These stones can be compared both among themselves, and with the Jordan itself. And in the former manner [it] is inquired—
(col. 449)
—[it is asked] whether they were erected singly, or all [together] in, as it were, one heap or mass. “Singly,” says Abulensis (q. 11) and Masius; “conjointly and in a heap,” Cajetan. The former seems more probable. First: because the Hebrew and the Greek, as [was] said in the preceding question, say [that] the 12 stones were “erected,” or “made to stand.” But that manner of numbering indicates a separateness of the individual [stones]. Otherwise [the text] would have said either “an altar,” or “a title [pillar],” or “some mass out of the 12 stones.” Secondly: because thus [also] were the individual stones raised up (Exod. 24), and — as I shall say below — in Gilgal. Thirdly: because thus the number of the 12 tribes, [and] the memory of this benefit toward them all, appeared better. But in the latter manner [it] is inquired whether these stones were only sunk in the deep of the channel, or whether they projected even above the waters themselves. In the deep only, the Rabbis mostly place them; but Lyranus prefers [that they] projected — not always, however, but when the water was low; and, in the same place, Abulensis (& q. 13). With these Rupert (ch. 14) seems to agree; with those [the Rabbis], St. Augustine (sermon 106, On the Seasons), saying these stones [were] “buried”; and [this] is confirmed: 1. because [they] would have had to be very vast and great, to stand out from so deep a river. 2. because either they had already projected from the Jordan of old, or not: if they had projected, nothing new would [now] seem [done], or at least the miracle would not be so illustrious, since only some ordering of them would have been added; if they had not projected, then either they would have had to be dug up from the deep, so as now to stand set on the surface of the channel itself, or other stones would have had to be laid under them, upon which they might at last appear above. That [they were] dug up I should scarcely believe; but rather [that] stones lying at hand, and appearing in the dried channel, were taken. For how much time would have been needed, that [stones] of suitable size might be sought, and, [once] found, dug out? And perhaps [it] would have been necessary to dig out several, that fit ones might be had from them. Nor should I easily think [that] others were laid under them, because, against the masses of water, [it] would have been necessary to fasten and make firm those stones among themselves, either with cement or with iron [clamps]. Finally, if they had projected, how [is there] no mention of any of them in any sacred or profane history? But Abulensis and Masius object: [that] these stones were erected as a monument of this crossing. For whom does a monument admonish, which never appears? How is [it] a sign, which never comes into sight? The Rabbis answer [that they] were a sign and monument, because, although [they] did not strike the eyes, yet [they] struck the ears, since the report was most widely known [that] they were fixed there, [as] perpetual witnesses of this crossing. Masius presses [back]: if fame alone indicated them, what need was [there] of them? For the same fame, without them, could have made the crossing itself famous. It could indeed; but [a fixed sign] has great force toward memory and everlasting testimony, if some fixed and certain sign stands surely somewhere, even though this itself is not seen. But if the matter and necessity required, [it] could be inquired after, and seen. For example: [as] if the charters or diplomas of some privilege, donation, or contract be [kept] in some most secret archive, even most deeply hidden. [To this] is added, that if the Jordan were either smaller or clearer, [they] could be seen; and, in the lowest bottom of the Red Sea, certain signs of this kind are handed down by Osório (bk. 1 ch. 10): “There are extant,” he says, “even now, most certain monuments of these deeds”—
(col. 450)
—the tracks of the chariots and the ruts of the wheels are seen through, not only on the shore, but also in the deep, as far as the sight reaches. And even if [they] are for a time disturbed, whether by chance or by curiosity, [they] are continually restored, by divine [power], to their former shape by the winds and waves — so that whoever is not taught the fear of God by zeal for the religion [thus] published, may be terrified by the example of his accomplished vengeance. Yet another manner, by which — although they were overwhelmed and covered by the waters — they could be seen, Rupert indicates (ch. 14): not in themselves, namely, but in [their] effect — that is, in the din, and the perpetual dashing and roaring of the waters. For thus [says] he: “Nor indeed [were] these [stones] which [were placed] in the middle of the Jordan’s channel less hard than these which are placed upon the dry [land] — inasmuch as [they were] nourished under the waters, and worn by their long use, they could preserve or indicate the memory of so great a deed. For although at times, the waters rising, [being] covered, they could lie hidden, yet always the eddies, provoked by striking them (which is natural to flowing waters), by running there more strongly and boldly, never let their own stumbling-block be concealed.”