Gilgal was, as it were, in the first vestibule of Canaan. In it [Gilgal], for the Israelite people, [there] was not a domicile, but a lodging: a camp-station, not a fixed stay. Since, therefore, the Canaanite [portion] of the region itself had been for the most part occupied, and the Israelite tribes had already taken their principal fixed seats, [it] was fair [to proceed]: from that first entrance and vestibule to advance to the interior [parts] of the land, and to enter its very inner-sanctuaries — so that by that sacred domicile, and by the august presence of the Deity, the whole [land] might be imprinted [and] sanctified; [that] the region might be blessed; [that there] might be a happier access from all the tribes, on every side, to the altar and the oracle; [and] so that [the tabernacle] might not seem to be afraid in that farthest corner of the land, [nor] not to dare to enter this land, and, as it were, to be looking out for flight. But grant this [much] — [that] the tabernacle ought to have gone out from Gilgal, [why] rather [to] Shiloh than to other places (which, as is clear from ch. 15 & 16 & 17, many and various, were not lacking) was [it] taken away? [It is] best answered [that] this was done because the Lord chose this place. For so [it is] written [in] Deuteronomy ch. 12, v. 5: “To the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes, that he may put his name there and dwell in it, you shall come, and shall offer in that place holocausts and victims.” And the like again, v. 11. For although at Shiloh, as I said above, there had been assemblies, and in them a decree had been made that the tabernacle should be transferred there from Gilgal, nevertheless that happened by no means without consulting God’s oracle and receiving a response. For in a matter so great and such — about which Moses had, so much before [and] so seriously, given indication (Deut. ch. 12) — [it] could not be [done] without the Lords [the leaders] interrogating [God], especially [since they had been] taught by their own harm (above, ch. 9, v. 14). And indeed [it] was easy for the high priest — with the Urim & Thummim, which were at the ark in Gilgal still — on account of the small distance of the place, [to make] the going and return.
Yet the reasons by which that place might be chosen before others appear several. First: because it was apt, and beautiful — above, ch. 13, q. 11. Second: because [it] was also safe, and that by nature — since [it] was more elevated, and by the surrounding of very strong tribes: since from the south [there] was Judah, [on another] side, from the north, Manasseh, [and] on all sides the Ephraimite [tribe]. Third: to the tribe of Joshua the leader himself, was it not fair that this first blessing, as it were, and dignity be granted? Fourth: Shiloh was distant from Jerusalem scarcely a space of three hours. Since, therefore, the tabernacle was at last to come here, and in it — a most noble shrine being raised — [it] should thenceforth always remain, [it] was being done most opportunely, that [it] should approach nearer to the city [Jerusalem], and subsist in a neighboring place for just so long, while that city was thoroughly subdued and purged from the Canaanites. Fifth: because, truly, as [was] said [in] the same q. 11, ch. 13, “Shiloh” signifies rest and welfare [salvation], [it was] rightly [done] by Joshua — who is also, by that other name of his, the “author of welfare [salvation]” — [that], after the rest and welfare obtained from the enemies, the domicile of the Savior God was placed as a Gymnasium [training-school] of peace and welfare, in a welfare-giving and peaceful city. And thus a type of the heavenly tabernacle was shown to us, and of his seat, which the Lord wishes [to be] in our hearts. For these [things] ought to be Shiloh-like [Siluntina] — that is, quiet, peaceful, salutary — so that neither in us may there be hatreds, enmities, and the deadly plagues of souls, nor may any occasion be omitted of procuring peace and tranquility, both public and private among [our] neighbors, and likewise the true and everlasting welfare of those [same neighbors]. Sixth & last: from the individual cities or places into which the tabernacle was not brought, some reasons can be sought [for asking why not there]. For example, if someone, with Abulensis (q. 1), should ask: why not into Joshua’s city Thamnath-sare? [It] can be said, because [it] had not yet been given to Joshua himself. Why not Hebron? why not Taphua? why not [some] other [place]? But the general [reason], as I said, [is] the best and most certain reason: because, for that time, God chose Shiloh itself.
(col. 1179)