the city for the faith of Christ. Certainly, his grave was shown there in a church dedicated to him.

་

ALIENS (L. belonging to another country). The corresponding word in Greek is often rendered strangers''in a strange land,' ' other men's (labours).' A similar term is translated (Acts x. 28), one of another nation. There are two words in Hebrew which have the same import.

At first sight, the Mosaic polity seems to have a harsh bearing on foreign nations, inasmuch as the Israelites were a peculiar people, possessed of high and exclusive religious privileges, and were barred from social intercourse with men of other nations. Regard, however, must be had to the universally prevailing idolatry, against the seductions of which nothing but the most rigid exclusion could guard the children of faithful Abraham; and to the great aim and end of the system, in the eventual spread of a monotheism, which, under the administration of a Father, through the instrumentality of his Son, should make the world one family, every wall of partition being broken down. Nor, since the purest, the widest, and the most self-denying benevolence that ever rose upon the world, was developed and perfected under Judaism, can it be denied that the institutions of Moses must have held germs of philanthropy such as no heathen philosophy ever owned; nor do there fail indications in the higher productions of the muse of Zion, which breathe an enlarged and liberal spirit towards foreigners. With the single exception of the safeguards taken against the abominations of idolatry, the Mosaic legisla tion manifests a humane disposition in relation to those who were not of the Hebrew blood. A stranger might be naturalised, and then possessed equal rights with an Israelite (Exod. xii. 49). The stranger was to enjoy the immunities of the Sabbath (Exod. xx. 10; xxiii. 12). Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt' (Exod. xxii. 21). The stranger had a share in the gleaning of the land (Lev. xix. 9, 10; xxiii. 22). An express command enjoined good feelings towards strangers, and for a very sufficient and influential reason: 'Love ye, therefore, the stranger; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt' (Deut. x. 19). Impartial justice was demanded on their behalf (Deut. xxiv. 17). A share in the tithes of increase was assured to them (Deut. xxvi. 12). It was an aggravation of crime to slay the stranger, the widow, the fatherless (Ps. xciv. 6). These three classes are set forth as special objects of the divine care (Ps. cxlvi. 9). To abstain from the oppression of the stranger, is represented as a token of a great religious reform (Jer. vii. 6); and condign punishment is threatened against such as deprive the stranger of his rights (Mal. iii. 5).

In the mysterious arrangements of Providence, it fell to the lot of the Hebrews to become strangers in every nation under heaven, where they experienced at the hands of so-called Christian legislatures very dif. ferent treatment from that which their laws required towards men of other nations. The Mosaic institutions are often judged no less unjustly than harshly. A careful study of them would often prevent that condemnation which it should always precede.

ALLEGORY (G. speaking one thing by another) is a Greek word, in English letters, and denotes a figure of speech, which conveys, under the literal meaning, another and a different import, — sometimes a moral or spiritual truth, in a material dress. It differs from a metaphor in this, that, while a metaphor is confined to one object, an allegory comprises a series of objects. An allegory is a continued metaphor. To describe the sun as the powerful king of day,' is to em. ploy a metaphor. If we carry out the metaphor, and represent that king as ruling supreme in heaven and earth, dispensing his favours impartially to all his subjects, and receiving their homage without respect of persons, we form an allegory. In the elevated language of Hebrew poetry, allegories are not uncommon. There is a brief but expressive one in Jer. ii. 21:-'I planted thee (Israel), a noble vine, wholly a right seed how, then, art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?' (see ver. 24). A parable is a species of allegory; for instance, that of the prodigal son.

