Footnotes1.“The Oxford Spy,”1818; by J. S. Boone, p. 107.2.Vide“Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects,”art. 4.3.On the Formation of Images,vide supr.ch. iii. 1, pp. 27, 28.4.Liberty of Prophesying, § 2.5.This passage is already quoted in my“Essay on Development of Doctrine,”vi. 1, § 2.6.Gambier on Moral Evidence, p. 6.7.“Supernaturalis mentis assensus, rebus fidei exhibitus, cùm præcipuè dependeat à gratiâ Dei intrinsecus mentem illuminante et commovente, potest esse, et est, major quocunque assensu certitudini naturali præstito, seu ex motivis naturalibus orto,”&c.—Dmouski, Instit. t. i. p. 28.8.“Hoc [viz. multo certior est homo de eo quod audit à Deo qui falli non potest, quàm de eo quod videt propriâ ratione quâ falli potest] intelligendum est de certitudine fidei secundum appretiationem, non secundum intentionem; nam sæpe contingit, ut scientia clariùs percipiatur ab intellectu, atque ut connexio scientiæ cum veritate magis appareat, quàm connexio fidei cum eâdem; cognitiones enim naturales, utpote captui nostro accommodatæ, magis animum quietant, delectant, et veluti. satiant.”—Scavini, Theol. Moral. t. ii. p. 428.9.“Suppono enim, veritatem fidei non esse certiorem veritate metaphysicâ aut geometricâ quoad modum assensionis, sed tantum quoad modum adhæsionis; quia utrinque intellectus absolutè sine modo limitante assentitur. Sola autem adhæsio voluntatis diversa est; quia in actu fidei gratia seu habitus infusus roborat intellectum et voluntatem, ne tam facilè mutentur aut perturbentur.”—Amort, Theol. t. i. p. 312.“Hæc distinctio certitudinis [ex diversitate motivorum] extrinsecam tantum differentiam importat, cùm omnis naturalis certitudo, formaliter spectata, sit æqualis; debet enim essentialiter erroris periculum amovere, exclusio autem periculi erroris in indivisibili consistit; aut enim babetur aut non habetur.”—Dmouski, ibid. p. 27.10.“Fides est certior omni veritate naturali, etiam geometricè aut metaphysicè certâ; idque non solum certitudine adhæsionis sed etiam assentionis.... Intellectus sentit se in multis veritatibus etiam metaphysicè certis posse per objectiones perturbari, e. g. si legat scepticos.... E contrà circa ea, quæ constat esse revelata à Deo, nullus potest perturbari.”—Amort, ibid. p. 367.11.ii. n. 154.VideNote at the end of the volume.12.I have assumed throughout this Section that all verbal argumentation is ultimately syllogistic; and in consequence that it ever requires universal propositions and comes short of concrete fact. A friend refers me to the dispute between Des Cartes and Gassendi, the latter maintaining against the former that“Cogito ergo sum”implies the universal“All who think exist.”I should deny this with Des Cartes; but I should say (as indeed he said), that his dictum was not an argument, but was the expression of a ratiocinative instinct, as I explain below under the head of“Natural Logic.”As to the instance“Brutes are not men; therefore men are not brutes,”there seems to me no consequence here, neither apræternor apropter, but a tautology. And as to“It was either Tom or Dick that did it; it was not Dick, ergo,”this may be referred to the one great principle on which all logical reasoning is founded, but really it ought not to be accounted an inference any more than if I broke a biscuit, flung half away, and then said of the other half,“This is what remains.”It does but state a fact. So, when the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd proposition of Euclid II. is put before the eyes in a diagram, a boy, before he yet has learned to reason, sees with his eyes the fact of the thesis, and thisseeingit even makes it difficult for him to master the mathematical proof. Here, then, afactis stated in the form of anargument.However, I have inserted parentheses at pp. 277 and 283, in order to say“transeat”to the question.13.“Aids to Reflection,”p. 59, ed. 1839.14.Taylor’s Translation, p. 131.15.Ibid. pp. 108-110.16.Ibid. pp. 429-436.17.“North and South.”18.Serm. xi. init.19.Vide supr.ch. v. § 1, pp. 109, 113.20.Pp. 84, 85.21.“Analogy,”pp. 329, 330, ed. 1836.22.Ibid. p. 278.23.