* * *

sacred text says nothing, but by the specification in Exod. xiii. 19, leaves it to be inferred (?) that they were buried in Egypt. Josephus (Ant. 11. viii. 2) relates that they were taken and buried in Hebron : the Rabbinical traditions mentioned by Wetst. and Lightf. report them to have been buried in Sychem. * * * These traditions probably Stephen followed; and in haste or inadvertence classed Jacob with the rest. The burying-place which Abraham bought was not at Sychem, but (Gen. xxiii. 3-20) at Hebron, and was bought of Ephron the Hittite. It was Jacob who (Gen. xxxiii. 19) bought a field where he had pitched his tent, near Sychem, of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father and no mention is made of its being for a burying-place. The two incidents are certainly here confused; and no ingenuity of the commentators has ever devised an escape from the inference." Luger answers this common objection by pointing to the peculiar manner in which, as we have already seen, S. Stephen alludes to the national history. Abraham bought the sepulchre near Mamre, and there Jacob was buried (Gen. 1. 13); Jacob bought "a parcel of a field” at Sychem, and there Joseph was buried (Josh. xxiv. 32). That is, Abraham purchased a grave for Jacob; and so did Jacob for Joseph; and thus we have an additional instance of the law of repetition above alluded to. These two facts S. Stephen combines in a single phrase; and this same system of combination is constantly repeated throughout his address :— e. g. cf. ver. 7, with Gen. xv. 13, 14, and Ex. iii. 12 (see, supra, p. 308, note); cf., too, the statement of ver. 9. Compare, especially, the reference of ver. 43,1 "I will carry you away beyond Babylon," with the denunciation of Amos (v. 27) against the Ten Tribes: "Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus,;"-in which words the deportation to Assyria (2 Kings, xvii. 6), is alone spoken of. Babylon, however, as the Prophets declared, was to be the exile of disobedient Judah; and both denunciations are here combined by S. Stephen. So also in the passage before us, it is, with similar brevity, implied that Jacob was laid in the grave which Abraham had purchased in Hebron,2 Gen. xxiii. 19; 1. 13;

1 It may be well to allude to the substitution of Remphan, or Rephan ('Pɛpúv), in this verse, for the "Chiun, 775" of Amos, v. 26. Of this, two explanations are given:-(1) Chiun Saturn; Kircher ("Edip. Ægypt," t. i. p. 384) having proved the existence of a Coptic word, 'Pnov or 'Pepúv (by which all Versions render the 'Chiun" of Amos), which also stands for Saturn. `(2) Pnoúv=7777; and the LXX., who give 'Papúv, had this reading instead of 77,- standing for 5. See Hengsten berg, "Beiträge," ii. s. 110 ff., and Winer, "Real-Wörterb.," art. Saturn.

2 This explanation has been given, in substance, by Bishop Kidder, in his "Demonstration of the Messias," Part ii. p. 86, &c.; where he also answers another objection hinted at by Mr. Alford, who writes on ver. 14:-"In the Hebrew text, Gen. xlvi. 27; Exod. i. 5; Deut. x. 22, seventy souls are reckoned, viz., sixty-six born of Jacob, Jacob himself, Joseph, and his two sons born in Egypt. So also Josephus, Ant. II. vii. 4; VI. v. 6. But the LXX., whom Stephen follows, insert in Gen. xlvi. 20 an account of the children and grandchildren of Manasseh and Ephraim, five in number; and in ver. 27 read puxaì ÉßdoμnkovтatÉVTε-reckoning, as it appears, curiously enough, among the sons of Joseph, Joseph himself, and Jacob; for these are required to make up the nine according to their ver. 20." Bishop Kidder considers "that Moses designs to give an account of Jacob's whole family, or such as 'came out of his loins,' Gen. xlvi. 6-8, and ver. 26; in order that by comparing the small number who went down to Egypt, with the great number who came out of that land, the protection of God might be the more manifest. Hence he does not include the wives of Jacob's sons, enumerating merely Jacob, his sons, and also Joseph's sons. which were born him in

and Joseph in the possession which Jacob had purchased at Sychem, Gen. xxxiii. 19; Josh. xxiv. 32.

APPENDIX I

66 THE CAPTAIN OF THE LORD'S HOST."

(LECTURE III.—PAGE 127.)