Though allegories are found in many parts of Scripture, the word itself occurs only once, in Gal. iv. 24, and then in the form of a participle-which things are an allegory' -in the original, which things are allegorical;' that is, have an allegorical meaning, may teach a higher truth. The apostle is speaking of two sons of Abraham; one, Ishmael, by Hagar, a bondwoman; the other, Isaac, by Sarah his wife. Hagar, in Arabic (probably provincial usage), signifies a rock, and is the popular name, to the present day, for the peninsula of Sinai, on which the law was given, and which may therefore be considered as a representative of Judaism. Isaac was the child of promise, and the son of a free woman, and may accordingly stand for Christianity. These are the two covenants -Jerusalem in bondage with her children; and Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.' Christians belong to the latter; are descendants of Isaac, the free child of promise; - Jews belong to the former; are descendants of Ishmael, the son of a bondwoman. The bondwoman and her son were cast out. The children of the free woman remain in perpetual possession, and ought therefore to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free, and not be brought again under the yoke of

bondage to carnal ordinances, to which the Jews who sprung from Hagar (Sinai) are, and as such must be, liable (comp. Gen. xxi). ALLELUJAH (H. praise ye Jehovah), a Hebrew word in English letters, derived to us through the Greek. It is found in this form only in Rev. xix. 1, 3, 4, and 6; but it occurs in its original elements in several psalms-as Ps. cxlviii. cxlix. and cl.; each of which it begins and terminates. The term consists of two Hebrew words, 'praise ye,' and 'Jehovah,' which may have coalesced together, at an early period, in the sublime anthems of the temple; so that a sacred song was commenced by the entire choir of musicians and singers, bursting forth in the fine vowel-sound allelujah,' with which also they ended their performance.

The word Allelujah has, in itself, no meaning to the English reader, and is very imperfectly rendered by, 'praise ye Jehovah. It is derived from a root which represents the action of the sun, when, suddenly rising above the horizon, he at once pours forth his radiance in full floods over the earth and skies. A term varying but little in form denoted the joyous festivities of harvest-home. Hence we gather some idea of the glad and exhilarating nature of the temple-worship, especially when we call to mind the high and jubilant tones of music, and the full, deep, and echoing chorus of human voices, which rushed or gently swam forth, in celebration of the goodness, mercy, and truth of Jehovah.

ALMODAD (H. immeasurable), a son of Joktan, and descendant of Shem, in whose family register he stands in conjunction with his brothers (Gen. x. 26-29). From the days of Bochart, the name has been recognised in the Arabian tribe, Allou-maiotai, mentioned by the ancient geographer, Ptolemy. This tribe belonged to the larger tribe, named Joktanidæ, from Joktan, the father of Almodad. Their dwelling-place was in Arabia Felix. In comparison with some among his brethren, the name of Almodad is obscure: few, if any, direct vestiges of this first-born of Joktan, or his descendants, are met with in the native history or tradition.

ALMOND (Amygdalus communis). The Hebrew signifies to be early, to be intent, to watch, to hasten: hence the figurative uses of the word, which is employed to denote the instant punishment of Providence on evildoers. In Jer. i. 11, the prophet, on being asked What seest thou? answers, 'I see a rod of an almond-tree:' on which Jehovah replied, Thou hast well seen; for I will hasten (the same root as that whence almond) my word to perform it.' The rods of the chiefs of the tribes seem to have been made of this tree, thus denoting watchful care and speedy retribution (Numb. xvii. 6,8). The tree may have derived its name from the fact mentioned by Pliny, that it

flowers very early in the year; first of all, in January; a statement which Shaw confirms, declaring that it bears fruit in Barbary before any other tree. Since its flowers were of a white colour, so is the almond-tree used (Eccles. xii. 5) as an image of the hoary head' of declining years. As the flowers, so also the graceful fruit of the tree, served for sacred purposes; for the bowls of the golden candlestick were made to resemble it (Exod. xxv. 33). The genus Amygdalus comprehends the almond, the peach, and the nectarine. The almond is a native of Barbary. In this country it is cultivated for its beautiful vernal flowers; but in hot climates, it is the fruit which is sought, and that is produced in immense quantities. It is strongly aromatic, and in Scripture stands with other odoriferous herbs (Gen. xliii. 11). The tree which, in Gen. xxx. 37 is translated hazel, probably means the almond.

