianity in the hearts of its professors was the care which it led them to take of the poor and indigent in the household of faith.' Neglected and despised by the world, cut off from its sympathies, and denied any succour it might have given, the members of the early churches were careful not only to make provision in each case for its own poor, but to contribute to the necessities of other though distant communities (Acts xi. 29; xxiv. 17; 2 Cor. ix. 12). This commendable practice seems to have had its Christian origin in the deeply interesting fact (which appears from John xiii. 29) that the Saviour and his attendants were wont, notwithstanding their own comparative poverty, to contribute out of their small resources something for the relief of the needy. ALOES, the two words which are so rendered occur in several passages of the Old Testament, as in Psalm xlv. 8; Prov. vii. 17; Canticles iv. 14, and evidently mean some odoriferous substance which ought not to be confounded with the bitter and nauseous aloes famed only as a medicine, and which is usually disagreeable in odour and nauseous in taste, and could never have been employed as a perfume. The words referred to seem to indicate a kind of fragrant wood called Agallochum, which was brought from India and Arabia. There can be little or no doubt that the same odoriferous wood is intended in John xix. 39, where we are told that when the body of our Saviour was taken down from the cross, Nicodemus brought myrrh and aloes for the purpose of winding up the body in linen clothes with these spices. ALPHA (A), the first letter of the Greek alphabet, corresponding to the Hebrew Aleph. Both the Hebrews and the Greeks employed the letters of their alphabets as numerals, and A (Alpha or Aleph) therefore denoted one or the first. Hence our Lord says of himself, that he is Alpha and Omega, i. e. the first and the last, the beginning and the ending, as he himself explains it (Rev. i. 8, 11; xxi. 6; xxii 13). 1. ALPHÆ'US, father of James the Less (Matt. x. 3; Luke vi. 15), and husband of Mary, the sister of our Lord's mother (John xix. 25): for which reason James is called 'the Lord's brother' [BROTHER]. By comparing John xix. 25, with Luke xxiv. 10, and Matt. x. 3, it appears that Alphæus is the same person as Cleophas; Alphæus being his Greek, and Cleophas his Hebrew or Syriac name [NAMES]. 2. ALPHEUS, the father of the evangelist Levi or Matthew (Mark ii. 14). ALTAR. The first altar we read of in the Bible was that erected by Noah on leaving the ark. Mention is made of altars erected by Abraham (Gen. xii. 7; xiii. 4; xxii. 9); by Isaac (xxvi. 25); by Jacob (xxxiii. 20; xxxv. 1, 3); by Moses (Exod. xvii. 15). After the giving of the law, the Israelites were commanded to make an altar of earth; they were also permitted to employ stones, but no iron tool was to be applied to them. This has been generally understood as an interdiction of sculpture, in order to guard against a violation of the second commandment. Altars were frequently built on high places. Thus Solomon built an high place for Chemosh (1 Kings xi. 7), and Josiah brake down and burnt the high place, and stamped it small to powder (2 Kings xxiii. 15). This practice, however, was forbidden by the Mosaic law (Deut. xii. 13; xvi. 5), except in particular instances, such as those of Gideon (Judg. vi. 26) and David (2 Sam. xxiv. 18). It is said of Solomon that he loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David, his father, only he sacrificed the burnt incense on the high places' (1 Kings iii. 3). Altars were sometimes built on the roofs of houses: in 2 Kings xxiii. 12, we read of the altars that were on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz. In the tabernacle, and afterwards in the temple, two altars were erected, one for sacrifices, the other for incense: the table for the shew-bread is also sometimes called an altar. 1. The altar of burnt-offering belonging to the tabernacle was a hollow square, five cubits in length and breadth, and three cubits in height; it was made of Shittim-wood [SHITTIM]. and overlaid with plates of brass. In the middle there was a ledge or projection, on which the priest stood while officiating; immediately below this, a brass grating was let down into the altar to support the fire, with four rings attached, through which poles were passed, when the altar was removed. As the priests were forbidden to go up by steps to the altar (Exod. xx. 26), a slope of earth was probably made rising to a level with the ledge. In Exod. xxvii. 3, the following utensils are |