treasured up in the traditions of those nations which lived in the immediate neighborhood of the localities where these events are said to have taken place. A place (whether the true one or not affects not the argument) where Israel passed the Sea is readily pointed out to the modern traveller, as much so as if the event had occurred but yesterday, and with the apparent feeling that the interests of a world are suspended on the truth of the testimony. The rock, out of which Moses is said to have brought water for the thousands of Israel, just as we read in the Scriptures, is shown you with as much precision as if your guide had been present when it was done. We do not, of course, wish to be understood as saying, that rock is the true one; but what seems especially worthy of remark is, this tradition is so vivid, and lies so deep in the mind of the people, as to compel them to fix upon a certain rock as the identical one referred to in the Bible. They can forget the locality, but not the event.

But, let us suppose that some may be so destitute of foresight as to assign as a reason for this tradition, not the actual occurrence of the thing specified, but the record which is made of them in the Scriptures: Well! is not the passage we are examining found there also? And has it not been there for at least two thousand years, and if true, as long as any part of the Bible? Why has it not given rise to a tradition as well as the other events which have been recorded? Why would not an individual, who should have repaired to the Jewish Scriptures one, two, or three thousand years ago, to read the record of an event there found, that should have given rise to a tradition which was destined to travel down to the present day, why should he not have fixed upon the record made, i. e. Joshua 10: 12-15, if it had been there? And without controversy it was there, as soon as any of the book, on the supposition that such an event took place. Besides, we are disposed to inquire what an argument of this kind would be worth? Let us suppose a tradition of the deluge to exist among the nations of the earth, and it is asserted, that this tradition originated in the record found in Genesis: How,

then, we would ask, can it be a proof of the deluge? A tradition, in order to be of any weight whatever in proving an event, must have originated in the actual occurrence of the event, and not in the record which had been made of it. It must have had a separate and independent existence, or it is worth nothing as proof.

Moreover, a tradition which should have for its origin a record in the Scriptures, or any where else, must, from the nature of the case, be limited to a portion only of the human family; whereas, in regard to Joshua 10: 12-15, we shall feel justified in asking, nay, demanding a universal one. it be found?

Can

We feel, therefore, justified in declaring that the death-like silence which obtains among the numerous traditions of men, respecting the stopping of the sun and moon, is stubborn proof that no such event ever occurred.

7. We find, also, from a careful examination of the passage in connection with the whole chapter, some serious difficulties arising from the position which it assigns to Joshua, considered in relation to the sun and moon; and also from the position given to several cities and other localities at the time.

Where is Joshua, when he issues the command, "Sun, stand thou still on Gibeon," etc.? Both the true record and that which we regard as false, place him at Makkedah. (See verse 16.) The battle commences at Gibeon, early in the morning and Joshua, after routing his enemy, pursues them along the way that goeth up to Beth-horon, and smote them to Azekah and unto Maddekah. But, at what time in the day is he at Makkedah?

He leaves his encampment at Gilgal in the evening, (verse 9,) and marches all night. Now, as Gibeon is distant from Gilgal at least twenty-four or twenty-five miles,' he could not have reached the former place, where the battle commences, until sunrise, or after, the next morning. Whether the enemy fled at first sight of Joshua, or whether they remained to fight, we are

See Map of Palestine, by Edward Robinson.

not so particularly informed; but the latter is more probable, since we are told (verse 10) there was a great slaughter of them at Gibeon. On any ground, therefore, it is most certain they could not have arrived at Beth-horon before the middle of the day. Here, as they were passing from the upper to the nether Beth-horon, the Lord attacks them with hail; and as they are now at least ten miles from Gibeon, where the battle commenced, they have to pass to Azekah and thence to Makkedah, which is the locality of Joshua when he is said to have uttered the command. But, since Makkedah is at least eighteen, if not twenty miles from Gibeon, where the attack commenced, it must have been as late as four o'clock P. M. when they reached the place. Let us now look at the order particularly: "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou Moon, in the valley of Ajalon." But where is Gibeon from Makkedah? Nearly due east, at least eighteen, if not twenty miles. And what is the hour of the day? At least four P. M. And where would the sun be to a person standing at Makkedah, at four o'clock in the afternoon? Over Gibeon? Nay, verily; the sun could have been over Gibeon only in the morning; and at that time, Joshua and all Israel with him were at Gibeon. Instead, therefore, of lodging upon Gibeon, at that hour of the day, the sun must have been south-southwest from Makkedah; and the moon, to have been even visible at that hour, must have been just rising in the east instead of being in the valley of Ajalon, which is southeast from Makkedah. Where is there escape from this entanglement but in the supposition, that the passage itself neither belongs here nor any where else in the Bible? Remove it altogether, and the difficulty vanishes; the record will then remain free, connected, and natural; but as it is, we freely confess, there seems to be no defence for it. Especially is this true, when it is considered in connexion with verse 15, to which we propose soon to give further attention.