ALMS. This word is an abridged form of a Greek one, which signifies showing pity. The word which once signified merciful feelings towards the indigent, has now degenerated into very little more than giving money to beggars. This should be borne in mind in considering passages of Scripture where the word occurs. The Mosaic law sought to prevent the existence of penury, as a permanent condition: but Moses seems to have contemplated it as a probable event; and his directions to the Israelites, as to their conduct under such circumstances, are full of benevolence. For instance (Lev.

XXV. 35), he says, 'And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen into decay with thee, then shalt thou relieve him.' The same spirit is seen in many other passages of the Mosaic law: see Deut. xv. 7, seq. These regulations, though so favourable to the poor, were not entirely effectual in preventing begging, as we find from Ps. cix. 10. Begging naturally led to alms-giving; and, that this was common in the time of our Saviour, we see from many passages of the New Testament (Mark x. 46. Acts iii. 2). We cannot better illustrate the general spirit of the gospel, in this particular, than by referring to 1 John iii. 17,-'Whoso hath the world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion against him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?' Yet it must not be inferred from this, and similar passages, that a religion, one of whose principles is, that if any would not work, neither should he eat' (2 Thess. iii. 10), gives any encouragement to indiscriminate alms-giving; and the beautiful reflections of our Saviour on the widow's mite inculcate the principle that men's deeds are to be measured by the disposition of mind that prompts them-which must totally destroy the idea that our merit is the greater, in proportion as our alms are numerous and costly.

ALMUG (H.)-Almug-trees are mentioned among the articles which the navy of Hiram brought from Ophir (1 Kings x. 11, seq.). Of these, it is said, 'the king made pillars for the house of the Lord, and for the king's house, harps also and psalteries for singers: there came no such almug-trees, nor were seen unto this day.' In 2 Chron. ii. 8, the same wood (only called algum) is mentioned as being procurable from Lebanon. The Scriptures furnish no further information respecting this wood; but it is easy to learn its qualities from the purposes to which it was applied. It must, too, have been of high value, as constituting an article of trade between the East and the West; which fact may also be safely inferred from Solomon's wish to obtain it, the specific record of his success, and the uses to which he turned it. A precious and fragrant wood, known by names closely akin to the algum, is specified both by Arrian and Sir William Jones, as a staple article of importation from India into the ports of Persia and Arabia. The conjecture that the almug is sandal-wood, has as much in its favour as any other tree that has been suggested.

ALPHA (G.); the first letter of the Greek alphabet. It is used in connection with omega the last letter of the Greek alphabet; alpha and omega appropriately denoting the first and the last (Rev. i. 8; xxi. 6; xxii. 13; comp. Isa. xli. 4; xliv. 6); as the Hebrews and the Greeks made use of the let

ters of the alphabet for numerals. In the application of this mode of reckoning, care must be taken to ascertain what in each case the series is to which reference is made, as obviously there are as many firsts and lasts, as there are series of existing things.

ALPHEUS (H.) was father of James the Less (Matt. x. 3. Mark iii. 18. Luke vi. 15. Acts i. 13), and husband of Mary, sister of the mother of Jesus (Mark xv. 40), and therefore the same with Cleophas; in the original, Kλwrã, Klopa (John xix. 25); but probably not with Cleopas, mentioned in Luke xxiv. 18. As, then, Cleophas, in John xix. 25 is said to be the husband of Mary, the sister of Jesus' mother; and in Mark xv. 40, Mary is said to be mother of James the Less; and as these two Marys are both mentioned as being at the cross, on the crucifixion of Jesus, -Cleophas was husband of Mary, the aunt of our Lord, and father of James the Less. But Alpheus was father of James the Less; therefore, Cleophas and Alpheus were the same persons. In truth, Cleophas and Alpheus are the same word written, the first according to the Aramaic, the second according to the Greek pronunciation. Alpheus, if the termination is taken away, becomes Alphe, or rather Alphai (Aλpai); and Cleophas in the original is Klopa. Thus stripped of adventitious letters, they must sound nearly the same to the ears of uneducated

persons. But, in the Aramaic, the resemblance is yet nearer, the word being 'П, the sound of which may be represented in English by Helphai, Alphai, or Chlopai.

