Question XVI. Where was the domicile of the Gabaonites thereafter?

Since their servitude was bound to that place which the Lord had chosen for his sacred [rites] — as the last verse of this chapter has [it] — someone might not undeservedly reckon [that] they always had their domicile in a place of this kind. But that place was now in the camp at Galgala [Gilgal], afterward in Shiloh (below, ch. 18), then in Nob (1 Kings [1 Samuel] 22); afterward in Gabaon (1 Chron. 21:29 [cf. 2 Chron. 1:2]), thence in Bethsames [and] Cariathiarim (1 Kings [1 Samuel] 6); and at length constantly in Jerusalem — both a little before the temple was built, in David’s time, and afterward, when it was built by Solomon. And where else would they have dwelt? For they had to cede their land, estates, and goods; and in fact we see [that] the city of Gabaon was assigned to the priests (below, ch. 21). Three other cities [were] so distributed, that with Gabaon two were in the tribe of Benjamin — Cephira and Beroth — [and] the third in the tribe of Judah, namely Cariathiarim (below, ch. 18, and 2 Kings [Samuel] ch. 4). And so [that] the men, after the return from the Babylonian captivity, dwelt at Jerusalem, Bertram says (in the book On the Jewish Polity). But how could so great a multitude of men — as great as was in the great city of Gabaon, and those other cities — be packed into one city or village, and that often not large? For besides the city of Jerusalem, how small [were] the other seats of the tabernacle? How, into Jerusalem itself — with so many citizens, Priests, Levites, Princes, and the royal court — could the services of the tabernacle alone be housed? Abulensis therefore reckons (qq. 44, 45, 46) [that] the Gabaonites [were] left in their ancient cities, and [that] they set out by turns to the function of their service [to the place] where the Lord’s altar was. I should rather reckon [that], at the division of the land (for from the following chapter and war it is clear [that] they themselves remained in their [own] cities before the division), they were divided among various places, together with the Priests and Levites, or even among the places nearest to the place of the tabernacle; and so came to their wood-gathering and water-gathering. For if they had remained in their [own] cities, either they would have retained their old goods, houses, fields, vineyards, and other conveniences — or all would have ceded to new lords. If the former, a good portion of the land of Canaan would have been withdrawn from the Israelites; if the latter, peace and concord could scarcely have long remained in those cities. For how could the Gabaonites — most cunning in wit, most numerous in number, most strong in might, as has been seen hitherto — endure sojourners now lording it in their [own] houses, [and endure] to serve? “Fear is not a lasting master of duty.” Granted, at these beginnings of the wars — while the camp of the Israelites is [there] together, while [the Israelites], armed, occupy the region — let those [Gabaonites] remain in [their] duty: [but] what afterward, when the Israelites are dispersed? when, having attained peace and leisure, they lay down [their] arms? when, with relaxed and loosened minds, they possess the land? would [the Gabaonites] not have risen up against the dwellers in their [own] cities and houses? would not the sight of their former walls, tables, and bedchambers, [and] the pleasantness of [their] gardens and estates, [and] the sense of a most delightful liberty, have stirred them to some sedition? For if the mere recollection of former comforts stirred up such great tragedies in so many [cases], what would the daily and constant sight do? There are added the other arguments placed above, and Abulensis’s own palinode [retraction] (on 2 Kings [2 Samuel], ch. 21, q. 16). But that a tower of Jerusalem was assigned [to them], that they might lodge in it, someone thinks, as will be said below (q. 20).