DR. MILL'S note on "The Captain of the Lord's Host" (Josh. v. 13-15) is as follows:

"The question now proposed is this. Whether of these two, the Uncreated or the created Angel, the Angel of Exod. xxiii. 20, or that of xxxiii. 2, is he who appeared to Joshua on the plain of Jericho, and announced himself as come to him in the character of 'Captain of the host of the Lord? This is stated with other biblical questions by Theodoret, in the fourth century, as one debated among Christians: and he answers, on the ground of the last-cited passage of Exodus, on the latter side, against some, apparently a minority in the Church, who asserted the former. Quæst. Iv. in Jesum filium Naue. Τίνα νοητέον τὸν ̓Αρχιστράτηγον T τῆς δυνάμεως Κυρίου; τινές φασι, τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον ὀφθήναι. Ἐγὼ δὲ οἶμαι Μιχαὴλ τὸν ̓Αρχάγγελον εἶναι· ἡνίκα γὰρ ἐπλημμέλησαν, ὁ τῶν ὅλων ἔφη Θεός· οὐ μὴ συναναβῶ μετὰ σοῦ διὰ τὸ τὸν λαὸν σκληροτράχηλον εἶναι· ἀλλ ̓ ἀποστελῶ τὸν ἄγγε λόν μου προ προσώπου σου προτερόν σου. Τοῦτον οἶμαι νῦν ὀφθῆναι τῷ Ἰησοῦ παραθαῤῥύνοντα καὶ τὴν θείαν βοήθειαν πрoonμaivovтa. [Opera, ed. Schulze, tom. I. p. 308.] What Theodoret here expresses as his own opinion, is that which (with two remarkable exceptions which shall be presently noticed) has received the sanction of the ancient Church."

T

"The same is also the oldest tradition of the Jews, as exemplified in Jonathan's Chaldean paraphrase of the passage in Joshua, where the Captain of God's host is twice termed ́ ́, cap za rabw tab an Angel sent from the presence of the Lord,' an expression incompatible with the belief that he comprised that Presence in his own person." Agreeably to this view, we do not find that the Christian Fathers, when speaking, as they frequently do, of the Son of God as appearing in

* * *

Egypt" (see vv. 26 and 27). But take now the words and the design of S. Stephen. He does not confine himself to those who came แ out of Jacob's loins:"-he plainly includes all those whom Joseph called into Egypt. "Then sent Joseph and called his father to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.” "Moses tells us how many Jacob and his seed amounted to; omitting his sons' wives. Stephen tells us how many they were that Joseph called into Egypt." Some, therefore, in the list of Moses, must be left out of the number given by S. Stephen. Joseph and his two sons could not be said to be called into Egypt; still less could Hezron and Hamul, the sons of Phares (Gen. xlvi. 12), who were not yet born. Besides, Jacob too must be considered apart. Hence six persons are to be deducted from the number of Moses (viz. Jacob, Joseph and his two sons, with Hezron and Hamul), in order to find those who are reckoned by S. Stephen:-and hence sixty-four only are common to both. Add now the eleven wives of the sons of Jacob, and we get the number seventy-five giver by S. Stephen.