A different Alpheus, father of Matthew (Levi), is mentioned in Mark ii. 14.

ALTAR (L. something lofty), an elevated object, on which offerings were made to idols in the Heathen world, and to God among the Hebrews. The ideas involved in altars are connected with inferior religious conceptions. When it was judged necessary for men to make of their substance offerings to God, these offerings would at first be presented in the hands, and then laid on the ground. But there seemed an impropriety in placing them there, where they would be in the midst of ordinary and unholy things, and be exposed to detriment and desecration. An elevation of some kind, either natural or artificial, would remove the difficulty, and was accordingly adopted. In the case of burnt-offerings, some raised flat object was still more desirable. Natural elevations were first used for offerings. On Mount Moriah, Abraham prepared to offer up Isaac (Gen. xxii. 2, 9); and as idolatry was early prac tised, and its rites were accompanied by feasting, so respect for high places, and eating on the mountains, were indications of being given to idolatry (2 Kings xxiii. 5. Ezek. xviii. 6).

The Targumists carry back the use of altars to the days of Adam, speaking of a family altar, which Adam erected after his expulsion from Paradise; but the earliest on record is that of Noah, which he built after the flood, and which must have been an erection probably of loose unformed stones. The directions given to Moses in the wilderness (Exod. xx. 24-26) are very explicit. Moses was to erect an altar of earth, or if of stone, not of hewn stone, such as idolaters used: unwrought stone seemed most suited, too, for the service of the Creator. If thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.' 'Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.' Altars were erected, and names given to them, in commemoration of important events as by Abraham (Gen. xxii. 8, 14); by Jacob (Gen. xxxiii. 20); by Moses (Exod. xvii. 15). Altars were erected to God or to idols. Among the first may be specified those erected by Abraham, on the spot where God appeared to him (Gen. xii. 7), on Mount Bethel (Gen. xii. 8), in the plain of Mamre (Gen. xiii. 18), and on Mount Moriah (Gen. xxii. 9). Others may be found in Gen. xxxiii. 20. Josh. viii. 30. 1 Kings iii. 4. Of the second kind, take as specimens, the altar of Aaron, dedicated to the golden calf (Exod. xxxii. 5); of Antiochus (1 Macc. i. 59); of the Athenians to the unknown God (Acts xvii. 23), to Baal (Judg. vi. 25). (1 Kings xvi. 32), and to Moloch (Jer. vii. 31).

Sometimes a simple pillar stood in stead of an altar. Thus Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 18) took the stone which he had used at Bethel, for a pillow, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it (xxxi. 13 and 45). But, with an obviously symbolical intent, Moses, in commemoration of having received instructions from Jehovah in the wilderness, builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel' (Exod. xxiv. 4), on which burnt-offerings and peace-offerings were straightway offered. The shape in which these pillars were arranged, we are unable to determine; but we cannot fail to be reminded by the fact of the Druidical circles, found at Stonehenge, and other parts of England, and, indeed, in other parts of the world. In a view of a Druidical temple at Abury, in Wiltshire, as restored (Knight's "Old England," cut 28), the inner circle consists of twelve stones, with one standing in the middle, At Silbury Hill, in the same county, is one artificial mound, which may give the reader some idea of the erections of earth that served as altars in primitive times. The hill covers above five acres of ground, and is entirely artificial. In view of these huge monuments, ordinary altars sink into insignificance; and we must look to the pyramids and temples of Egypt for objects of comparison.