On the supposition that the record here made is true, and the miraculous event which it records a matter of fact, we cannot understand why it is not once referred to in all the

subsequent Scriptures. It certainly could not have been on account of its comparative unimportance; it was a miracle, as we have already remarked, which, if true, would fall little short of that stupendous event which destroyed the old world. Why, then, is it nowhere noticed? Why is it not once alluded to by those who so often and so faithfully reminded Israel of the great and mighty works which God wrought for their deliverance and for their defence?

Undoubtedly we shall be told that it is referred to in Hab. 3: 11, "The sun and moon stood still in their habitation." This, in truth, would seem a very clear case. If so, it will undoubtedly remain clear after a faithful examination. We shall not quarrel with the translation, nor invoke the aid of an earthquake, in order to explain it away; but shall cheerfully admit that, after due investigation had, if the passage turn out to be a reference to Joshua 10: 12-15, we have no further difficulty with it, whatever becomes of the considerations already offered, each of which seems clear and conclusive. A single case of obvious reference to this event, whether by prophet, apostle, evangelist, or any one else," who spake as he was moved by the Holy Spirit," will end all debate, by placing it, so far as the writer is concerned, beyond dispute forever. To the investigation, then, let us proceed.

rest.

Habakkuk 3: 11 must certainly be explained by the same general rules which apply to the rest of the chapter. Consequently, if this passage, "The sun and moon stood still in their habitation," is a reference to an event which at any time literally occurred, we shall demand the same of all the God is therein represented as "coming from Teman, or the South, his glory covering the heavens, his brightness as the light; with horns coming out of his hands; as preceded by the pestilence; walking upon coals of fire; standing and measuring the earth; pausing, casting a look upon the nations and driving them asunder; scattering the mountains, and causing the perpetual hills to bow." bow." When did all these things occur? And where is the record of them? Again: "The tents of Cushan are in affliction, the curtains of the land of

Midian tremble." When was this, and where recorded? The prophet next inquires if the Lord were displeased with the rivers, if the Most High were exercising his wrath against the sea?" To what event are we referred here? And what is meant when God is represented as riding upon his horses and in his chariot of salvation? His bow, we are told, is made quite naked. Then the mountains are said to have seen God, and trembled. The deep utters its voice, and lifts imploring hands on high; the sun and moon stand still in their habitation; next they move forward at the light of God's arrows, and at the shining of His glittering spear. Jehovah is there represented as moving through the land, and threshing the heathen in his anger, walking through the sea with his horses, etc., etc.

Again we ask, When, where did these things occur? We shall insist on stretching one and the same line of interpretation on the passage under present examination, that we use for measuring the rest of the chapter. If we must admit that the 11th verse is a reference to an occurrence which had a literal and matter-of-fact existence, we shall contend, to the end of the chapter, that the remaining assertions are also references to true and real transactions. We demand that it be understood that the God of heaven, in a bodily visible form, at some time previous to the record here made, was seen coming from the south, with horns springing out of his hands, literally bearing a bow and arrow, walking on glowing coals, scattering the mountains, riding on horses, driving his chariot, compelling the sea to lift up its hands and voice for mercy or something else.

But how does it happen that verse 11 should be thought to have had a reference to an event which actually took place, whilst no one supposes for a moment that a single one of the remaining declarations ever referred to a transaction which at any time literally occurred? Why does no one show us when and where "the perpetual hills did bow"?. The answer is, undoubtedly, The assertion in verse 11th is nearly if not entirely literal, as a reference to what is recorded in the dis