“Mechanics,”p. 31.24.Phillipps’“Law of Evidence,”vol. i. p. 456.25.“Orley Farm.”26.Guardian, June 28, 1865.27.History, vol. x. pp. 286, 287.28.“Peveril of the Peak.”29.“Life of Mother Margaret M. Hallahan,”p. vii.30.Eth. Nicom. vi. 11, fin.31.Though Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, speaks of φρόνησις as the virtue of the δοξαστικὸν generally, and as being concerned generally with contingent matter (vi. 4), or what I have called the concrete, and of its function being, as regards that matter, ἀληθεύειν τῷ καταφάναι ἢ ἀποφάναι (ibid.3), he does not treat of it in that work in its general relation to truth and the affirmation of truth, but only as it bears upon τὰ πρακτά.32.Niebuhr,“Roman History,”vol. i. p. 177; vol. iii. pp. 262. 318. 322.“Lectures,”vol. iii. App. p. xxii. Lewis,“Roman History,”vol. i. pp. 11-17; vol. ii. pp. 489-492. F. W. Newman,“Regal Rome,”p. v. Grote,“Greece,”vol. ii. pp. 67, 68. 218. 630-639. Mure,“Greece,”vol. iii. p. 503; vol. iv. p. 318. Clinton, ap. Grote, suprà.33.“Prophetical Office of the Church,”pp. 347, 348, ed. 1837.34.Supra, p. 105, &c.Videalso Univ. Serm. ii. 7-13.35.Penny Cyclopædia, art.“Atonement”(abridged).36.On these various subjects I have written in“University Sermons”(Oxford), No. vi.“Idea of the University,”Disc. viii.“History of Turks,”ch. iv.“Development of Doctrine,”ch. i. sect. 3.37.Vide“Apologia,”p. 241.38.Vide“Callista,”ch. xix.39.“Analogy,”Pt. ii. ch. 5 (abridged).40.“Scopus operis est, planiorem Protestantibus aperire viam ad veram Ecclesiam. Cùm enim hactenus Polemici nostri insudarint toti in demonstrandis singulis Religionis Catholicæ articulis, in id ego unum incumbo, ut hæc tria evincam. Primo: Articulos fundamentales Religionis Catholicæ esse evidenter credibiliores oppositis, &c. &c.... Demonstratio autem hujus novæ, modestæ, ac facilis viæ, quâ ex articulis fundamentalibus solùm probabilioribus adstruitur summa Religionis certitudo, hæc est: Deus, cùm sit sapiens ac providus, tenetur, Religionem à se revelatam reddere evidenter credibiliorem religionibus falsis. Imprudenter enim vellet, suam Religionem ab hominibus recipi, nisi eam redderet evidenter credibiliorem religionibus cæteris. Ergo illa religio, quæ est evidenter credibilior cæteris, est ipsissima religio a Deo revelata, adeoque certissimè vera, seu demonstrata. Atqui, &c.... Motivum aggrediendi novam hanc, modestam, ac facilem viam illud præcipuum est, quòd observem, Protestantium plurimos post innumeros concertationum fluctus, in iis tandem consedisse syrtibus, ut credant, nullam dari religionem undequaque demonstratam, &c.... Ratiociniis denique opponunt ratiocinia; præjudiciis præjudicia ex majoribus sua,”&c.41.“Docet naturalis ratio, Deum, ex ipsâ naturâ bonitatis ac providentiæ suæ, si velit in mundo habere religionem puram, eamque instituere ac conservare usque in finem mundi, teneri ad eam religionem reddendam evidenter credibiliorem ac verisimiliorem cæteris, &c. &c.... Ex hoc sequitur ulterius; certitudinem moralem de verâ Ecclesiâ elevari posse ad certitudinem metaphysicam, si homo advertat, certitudinem moralem absolutè fallibilem substare in materiâ religionis circa ejus constitutiva fundamentalia speciali providentiæ divinæ, præservatrici ab omni errore.... Itaque homo semel ex serie historicâ actorum perductus ad moralem certitudinem de auctore, fundatione, propagatione, et continuatione Ecclesiæ Christianæ, per reflexionem ad existentiam certissimam providentiæ divinæ in materiâ religionis, à priori lumine naturæ certitudine metaphysicâ notam, eo ipso eadem infallibili certitudine intelliget, argumenta de auctore,”&c.—Amort. Ethica Christiana, p. 252.42.“De hac damnatorum saltem hominum respiratione, nihil adhuc certi decretum est ab Ecclesiâ Catholicâ: ut propterea non temerè, tanquam absurda, sit explodenda sanctissimorum Patrum hæc opinio: quamvis à communi sensu Catholicorum hoc tempore sit aliena.”