owfc «u AvSol Kal waoa tf 'Apapid), and the children of the land of the covenant shall fall by the sword with them" (L e. no doubt the Egyptians ; see ver. 4). The first three of these names or designations are of African peoples, unless (but this is improbable) the Shemite Lnd be intended by the third (see, however, xxvii, 10 ; xxxviil, 6 ; Isa. Ixvi, 19 ; Jer. xlvi, 9) ; the fourth is of a people on the Egyptian frontier; and the sixth probably applies to the remnant of the Jews who had fied into Egypt (oomp. Dan. xl, 28, 80, 82, espe- cially the last, where the covenant is not qualified as ''holy'O, whidi was prophesied to perish for the most part by the sword and otherwise in that country (Jer. xlii, 16, 17, 22; xliv, 12, 18, 14, 27, 28). This fifth name Is therefore that of a country or people in alli- anoe with Egypt, and probably of Northern Africa, or of the lands near Eg3rpt to the south. Some have pro- posed to recognise CM in the names of various Afri- can places — Cobe (Ko/3i7), a port on the Indian Ocean (PtoL Iv, 7, § 10) ; Chobat (Xw/3ar or Xa./3o0), in Mau- ritania (iv, 2, § 9) ; and Cobum QLufiiov or Kutftlov), in the Mmoilc nome in £g3rpt (iv, 6)— conjectures which are of no value except as showing the existence of similar names where we might expect this to have had its place. Bochart strangely regards it as the city PaBurutj hk Marmarica (Strabo, xvii, 888) ; while H&vemick seeks it in the people called Kufa on the Egyptian monuments (Wilkixison, i, 879 sq.). Oth- ers, however, think the present Heb. text corrupt in this word. It has been therefore proposed to read JVaft (3^3) tar Nubia, as the Arab. vers, has " the people the NooMk," whence it might be supposed that at least one copy of the Sept had derived tlie first letter (v for the usual X) ; one Heb. MS. indeed reads thus (3*193, Cod. 409, ap. de Bossi). The Arab. vers, is, however/ of very slight weight, and we have no authority of this kind for appljring the word Nub (or Kenub, its Egyp- tian pronunciation ; see Bunsen, JBgypt. SteO. ii, 6) to Nubia^ or rather the Nubce (Sovpai, Strabo, xvii, 786, 819; iv, 7, 80; Plm. vi, 85; Steph. Byz. p. 696), the countries held by whom from Strabo*s time to our own are by the Egyptian inscriptions included in Eeesh or Eesh, that is, Cush ; the Nuba, however, may not in the prophet's days bave been settled in any pert of the territory which has taken from them its name. Anoth- er conjecture (regarded as quite equal in probability by Gesenins, Thes. Heb. p. 664) is the emendation which Hitzig proposes (Begriffder KrUiky p. 129), namely, Lub (n^b). The Lubim, doubtless the Mizraite Lehabim ot Gen. X, 13; 1 Chron. 1, 11, are mentioned as serving with Cnshim in the army of Shishak (2 Chron. xii, 2, 8), and in that of Zerah (xvi, 8 ; comp. xiv, 9), who was most probably also a Ung of Egypt, and certainly the leader of an Egyptian army. See Cush; Zerah. Nahum speaks of them as helpers of Thebes, together with Put (Phut), while Cush and Egypt were her strength (Ui, 8, 9); and Daniel mentions the Lubun and Cushim as submitting to or courting a conqueror of Egypt (xi, 48). The Lubim' might therefore well occur among the nations suifering in the fiUl of Egypt There is, however, this objection, that we have no in- stance of the supposed form Lub in the sing., the noun being always given in the plural — Lubim (q. v.); hence Hitzig has himself since rejected this view (Kuragef, eacegei, Hdb, m EMeehiel, in loc). The sug- gestion of H&vemick, that the name Chub is to be con- nected with Kufa^ which occurs on the Egyptian mon- uments as that of a people conquered by the Egyptians (Wilkinson, Anc. Egj/pt. 1, 867, 871), would be deservhig of notice were it not that it involves the somewhat vio- lent proposition that a people, of whom we only know that they were tiie allies of the Egyptians, should be identified with a people of whom we only know that they were the conquered enemies of the Egyptians ; though it is certainly possible that they who were at an early period foes, may at a later jMriod have be-
CHUBB
822
CHURCH
come Allies. Worthy of notice also is the suggestion of Font, who says, ** It is possible that it is to be con- nected with Coba, the exiiiring name of an Ethiopian port, and which, perhaps, was formerly the name of a district" (£r«6. tiandb. s. y.).~ Smith, s. v.; Kitto,
8. V.
Chubb, Thomas, an English Deist, was bora at East Hamham, a village near Salisbury, in 1679. His fkther d3ring, left his £unily poor, and Chabb was ap- prenticed to a gloTer in 1694. At this trade, and that ot tallow-chandler, he supported himself, and at the same time coHiTated his uncommon natural ability by diligent study. He died at Salisbury Feb. 8, 1746-7. His first woric, which appeared in 1715, was entitled The Siqfremacif of the Father a$$eried (8yo), and de- nied the divinity of Christ. It was followed by a series of publications, in which his skepticism was more and more Ailly developed. Among them are Jn^ <pdriei ooncermmg Liberty ofContdenee amd J3m (Lond. 1717, 8vo) ; and a great number of tracts on author- ity, human nature, miracles, etc. He was largely involved in controversy with Warbnrton, Stebbing, Fleming, and others. His posthumous tracts were published in 2 vols. 8vo, 1748 ; and were answered by Fleming, in True Deitm the Basis of ChrisHanity \ or, OhservaHm <m Chtibb's posthumous Works ; and by Le- land (View ofDeisUcal Writers, vol. i). " Chubb was a working man, endowed with strong native sense, who manifested the same inclination to meddle with the deep subject of religion which afterwards marked the character of Thomas Paine and others, who influ- enced the lower orders later in the century. In his general view of religion, Chubb denied all particular providence, and, by necessvy consequence, the utility 'of prayer, save for its subjective value as having a re- flex benefit on the human heart. He was undecided as to the fact of the existence of a revelation, but seemed to allow its possibility. He examined the three great forms of religion which professed to depend upon a positive revelation, Judaism, Mohammedanism, and Christianity. The claims of the first he wholly rejected, on grounds similar to those explained }yy Morgan, as incompatible with the moral character of God. In reference to the second he anticipated the modern opinions on Mohammedanism by asserting that its victory was impossible if it had not contained truth which the human spirit needed. In examining the third he attacked, like Morgan, the evidence of miracles and prophecy, and asserted the necessity of moral right and wrong as the ground of the interpre- tation of Scripture" (Farrar, Critical History of Free Thought, p. 142). There is a full account of Chubb, with the opinions of various writers concerning him, in the Bioyraphia Britaamica, iii, 521-582.