The altars of the Heathen were sometimes unadorned, but for the most part they were highly wrought; Oriental altars, with the general type of which the Hebrew correspond, were square; while those of Greece and Rome were often round. The Rabbins say that an altar which is not square is not legitimate. Four was a sacred number.

Altars were erected within the precincts of private abodes, for the offering of domestic worship, particularly on the flat roof of the house (2 Kings xxiii. 12. Jer. xix. 13. Zeph. i. 5). Hill tops, gardens, groves, and the shade of large trees, were favourite places for idolatrous altars (1 Kings xiv. 23. 2 Kings xvi. 4; xvii. 10; xxiii. 5). Feasts were held near them, for which dishes and meats were spread, and of which there were sometimes offensive remains (Isa. xxviii. 8. Jer. xi. 13). They generally bore the symbol and the name of the God to whom they were consecrated.

The Mosaic books allow an altar only in the sanctuary, first in the tabernacle, and afterwards in the temple (Lev. xvii. 9. Deut. xii. 13), with a view, doubtless, to discourage and prevent idolatrous practices. It was very long, however, before this law was strictly obeyed; indeed not until monotheism had completed its triumph. Other altars were erected and honoured, as by the tribe of Reuben (Josh. xxii. 10); by Gideon (Judg. vi. 24): by Israel itself (Judg. xxi. 4); by Samuel (1 Sam. vii. 17); by David (2 Sam. xxiv. 25). Manasseh, the son of the pions

monotheist Hezekiah, went so far in his time (677, A.C.) as to build altars for all the hosts of heaven, in the courts of the house of Jehovah (2 Chron. xxxiii. 5).

The altar of burnt-offering (often termed merely 'the altar') deserves special notice. It was a frame of shittim-wood, filled with earth, five cubits long, and five cubits broad, quadrangular; its height three cubits. At each corner or angle was a horn made of the same wood. The altar was overlaid with brass. This stood on the outside of the sanctuary, in the forecourt, in open day. On it were offered all burnt-offerings of slaughtered animals (Exod. xxvii. xxviii.). When, however, the national worship had reached its higher development in the temple, Solomon built a much larger altar, one of brass (a brass frame filled with earth or stone), twenty cubits long, twenty broad, and ten high (2 Chron. iv. 1; vi. 13. 1 Kings ix. 25), which was approved of God by fire being sent from heaven, after a prayer of Solomon, to consume the sacrifice (2 Chron. vii. 1). It stood before the porch of the Lord, in the court, that is, in front of the temple. This altar must have been destroyed or desecrated by idol-worship, as it was renewed or re-consecrated by king Asa (2 Chron. xv. 8). Ahaz, having seen at Damascus a splendid altar which pleased him, caused Urijah to build one like it, on which the monarch sacrificed, removing the old brazen altar from the front to the north side of the temple. The new was designated the great altar, and must therefore have been of larger dimensions than the one whose place it took. On the great altar the customary sacrifices were to be made, while the brazen altar was reserved for the king to inquire by.

This altar perished in the calamitous events which preceded the exile. As soon as the Jews began to return home, they proceeded to build an altar for burnt-offerings even before the temple was begun, under the direction of Zerubbabel (Ezra iii. 2); but we are furnished with no description of its form or size. It was desecrated under Antiochus Epiphanes-by having an idol-altar, and the abomination of desolation' set upon it, when similar erections were made throughout the cities of Judea on every side (1 Macc. i. 54): when, however, the city was shortly after purified, they pulled it down as being profaned; and taking 'whole'. - that is, unhewn-stones according to the law,' they built a new altar after the manner of the former (1 Macc. iv. 45, seq. 2 Macc. x. 3). The last passage is curious, as showing the way in which the fire was kindled: striking stones, they took fire out of them, and offered a sacrifice after two years.'