the Old Testament, and as the special object of the provocation of the Israelites, include this appearance to Joshua among the θεοφάνειαι. But to this there are two distinguished exceptions. The one is Justin Martyr, who, after describing the appearance to Moses in the bush, says [Dial. cum Tryphone, p. 183, ed. Jebb], Μαρτύριον δὲ καὶ ἄλλο ὑμῖν, ὦ φίλοι, ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν δώσω, ὅτι ἀρχὴν πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ Θεὸς γεγέν νηκε Δύναμιν τινὰ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικὴν, ἥτις καὶ Δόξα Κυρίου ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου καλεῖται, ποτὲ δὲ Υἱὸς, ποτὲ δὲ Σοφία, ποτὲ δὲ *Αγγελος, ποτὲ δὲ Θεὸς, ποτὲ δὲ Κύριος καὶ Λόγος· ποτὲ δὲ ̓Αρχιστράτηγον ἑαυτὸν λέγει, ἐν ἀνθρώπου μορφῇ φανέν τα τῷ τοῦ Ναυῆ Ἰησοῦ. The other is Eusebius, who, in the second prefatory chapter to his Ecclesiastical History, 'concerning the preexistence and Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,' adds to the indubitable instances of His manifestation as the sole image of God to man, this revelation of himself as Leader of the Army of God: relating the appearance at length from the LXX. version of Joshua, and arguing the identity of the person manifested with Him who appeared to Moses, from the command to both to loose the sandals from their feet, because the place on which they stood was sanctified by that Presence. Against this sentiment of Eusebius an ancient annotator has inserted in the margin this remarkable protest, preserved on account of its antiquity and its elegance of style by Valesius ad loc. 'Αλλ' ἡ ἐκκλησία, ὦ ἁγιώτατε Εὐσέβιε, ἑτέρως τὰ περὶ τούτου νομίζει καὶ οὐχ ὡς σύ· τὸν μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῇ βάτῳ φανέντα τῷ Μωυσῇ θεολογεῖ· τὸν δὲ ἐν Ιεριχῷ τῷ μετ' αὐτὸν ὀφθέντα, τὸν τῶν Εβραίων ἐπιστασίαν λαχόντα, μάχαιραν ἐσπασμένον, καὶ τῷ Ἰησοῦ λῦσαι προστάττοντα τὸ ὑπόδημα, τοῦτον δέ γε τὸν ἀρχάγγελον ὑπείληφε Μιχαήλ· καὶ δῆλον ὅτι κρεῖττον ὑπείληφε σοῦ· πόθεν; ἐρωτηθεὶς παρὰ τῇ βάτῳ φανεὶς ὁ Θεὸς ἐν εἴδει πυρὸς τῷ ἑαυτοῦ θεράποντι Μωυσῇ, καὶ δηλῶν ὅστις εἴη, τοῦτο αὐτῷ τρανώτατα παριστᾷ, ὅτι δὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἐστίν. ὁ δὲ τῷ Ἰησοῦ φανεὶς, οὐδὲ Θεὸν ἑαυτὸν, ἀλλ' ̓Αρχιστράτη γον ὠνόμασε τοῦ Θεοῦ· τοῦτο δὲ τὸ ἀξίωμα τῆς ἀνωτάτω δυναστείας τε καὶ θεότητος ὑποδεέστερον ὂν, καὶ οὐκ ἀρχικὸν ἀλλ ̓ ὑπαρχι κόν. [Euseb. Η. Ε. Tom. I. pp. 17, 18, ed. Heinichen.]"

"The interpreter of Scripture has to choose between the reasons of this anonymous writer, supported as they are by the unquestionably true allegation of general Catholic consent, and those of the learned historian on whom he is commenting. That this Angel, in describing his name and dignity to Joshua, so far from exhibiting any analogy with the assertion of Supreme Deity in Exod. iii. 6, gives a name implying only a ministerial superintendence, is undeniable: (for to say that the chief of the army of the LORD must be the LORD Himself is the same as saying that the captain of the guard, the chief of the butlers and of the bakers, all denoted by the same word “ in Gen. xxxix., xl., must mean Pharaoh the sovereign of all.) And the impression of this signal difference can only be removed by the most distinct proof that the act commanded severally in Exod. iii. 5, and Josh. v. 15, was in both instances similarly referred to the immediate speaker, and that an honor and obeisance were rendered to the latter by Josnua, beyond what is allowed to any created being. But as, with the example of all the earlier as well as the later Scriptures before us, it seems most natural and obvious to conceive that the LORD sent this message to

* * *

Joshua (cf. vi. 2) by the mouth of his Archangel, so there seems no dero gation to the Divine honor in believing, with the Fathers of old, that the ground was hallowed which was trodden by such an exalted servant of God,—and that the prostrate adoration of Joshua, like that of Daniel before the angel in Dan. x. 15' (if it were such), was directed, not to the Captain of the LORD's host, but to the LORD of Hosts who sent him.

"With respect to the identity of this - with Michael, to whom the same title of is given in Dan. x. 13, 21, xii. 1 (there translated Prince), it is sufficiently established by the functions ascribed to the latter in that book and in the Apocalypse, as well with respect to the celestial host, as to the people of God whom he defends. But there is one species of testimony to this identity too remarkable to be overlooked, though not proposed to be followed or imitated. The same divines of the foreign reformation, who contend for the Prince of the LORD's host in Joshua being no less than the Second Person cf the Ever-blessed Trinity, are most commonly impelled by the same process of argument to predicate the same of the Archangel Michael also. The process may be seen by consulting the notes of Masius and Drusius on this place of Joshua; the latter of whom however shrinks, as he well may, from asserting that Michael (called in Dan. x. 13, one of the Primary chiefs, D), always denotes the Uncreated Word."

.נביא ראה חזה the terms

THERE is, perhaps, no single point in the exegesis of the Old Testament respecting which the information to be gleaned from critics is so meagre, and so unsatisfactory, as that relating to the distinction which subsists between That a distinction does exist is unquestionable. This we learn chiefly from the Books of Chronicles; in which the author has on all occasions assigned, with such particularity, his official title to each person named. E. ga, "The acts of David the king, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer (87); and in the book of Nathan the prophet (*), and in the book of Gad the seer ()."-1 Chron. xxix. 29. Cf. also, Nathan "the prophet," and Iddo "the seer."2 Chron. ix. 29. Shemaiah "the prophet" and Iddo "the seer.”—2 Chron. xii. 15. Isaiah "the prophet, the son of Amoz.” Chron. xxvi. 22.

