were written before the reign of Alexander, as in Nahum, iii, 8, Jer. xlvi, 25, and Ezek. xxx, 14, 15, 16. But this name is no where in the original Hebrew; instead "of which, we there read No, which is thought to be a city of Diospolis in the Delta, between Busiris, and Mendes... The Arabians inform us, that Alexandria was called Caissoun, before Alexander the great, rebuilt or enlarged it. Dinocrates, who prepared the plan of it, was the same architect, who rebuilt the temple of Diana at Ephesus, which had been burnt by Eurostratus. Aridous, Alexander's brother, was charged with the care of carrying the body of this prince from Babylon to Alexandria. He employed two years in making preparations for its removal, the pomp of which is described by Diodorus Siculus. There had been a prophecy current, intimating that the place where Alexander should be buried, should flourish and be very prosperous. The governors, therefore, of the several cities and provinces, disputed with one another, who should have the honor and advantage of possessing his body. There was a proposal for carrying it to Aigua in Macedonia, where generally the kings

of this country had been buried, but Egypt carried it. His body therefore was deposited first of all at Memphis; but was afterwards removed to Alexandria. It is said to have been laid in a coffin of gold, and to have been embalmed in honey. The happy situation of this city, between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, and upon the river Nile, drew thither the commerce of the east and west, and in a little time rendered it one of the most flourishing cities in the world. It soon became the capital of Egypt; though now it is no more than a village, having in it, nothing remarkable, beside its ruins, the remains of its past grandeur. For two hundred years after the death of Alexander, it was the residence of his successors. This city was taken from the Christians by Amrou Ebn-el-Aas, general of the Califf, about the middle of the 7th century, after a siege of 14 months, in which he lost 23,000 men. Alexandria then contained 4,000 baths, 12,000 sellers of vegetables, 4,000 palaces and 4,000 Jews, who paid tribute, &c. sometimes the Jews amounted to 100.000, &c. What is much to be regretted by the lovers of books, the library was destroyed by this ignorant, bigotted Arab, in

which successive kings had collected more than 400,000, or as others write, 700,000, manuscripts, or volumes. Among the remains of ancient opulence in this city, are two obelisks full of hieroglyphics, also Pompey's pillar, which is one entire piece of granite, 40 feet high and 25 in circumference. The ancient Pharos, famous among the ancients, as one of the seven wonders of the world, is now a castle, and useful in directing vessels into the harbor. This town consists chiefly of one street, along the harbor, the rest being a waste of forsaken ruins. Part of the ancient walls are standing, having great square towers 200 paces apart. Each of these would contain 200 soldiers, and had a cistern, which received the water of the Nile. The gates are of Thebaic and granite marble. But the immense traffic of this place has in a measure been lost, since its subjugation by the Turks, and especially since the discovery of the Cape of Good Hope. Still the commerce is not inconsiderable; it is the principal harbor of Egypt. The town is low, and a canal from Faoua brings the waters of the Nile, during the inundation into reservoirs, which is preserved for use through the year.

It is said this canal is the only circumstance, which makes Alexandria a part of Egypt. From its being situated without the Delta, it really belongs to Lybia. Here is still seen the church of St. Mark. They show part of the pulpit in which they say the Evangelist preached. The outside of the church is faced with stones of different colors. The body of St. Mark, who it is said was the first bishop of Alexandria, was deposited in this church, where it continued till some Venetians carried it to Venice, where is a famous church, called St. Mark's. The population is reckoned at 30,000. The Turks call it Scanderia, or Escanderia. It is 33 miles South West from Rosetta, about 100 north westerly from Cairo. On the 4th of July, 1788 Alexandria was taken by assault, by the French army under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte; he put to flight the Arabs and Mamelukes, who defended the place, killing about 300 of them. In the year 1801, the place was taken again by the English army under the command of General Hutchinson, and by an article in the preliminaries of peace, Egypt was to be restored to the Sublime Ottoman Porte. Alexan

dria is situated in Lat. 31, 11, N. long. 30, 16, E. To this I may add that the city is built over against the little island of Pharos, which has been joined to the land, and for the security of the port, the Turks have here built a fort. In this isle the SEVENTY-two Interpreters are said to have translated the Hebrew bible into Greek, in so many distinct cells or apartments. This work, from the number of persons employed, is called the Septuagint.

ALMON, a city belonging to the tribe of Benjamin (Josh. xxi, 18) Calmet takes it to be the same with Alemeth. It was given to the priests of Aaron's family (1 Ch. vi, 60.

ALUSH, one of the Hebrew encampments in the wilderness; it was in the region of the Edomites, near the city Petra.

AMAD, a city belonging to the tribe of Asher, (Josh. xxix, 26.) Lat. 33, 1.