—Petavius de Angelis, fin.43.Vide supra, p. 302.44.Videthe author’s Occasional Sermons, No. 5.45.Vide supra, p. 84.46.History, vol. viii.47.Before and apart from Christianity, the Samaritan Version reads,“donec veniat Pacificus, et ad ipsum congregabuntur populi.”The Targum,“donec veniat Messias, cujus est regnum, et obedient populi.”The Septuagint,“donec veniant quæ reservata sunt illi”(or“donec veniat cui reservatum est”),“et ipse expectatio gentium.”And so again the Vulgate,“donec veniat qui mittendus est, et ipse erit expectatio gentium.”The ingenious translation of some learned men (“donec venerit Juda Siluntem,”i. e.“the tribe-sceptre shall not depart from Judah till Judah comes to Shiloh”), with the explanation that the tribe of Judah had the leadership in the war against the Canaanites,videJudges i. 1, 2; xx. 18 (i. e. after Joshua’sdeath), and that possibly, and for what we know, the tribe gave up that war-command at Shiloh,videJoshua xviii. 1 (i. e. in Joshua’slife-time), labours under three grave difficulties: 1. That the patriarchal sceptre is a temporary war-command. 2. That this command belonged to Judah at the very time that it belonged to Joshua. And 3. That it was finally lost to Judah (Joshua living) before it had been committed to Judah (Joshua dead).48.He appeals to the prophecies in evidence of His Divine mission, in addressing the Nazarites (Luke iv. 18), St. John’s disciples (Matt. xi. 5), and the Pharisees (Matt. xxi. 42, and John v. 39), but not in details. The appeal to details He reserves for His disciples.VideMatt. xi. 10; xxvi. 24, 31, 54: Luke xxii. 37; xxiv. 27, 46.49.Vide supra, pp. 341, 375, 413-416.50.Vide supra.51.Had my limits allowed it, I ought, as a third subject, to have described the existing system of impure idolatry, and the wonderful phenomenon of such multitudes, who had been slaves to it, escaping from it by the power of Christianity,—under the guidance of the great work (“On the Gentile and the Jew”) of Dr. Döllinger.52.On the subjects which follow,videLami,De Eruditione Apostolorum; Mamachius,Origines Christ.; Ruinart,Act. Mart.; Lardner,Credibility, &c.; Fleury,Eccles. Hist.; Kortholt,Calumn. Pagan.; andDe Morib. Christ., &c.53.Ep. ad Diognet.54.Essay on Development of Doctrine, ch. iv. § 1.55.Fr. Lacordaire and M. Nicolas.56.Occas. Serm., pp. 49-51.
Footnotes1.“The Oxford Spy,”1818; by J. S. Boone, p. 107.2.Vide“Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects,”art. 4.3.On the Formation of Images,vide supr.ch. iii. 1, pp. 27, 28.4.Liberty of Prophesying, § 2.5.This passage is already quoted in my“Essay on Development of Doctrine,”vi. 1, § 2.6.Gambier on Moral Evidence, p. 6.7.“Supernaturalis mentis assensus, rebus fidei exhibitus, cùm præcipuè dependeat à gratiâ Dei intrinsecus mentem illuminante et commovente, potest esse, et est, major quocunque assensu certitudini naturali præstito, seu ex motivis naturalibus orto,”&c.—Dmouski, Instit. t. i. p. 28.8.“Hoc [viz. multo certior est homo de eo quod audit à Deo qui falli non potest, quàm de eo quod videt propriâ ratione quâ falli potest] intelligendum est de certitudine fidei secundum appretiationem, non secundum intentionem; nam sæpe contingit, ut scientia clariùs percipiatur ab intellectu, atque ut connexio scientiæ cum veritate magis appareat, quàm connexio fidei cum eâdem; cognitiones enim naturales, utpote captui nostro accommodatæ, magis animum quietant, delectant, et veluti. satiant.”—Scavini, Theol. Moral. t. ii. p. 428.9.“Suppono enim, veritatem fidei non esse certiorem veritate metaphysicâ aut geometricâ quoad modum assensionis, sed tantum quoad modum adhæsionis; quia utrinque intellectus absolutè sine modo limitante assentitur. Sola autem adhæsio voluntatis diversa est; quia in actu fidei gratia seu habitus infusus roborat intellectum et voluntatem, ne tam facilè mutentur aut perturbentur.”—Amort, Theol. t. i. p. 312.“Hæc distinctio certitudinis [ex diversitate motivorum] extrinsecam tantum differentiam importat, cùm omnis naturalis certitudo, formaliter spectata, sit æqualis; debet enim essentialiter erroris periculum amovere, exclusio autem periculi erroris in indivisibili consistit; aut enim babetur aut non habetur.”—Dmouski, ibid. p. 27.10.“Fides est certior omni veritate naturali, etiam geometricè aut metaphysicè certâ; idque non solum certitudine adhæsionis sed etiam assentionis.... Intellectus sentit se in multis veritatibus etiam metaphysicè certis posse per objectiones perturbari, e. g. si legat scepticos.... E contrà circa ea, quæ constat esse revelata à Deo, nullus potest perturbari.”