Let us now consider how we may interpret the command of Joshua that the sun should stand still.

According to the Ptolemaic system, the sun moves from east to west through the ecliptic, and therefore the standing still of the sun would shorten and not lengthen the day.  Indeed, in order to lengthen the day on this system it would be necessary not to hold the sun, but to accelerate its pace about three hundred and sixty times.  Possibly Joshua used the words to suit the comprehension of the ignorant people; possibly—­as St. Augustine says—­he commanded the whole system of the celestial spheres to stand still, and his command to the moon rather confirms this conjecture.

On the Copernican system interpretation is simplified; for if we consider the mobility of the sun and how it is in a certain sense the soul and heart of the universe, it is not illogical to say that it gives not only light, but also motion to the bodies round it.  In this manner, by the standing still of the sun at Joshua’s command, the day might be lengthened without disturbing the order of the universe or the mutual positions of the stars.  This interpretation also explains the statement that the sun stood still in medio coeli.  Had the sun been in the middle of the heavens in the sense of rising and setting, it had hardly been necessary to check its course; but in medio coeli probably signifies in the middle or centre of the universe where it resides.

I have no doubt that other passages of the Scriptures could be likewise interpreted in accordance with the Copernican system by divines with knowledge of astronomy.  They might say that the word “firmament” very well agrees, ad literam, with the starry sphere. Ad literam, if they admit the rotation of the earth, they might understand its poles, when it is said Nec dum terram fecerat, et flumina, et cardines orbis terrae. [Nor yet had He created the earth, or the rivers, or the hinges for the globe of the earth.] Surely cardines, or “hinges,” are ascribed to the earth in vain if it be not to turn upon them.

* * * * *

GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL

THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

Hegel’s “Philosophy of Religion” was published the year following the philosopher’s death, at Berlin, in 1832; and the rugged shape and uneven construction of some of it may fairly be attributed to the fact that, as it stands, it is largely an editorial compilation.  Such faults, however, as Dr. Edward Caird has remarked, “if they take from the lectures as expressions of their author’s mind, and from their value as scientific treatises, have some compensating advantages if we regard them as a means of education in philosophy; for in this point of view their very artlessness gives them something of the same stimulating, suggestive power which is attained by the consummate art