AMALEK, a mountain of Palestine in the tribe of Ephraim, on which the town of Pi. rathon was built, and where Abdon, the son of Hillel, judge of Israel, was buried, 1156 B. C. Lat. 28, 30.

AMALEKITES, a powerful people, who dwelt in Arabia Petrea, between the Dead

sea, and the Red sea; or between Havilah and Shur, 1 Sam. xv, 7, sometimes in one canton and sometimes in another. It does not appear, that they had cities; there is but one, mentioned in the scriptures; they lived generally in hamlets, caves, and tents, and seem to have had the same fe rocious character with the modern Arabs. The Israelites had scarce passed the Red sea on their way to the wilderness, before the Amalekites came to attack them in the deserts

of Rephidim,

Exod. xvii, 8, &c. and put those to the sword, who were obliged, either through fatigue or weakness, to remain behind. Moses by God's command, directed Joshua to fall upon this people; to record the act of inhumanity, which they had committed, in a book in order to have it always before his eyes, and to avenge it, in the most remarkable manner. Joshua therefore fell upon the Amalekites and defeated them, while Moses was upon the mountain, with Aaron and Hur in company. During the time of the engagement, Moses held up his hands, to which the success of the battle was owing, for as often as he let down his hands Amalek pre

vailed, but Moses's hands being tired, Aaron, and Hur supported his arms, and held them extended, while the battle lasted, which was from morning, till the approach of night, when the Amalekites were cut in pieces. This happened in the year of the world 2513 before Christ 1491.

The ground of the enmity of the Amalekites, against the Israelites, is generally supposed to have risen from the remembrance of Jacob's depriving their progenitor, both of his birthright and blessing. Their falling upon them, however, and that without any provocation, when they saw them reduced to so low a condition, by the fatigue of their march, and the excessive drought under which they labored, was an inhuman, barbarous action, and justly deserved the attack which Joshua gave them. But the reason why God thought fit to denounce a perpetual war against them is to be resolved into this. Knowing that the Israelites were preordained by God, to be put in possession of the land of Canaan, they came against them, with an armed force in hopes of frustrating the designs of Providence, concerning them. Un der the Judges (v, 3,) we see

the Amalekites, joined with the Midianites and Moabites in a design to oppress Israel: but Ehud delivered the Israelites from Eglon, king of the Moabites; Judges iii, and Gideon chap. viii, delivered them from the Midianites and Amalekites. About the year of the world 2930 the Lord said to Samuel, "Go to Saul, 1 Sam. xv, 1, &c. and say, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Saul marched, therefore, against the Amalekites, advanced as far as their capital, and put all the people of the country to the sword; but spared the best of all the cattle and moveables, and so violated the command of God. This act of disobedience was the cause of Saul's misfortunes, and his being rejected by God. After this war, the Amalekites scarce appear any more in history; however, about the year of the world 2949, a troop of Amalekites came and pillaged Ziklag, which belong ed to David, 1 Sam. xxx,

where he had left his two wives, Ahinoam and Abigail. But he returning from an expedition, which he had made in the company of Achish into the valley of Jezreel, pursued them, overtook and dispersed them, and recovered all the booty, which they had carried from Ziklag. The Arabians maintain Amalek to have been the son of Ham, and grandson of Noah, that he was the father of Ad, and grandfather of Schedad. Calmet thinks that this opinion is by no means to be rejected; as it is not very probable that Amalek, the son of Eliphaz, and grandson of Esau should be the father of a people, so powerful and numerous as the Amalekites were, when the Israelites departed out of Egypt. Moses in the book of Genesis xiv, 7, relates, that in Abraham's time, long before the birth of Amalek, the son of Eliphaz, the five confederate kings carried the war into Amalek's country, about Kadesh; and into that of the Amorites, about Hazezon-tamar. The same Moses, Numb. xxiv, 20, relates that the diviner Baalam, observing at a distance the land of Amalek, said in his prophetic style, 'Amalek is the first, the head, the original of the nation, but his

Be

latter end shall be, that he perish for ever." Our commentator observes that this epithet, "the first of nations cannot cer tainly agree with the Amalekites, descended from the son of Eliphaz, because the generation then living was but the third from Amalek. sides, Moses never reproaches the Amalekites with attacking their brethren the Israelites as an aggravating circumstance, which he would not have omitted, were the Amalekites descended from Esau, in which case they had been the brethren of the Israelites. Lastly, we see the Amalekites, almost always joined in scripture, with the Canaanites and Philis tines, and never with the Edomites; and when Saul made war with the Amalekites and almost utterly destroyed them, we do not find that the Edomites, made the least motion toward their assistance, or to revenge them afterwards. Thence it is thought probable, that the Amalekites, who are so often mentioned in scripture, were a people, descended from Canaan, and devoted to the curse, as well as the other Amorites, and very different from the descendants of Amalek, the grandson of Esau. The account which the Arabians give us, of