all the Jews on the mount of cursing, and six out of ten of the other tribes on the mount of blessing. The dispute seems childish; and it is evidently based on a misapprehension of the passage. The blessings were not pronounced on the tribes; nor were the cursings pronounced on them. But both the blessings and cursings were pronounced by the tribes. Such is the reading; nor is there the least intimation that one mountain was any more honorable than the other. It is hardly necessary to state, that the Jews are descended from Judah and Benjamin; and the Samaritans claim a descent from the remaining ten tribes.

It may be added that there is cause for surprise, that the Samaritan and Jewish copies of the Bible, do not differ more than they do; for the differences are not numerous nor important. The hostility, between these two branches of the children of Israel, seems to have been a providential arrangement, to preserve the Scriptures unimpaired unto the present time.

Some have thought this passage, viii. 30-35, is not in its proper place in the history; as Joshua had not yet conquered the country, as far as Shechem where these mountains are located. It is obvious, however, from the history, that Joshua, with his immense force, could go to any part of the land he pleased. And he had extended his conquests as far as Bethel in the direction of these mountains. At the same time, we should not naturally expect him to carry out this arrangement of Moses, till he had extended his conquests as far as that locality, unless there was some special reason for doing so. Was there any such reason? We think there was. passage farther along in this history, there is reason to think that the whole law was read before the people on this occasion. That would require more time than we should expect would be appropriated to this service, unless there was some binding obligation to do so, especially as Joshua was now engaged in the conquest of the country. We think there was a binding obligation to

From a

do this. It was certainly about the time of the sabbatical year. We believe it was the sabbatical year; and Moses had enjoined that, in the sabbatical year, the law

the whole law-should be read before all the people. The two requirements-that concerning the placing of the tribes on the two mountains- - and that of reading the whole law are here observed at one and the same time. This to us seems the most consistent view of the subject.

--

To avoid the difficulty of supposing that Joshua took all the people back into the country, which he had not yet conquered, some have maintained that the two mountains referred to by Moses were not at Shechem, where they have generally been located, and are so to this day; but nearer the valley of the Jordan. The words of Moses, usually quoted to prove this, prove the opposite. They are found in Deut. xi. 30. Speaking of Ebal and Gerizim he says, "Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way where the sun goeth down, in the land of the Canaanites, which dwell in the champaign over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh ?" At the time this language of Moses was spoken, there was no Gilgal near the Jordan. That received the name from Joshua, at a later period. But there was another Gilgal in the vicinity of Shechem; and that Moreh was near Shechem, we may learn from Gen. xii. 6. It follows, therefore, that these mountains, being over against Gilgal and beside the plain of Moreh, are the mountains near Shechem, according to the general belief.

Instead of the mountain of Gerizim, we might read the "mountain of the Gerizites;" and this latter term may denote a class of people of which we read in 1 Sam. xxvii. 8, as having their residence in the country south of the Philistines. For the word Gezrites in the English version, should be Gerizites to accord with the Hebrew. It is more than probable that they once occupied the ground near Shechem, and left the name Gerizim as a memorial of the fact.

There is reason to believe that two other tribes that are associated with the Gerizites, in the country south of Philistia, once had their residence also near the same place. One of the tribes is the Amalekites, whose memorial was the "mount of the Amalekites," Jud. xii. 15; and the other the Avites, (Hebrew Avim,) whose memorial is a city Avim in the tribe of Benjamin. Jos. xviii. 23.

SECTION VII. -THE LEAGUE WITH THE GIBEONITES.

JOS. IX.

1. And it came to pass, when all | We are thy servants. And Joshua the kings which were on this side said unto them, Who are ye? and Jordan, in the hills, and in the from whence come ye? valleys, and in all the coasts of the great sea over against Lebanon, the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, heard thereof,

them, and made a league with them | of the congregation sware unto to let them live: and the princes | them.

"This side Jordan." This expression is indefinite; and the reference must be learned from the position of the speaker or writer who uses it. "Beyond Jordan" is indefinite in the same manner. To Moses, east of the river, the expression had the sense of the west side of Jordan. To Joshua, west of the river, the same expression had the meaning of east of the Jordan.

The great sea. This always means the Mediterranean in these books. It was "over against Lebanon," that is, opposite to Libanus, as it is now called. The mountain ran nearly parallel with the coast. The eastern range, or Anti-libanus, extended in the same direction.

Here again we have a list of the tribes of Canaan. It was seen to be necessary that they should all unite against their common foe, if they expected to be successful in resisting him. It was not so much the prowess of the Hebrews, as it was their great numbers, and perhaps their admirable discipline, that made it necessary for all the people of Canaan to unite against them. No fighting had occurred yet that was at all equal. With any thing like equal numbers, no doubt they believed they could make a successful resistance. It is not to be presumed that they looked upon the Hebrews, as under any divine direction, more than themselves.

In the enumeration of the tribes, the Girgazites are omitted, as they are in the Hebrew and the Vulgate. The Septuagint has them. It will be seen that the names Amorite and Canaanite are used in a general sense, as embracing all the tribes of Canaan; and in a restricted sense, as denoting separate tribes.

Wine bottles old and rent. With us there is little difference between an old bottle and a new one. And a rent bottle is of no use at all. But with the ancients it was not so. Their bottles were made of skin; and when rent, could be mended. An old bottle was not as strong and safe as a new one. Hence, men did not put new

wine into old bottles, as new wine would ferment and might break the bottles, and both the wine and the bottles be lost.

"Clouted shoes" were patched shoes; more literally, spotted from patches. Their bread was spotted, probably from mold. It is a little singular that two words are here employed, and applied to the shoes and the bread, that were used to describe the sheep of Jacob, and rendered "speckled," "spotted," etc.

"Because of the name of Jehovah thy God." Rather, "in the name of Jehovah," &c. The ambassadors claim to be acting in the name of the God of the Israelites. This was probably a sheer pretense, adopted to ensure success in their enterprise. It was a shrewd device, and was doubtless the chief reason for so readily coming to terms with them.

They had heard what Jehovah had done in Egypt. That was more than forty years before. "And all that he did to the two kings of the Amorites." That was more recent, and near to their country. Though the facilities of intercourse were not such then, as they are now, yet information of important transactions was rapidly circulated even then. It was not a hardship, for men to spend a little time in carrying news from one country to another. And often public messengers were employed for this very purpose.

The expectation of success, on the part of the Gibeonites, was based on the distinction that was observed by Joshua, between the people of Canaan and the nations at a distance. This is why they used such deceptive means to impose upon Joshua and the elders. The latter could treat with men and nations, at a distance; but they could not do this, on the same terms, with those that were near, and belonged to the "doomed" races. The Gibeonites understood this. See Deut. xx. 10-20.

They speak of their elders. They had an object in doing this. It was to attach importance to their mis.sion. If they had a regular and systematic govern