Witsius observes: 66 Quænam ergo inter hæc tria nomina significationis est diversitas? Enimvero fateor me ignorare.” 2 Carpzovius contents himself with stating that the learned profess ignorance on the subject quoting a conjecture of Vitringa which explains nothing, and which is des

"But respecting the quality of this obeisance, see Mr. Todd's remarks in p. 138, not. of his fourth Lecture on Antichrist."

с

• "Miscell. Sacra," lib. i. cap. 1, § 19.

titute of support. Winer merely says:-"All three names, Nabi, Roeh, Chozeh, occur to ether, but applied to different individuals, in 1 Chron. xxix. 29. In the Books of Chronicles this distinction is, in general, observed, and Samuel is named Roeh; Gad, Chozeh; and Nathan, Nabi."" Dr. Moses Stuart has thought fit to speak contemptuously of any attempt to explain the use of any of these terms, and denies the existence of any distinction at all! The following remarks may, perhaps, serve to express how the case really stands.

4

Hävernick (who considers that Roeh and Chozeh have the same signification) clearly proves that Nabi has a meaning peculiar to itself, and that it invariably expresses the official title of the prophets of God. On the other hand, the word (and, according to Hävernick, ¬), denotes "the act of receiving a single revelation (cf. the New Testament phrase ȧπоkáλvŸiv ëxεɩv-1 Cor. xiv. 26), but not the particular function." Of this distinctive use of Nabi he gives the following examples. In 2 Kings, xvii. 13, we read: "The Lord testified against Israel and against Judah by the hand of all His Prophets (N), and of every kind of seers (-):" -i. e. the prophets, as public teachers of the people, gave their testimony in Israel; but, at the same time, other private individuals also received communications from God,-the personal pronoun pointing out the distinction between the official prophets and ordinary seers. ("Here the words are rendered according to the 'kethib.' The Masorets omitted the pronoun because has no suffix; and they were either ignorant of, or did not observe, the distinction between the two ideas.") Again, 1 Sam. xxviii. 6, the Lord answered Saul, "Neither by dreams [i. e.-employing part of the idea for the whole-by the non-official seers, ], nor by Urim [i. e. by the High Priest; cf. the case of Caiaphas, supra, p. 202, note '], nor by prophets [i. e. by the official agents of the Theocracy].' Isaiah, too, has no less clearly pointed out the distinction: "The Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes,

1 "Quanquam autem nonnihil discriminis inter hæc tria vocabula intercedere, ex 1 Chron. xxix. 29, satis appareat * * * quod sane casu, aut temere factum, nemo facile dixerit: ipsum tamen discrepantiæ momentum, in quo versetur cardine, doctissimi virorum se ignorare fatentur. * * * Vero itaque paulo videtur similius

proprie esse KoTaTikóv, qui oculos mentis in rem, contemplationi suæ oblatam, alte defigit, et vultu immoto in ejus intuitu hæret, 2 Reg. vi. 11; quæ omnis vis non est in voce, quippe quæ simpliciter notat qualemcunque rei speciem in phantasia descriptam videre, non in ecstasi tantum, sed et per quietem Gen. xxxi. 10; xli. 22, vocisque adeo, latiorem esse significationem; quæ Vitringæ erudita est hariolatio in 'Typo doctrinæ propheticæ,' cap. i. § 3, p. 4, quod tamen discrimen in Scriptura ubivis servari, ipse vir clariss. pro certo affirmare non audet. * * Unde satis, opinor, constat esse quidem aliquod inter hæc vocabula æque ac munia discrimen, quod tamen, quale sit, hodie ignoretur."-Introd. ad Libros Canon. V. T., par. iii. cap. i. § 2.

2 "Real-Wörterbuch," art. Propheten.

*

*

*

3 "Hävernick," writes Dr. Stuart, "has labored at length to show that even the Scriptures themselves make a distinction-a palpable one--between x, a prophet,—-—Labor surely bestowed in vain. For in, a seer. How easy to have prevented such a mistake as he has made, by duly consulting a Hebrew Concordance. Had he done this, he must have seen that Nabi, and Roeh, or Chozeh are undistinguishingly (1) used to designate the very same individuals."-The Old Test. Canon, p. 254. 4 "Einleitung," Th. 1. Abth. i. s. 56 ff.