—Amort, ibid. p. 367.11.ii. n. 154.VideNote at the end of the volume.12.I have assumed throughout this Section that all verbal argumentation is ultimately syllogistic; and in consequence that it ever requires universal propositions and comes short of concrete fact. A friend refers me to the dispute between Des Cartes and Gassendi, the latter maintaining against the former that“Cogito ergo sum”implies the universal“All who think exist.”I should deny this with Des Cartes; but I should say (as indeed he said), that his dictum was not an argument, but was the expression of a ratiocinative instinct, as I explain below under the head of“Natural Logic.”As to the instance“Brutes are not men; therefore men are not brutes,”there seems to me no consequence here, neither apræternor apropter, but a tautology. And as to“It was either Tom or Dick that did it; it was not Dick, ergo,”this may be referred to the one great principle on which all logical reasoning is founded, but really it ought not to be accounted an inference any more than if I broke a biscuit, flung half away, and then said of the other half,“This is what remains.”It does but state a fact. So, when the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd proposition of Euclid II. is put before the eyes in a diagram, a boy, before he yet has learned to reason, sees with his eyes the fact of the thesis, and thisseeingit even makes it difficult for him to master the mathematical proof. Here, then, afactis stated in the form of anargument.However, I have inserted parentheses at pp. 277 and 283, in order to say“transeat”to the question.13.“Aids to Reflection,”p. 59, ed. 1839.14.Taylor’s Translation, p. 131.15.Ibid. pp. 108-110.16.Ibid. pp. 429-436.17.“North and South.”18.Serm. xi. init.19.Vide supr.ch. v. § 1, pp. 109, 113.20.Pp. 84, 85.21.“Analogy,”pp. 329, 330, ed. 1836.22.Ibid. p. 278.23.“Mechanics,”p. 31.24.Phillipps’“Law of Evidence,”vol. i. p. 456.25.“Orley Farm.”26.Guardian, June 28, 1865.27.History, vol. x. pp. 286, 287.28.“Peveril of the Peak.”29.“Life of Mother Margaret M. Hallahan,”p. vii.30.Eth. Nicom. vi. 11, fin.31.Though Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, speaks of φρόνησις as the virtue of the δοξαστικὸν generally, and as being concerned generally with contingent matter (vi. 4), or what I have called the concrete, and of its function being, as regards that matter, ἀληθεύειν τῷ καταφάναι ἢ ἀποφάναι (ibid.3), he does not treat of it in that work in its general relation to truth and the affirmation of truth, but only as it bears upon τὰ πρακτά.32.Niebuhr,“Roman History,”vol. i. p. 177; vol. iii. pp. 262. 318. 322.“Lectures,”vol. iii. App. p. xxii. Lewis,“Roman History,”vol. i. pp. 11-17; vol. ii. pp. 489-492. F. W. Newman,“Regal Rome,”p. v. Grote,“Greece,”vol. ii. pp. 67, 68. 218. 630-639. Mure,“Greece,”vol. iii. p. 503; vol. iv. p. 318. Clinton, ap. Grote, suprà.33.“Prophetical Office of the Church,”pp. 347, 348, ed. 1837.34.Supra, p. 105, &c.Videalso Univ. Serm. ii. 7-13.35.Penny Cyclopædia, art.“Atonement”(abridged).36.On these various subjects I have written in“University Sermons”(Oxford), No. vi.“Idea of the University,”Disc. viii.“History of Turks,”ch. iv.“Development of Doctrine,”ch. i. sect. 3.37.Vide“Apologia,”p. 241.38.Vide“Callista,”ch. xix.39.“Analogy,”Pt. ii. ch. 5 (abridged).40.“Scopus operis est, planiorem Protestantibus aperire viam ad veram Ecclesiam. Cùm enim hactenus Polemici nostri insudarint toti in demonstrandis singulis Religionis Catholicæ articulis, in id ego unum incumbo, ut hæc tria evincam. Primo: Articulos fundamentales Religionis Catholicæ esse evidenter credibiliores oppositis, &c. &c.... Demonstratio autem hujus novæ, modestæ, ac facilis viæ, quâ ex articulis fundamentalibus solùm probabilioribus adstruitur summa Religionis certitudo, hæc est: Deus, cùm sit sapiens ac providus, tenetur, Religionem à se revelatam reddere evidenter credibiliorem religionibus falsis. Imprudenter enim vellet, suam Religionem ab hominibus recipi, nisi eam redderet evidenter credibiliorem religionibus cæteris. Ergo illa religio, quæ est evidenter credibilior cæteris, est ipsissima religio a Deo revelata, adeoque certissimè vera, seu demonstrata. Atqui, &c.... Motivum aggrediendi novam hanc, modestam, ac facilem viam illud præcipuum est, quòd observem, Protestantium plurimos post innumeros concertationum fluctus, in iis tandem consedisse syrtibus, ut credant, nullam dari religionem undequaque demonstratam, &c.... Ratiociniis denique opponunt ratiocinia; præjudiciis præjudicia ex majoribus sua,”&c.41.