The altar of burnt-offerings which stood before the Herodian temple is thus described by Josephus (Jew. War, v. 5. 6. Antiq. xv. 11.5.):-'Before this temple stood the altar,

fifteen rubits high, and equal both in length and breadth; each dimension being fifty cubits. The figure it was built in was square; it had corners like horns, and the passage up to it was by a gentle acclivity. It was formed without any iron, nor did iron at any time touch it.' The Mischna gives different dimensions to this altar, making it thirty-two cubits square at the base, the size lessening at three unequal heights, until at the top it was twenty-four cubits square. There was a passage for the priests running on each side a cubic each way. On the south side was an ascent, thirty-two cubits long and sixteen broad. With the horn or corner on the south-west, there was a pipe connected, through which ran the blood of the victims into the brook Kedron. There was a cavity under the altar which received the drinkofferings, covered with a slab of marble. Several iron rings were put on the north side of the altar, in order to hold the oxen while they were slaughtered. There also ran exactly round the middle of the altar, a red line, to distinguish between the parts where the blood above or below the altar was to be sprinkled.

The fire on the altar of burnt-offerings was to be perpetual (Exod. xxvii. 20. Lev. vi. 12), symbolising, doubtless, the ever-during fire of God, which was thus understood to consume the offering, and so to signify that it was accepted on high. Similar instances may be found in the everlasting fire of the Persians, and the vestal fire of Roman worship. This fire was continued from that which is related to have fallen from heaven (Lev. ix. 24), and of which many stories are told. In 2 Macc. i. 19, we read how this fire which had been extinguished by the captivity, was discovered in an empty pit, where it had been miraculously preserved. The Rabbins assert that the fire kindled originally from heaven (Lev. ix.), burned till the days of Solomon, when a new fire again came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt-offering, and the glory of Jehovah filled the house (2 Chron. vii. 1).

This fire lasted till the days of Manasseh, who allowed it to go out.

The altar of incense was of smaller dimensions, of shittim-wood overlaid with gold: it stood in the temple, and served for burning incense on in divine worship; whence its name. On the day of atonement, it was sprinkled with blood. In Exod. xxx. 1-3, a full description of that which was in the tabernacle may be found. Its position was before the mercy-seat, and the incense was to be perpetually burnt. It also had horns at the corners, on which was to be put some of the blood of the victim offered as a priest's sin-offering. The altar of sweet incense' which was found in the temple of Solomon, was of a similar make. It is only cursorily mentioned, and consisted of cedar overlaid with gold (1 Kings vi. 20; vii. 48. 2 Chron. xxix. 18).

That which was in the temple, built on the return from Babylon, was removed by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc. i. 21), and restored, with other holy utensils, when the temple was consecrated anew (1 Macc. iv. 49). No altar of incense appears on the arch of Titus; but we know from Jewish authorities that there was one in the last temple.

Altars were held in so great respect among the Jews, in part from the purposes to which they were applied, in part from the place where they stood, and the associated circumstances, that, at a late and corrupt period of the nation, it was usual to swear by them, or by the offerings which they bore (Matt. xxiii. 18). The altar served as a place of refuge; and, accordingly, to put a man to death, as in the case of Zacharias, who perished between the altar and the temple, was great impiety as well as injustice.

The word horn, as applied in case of altars, is not to be strictly understood. A projection running to a point somewhat after the manner of a horn, is all that seems to be intended. These projections were partly for ornament, and partly for fastening the animals intended to be slain. As easily laid hold on, they also served as the points which those who sought asylum near the altar were to seize. For an account of these rights of sanctuary, consult the following passages of Scripture: 1 Kings i. 50; ii. 23. Exod. xxi. 14. 1 Macc. x. 43.

Paul found at Athens an altar to the unknown God, of which he made admirable use in his address (Acts xvii.). We do not see that the words of the apostle need any confirmation. They are themselves a sufficient evidence of the fact. But external proof is not wanting.

In the New Testament, and in the primi tive church, there are no altars found, as there were no sacrifices to offer; and the early Christians, suffering under constant persecution, put up their worship in caves