“Docet naturalis ratio, Deum, ex ipsâ naturâ bonitatis ac providentiæ suæ, si velit in mundo habere religionem puram, eamque instituere ac conservare usque in finem mundi, teneri ad eam religionem reddendam evidenter credibiliorem ac verisimiliorem cæteris, &c. &c.... Ex hoc sequitur ulterius; certitudinem moralem de verâ Ecclesiâ elevari posse ad certitudinem metaphysicam, si homo advertat, certitudinem moralem absolutè fallibilem substare in materiâ religionis circa ejus constitutiva fundamentalia speciali providentiæ divinæ, præservatrici ab omni errore.... Itaque homo semel ex serie historicâ actorum perductus ad moralem certitudinem de auctore, fundatione, propagatione, et continuatione Ecclesiæ Christianæ, per reflexionem ad existentiam certissimam providentiæ divinæ in materiâ religionis, à priori lumine naturæ certitudine metaphysicâ notam, eo ipso eadem infallibili certitudine intelliget, argumenta de auctore,”&c.—Amort. Ethica Christiana, p. 252.42.“De hac damnatorum saltem hominum respiratione, nihil adhuc certi decretum est ab Ecclesiâ Catholicâ: ut propterea non temerè, tanquam absurda, sit explodenda sanctissimorum Patrum hæc opinio: quamvis à communi sensu Catholicorum hoc tempore sit aliena.”—Petavius de Angelis, fin.43.Vide supra, p. 302.44.Videthe author’s Occasional Sermons, No. 5.45.Vide supra, p. 84.46.History, vol. viii.47.Before and apart from Christianity, the Samaritan Version reads,“donec veniat Pacificus, et ad ipsum congregabuntur populi.”The Targum,“donec veniat Messias, cujus est regnum, et obedient populi.”The Septuagint,“donec veniant quæ reservata sunt illi”(or“donec veniat cui reservatum est”),“et ipse expectatio gentium.”And so again the Vulgate,“donec veniat qui mittendus est, et ipse erit expectatio gentium.”The ingenious translation of some learned men (“donec venerit Juda Siluntem,”i. e.“the tribe-sceptre shall not depart from Judah till Judah comes to Shiloh”), with the explanation that the tribe of Judah had the leadership in the war against the Canaanites,videJudges i. 1, 2; xx. 18 (i. e. after Joshua’sdeath), and that possibly, and for what we know, the tribe gave up that war-command at Shiloh,videJoshua xviii. 1 (i. e. in Joshua’slife-time), labours under three grave difficulties: 1. That the patriarchal sceptre is a temporary war-command. 2. That this command belonged to Judah at the very time that it belonged to Joshua. And 3. That it was finally lost to Judah (Joshua living) before it had been committed to Judah (Joshua dead).48.He appeals to the prophecies in evidence of His Divine mission, in addressing the Nazarites (Luke iv. 18), St. John’s disciples (Matt. xi. 5), and the Pharisees (Matt. xxi. 42, and John v. 39), but not in details. The appeal to details He reserves for His disciples.VideMatt. xi. 10; xxvi. 24, 31, 54: Luke xxii. 37; xxiv. 27, 46.49.Vide supra, pp. 341, 375, 413-416.50.Vide supra.51.Had my limits allowed it, I ought, as a third subject, to have described the existing system of impure idolatry, and the wonderful phenomenon of such multitudes, who had been slaves to it, escaping from it by the power of Christianity,—under the guidance of the great work (“On the Gentile and the Jew”) of Dr. Döllinger.52.On the subjects which follow,videLami,De Eruditione Apostolorum; Mamachius,Origines Christ.; Ruinart,Act. Mart.; Lardner,Credibility, &c.; Fleury,Eccles. Hist.; Kortholt,Calumn. Pagan.; andDe Morib. Christ., &c.53.Ep. ad Diognet.54.Essay on Development of Doctrine, ch. iv. § 1.55.Fr. Lacordaire and M. Nicolas.56.Occas. Serm., pp. 49-51.
“Suppono enim, veritatem fidei non esse certiorem veritate metaphysicâ aut geometricâ quoad modum assensionis, sed tantum quoad modum adhæsionis; quia utrinque intellectus absolutè sine modo limitante assentitur. Sola autem adhæsio voluntatis diversa est; quia in actu fidei gratia seu habitus infusus roborat intellectum et voluntatem, ne tam facilè mutentur aut perturbentur.”—Amort, Theol. t. i. p. 312.
“Hæc distinctio certitudinis [ex diversitate motivorum] extrinsecam tantum differentiam importat, cùm omnis naturalis certitudo, formaliter spectata, sit æqualis; debet enim essentialiter erroris periculum amovere, exclusio autem periculi erroris in indivisibili consistit; aut enim babetur aut non habetur.”—Dmouski, ibid. p. 27.
I have assumed throughout this Section that all verbal argumentation is ultimately syllogistic; and in consequence that it ever requires universal propositions and comes short of concrete fact. A friend refers me to the dispute between Des Cartes and Gassendi, the latter maintaining against the former that“Cogito ergo sum”implies the universal“All who think exist.”I should deny this with Des Cartes; but I should say (as indeed he said), that his dictum was not an argument, but was the expression of a ratiocinative instinct, as I explain below under the head of“Natural Logic.”
As to the instance“Brutes are not men; therefore men are not brutes,”there seems to me no consequence here, neither apræternor apropter, but a tautology. And as to“It was either Tom or Dick that did it; it was not Dick, ergo,”this may be referred to the one great principle on which all logical reasoning is founded, but really it ought not to be accounted an inference any more than if I broke a biscuit, flung half away, and then said of the other half,“This is what remains.”It does but state a fact. So, when the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd proposition of Euclid II. is put before the eyes in a diagram, a boy, before he yet has learned to reason, sees with his eyes the fact of the thesis, and thisseeingit even makes it difficult for him to master the mathematical proof. Here, then, afactis stated in the form of anargument.
However, I have inserted parentheses at pp. 277 and 283, in order to say“transeat”to the question.
Before and apart from Christianity, the Samaritan Version reads,“donec veniat Pacificus, et ad ipsum congregabuntur populi.”The Targum,“donec veniat Messias, cujus est regnum, et obedient populi.”The Septuagint,“donec veniant quæ reservata sunt illi”(or“donec veniat cui reservatum est”),“et ipse expectatio gentium.”And so again the Vulgate,“donec veniat qui mittendus est, et ipse erit expectatio gentium.”
The ingenious translation of some learned men (“donec venerit Juda Siluntem,”i. e.“the tribe-sceptre shall not depart from Judah till Judah comes to Shiloh”), with the explanation that the tribe of Judah had the leadership in the war against the Canaanites,videJudges i. 1, 2; xx. 18 (i. e. after Joshua’sdeath), and that possibly, and for what we know, the tribe gave up that war-command at Shiloh,videJoshua xviii. 1 (i. e. in Joshua’slife-time), labours under three grave difficulties: 1. That the patriarchal sceptre is a temporary war-command. 2. That this command belonged to Judah at the very time that it belonged to Joshua. And 3. That it was finally lost to Judah (Joshua living) before it had been committed to Judah (Joshua dead).