Abulensis (on Num. 13, q. 55) says it cannot be denied that Caleb bore himself more excellently; and he proves this very [thing] by three arguments. The first is from this, that God praised Caleb above Joshua — and that in four ways. For (Num. 14, v. 24): 1. God says he “stilled the murmur,” and in that matter joins no associate to him. 2. him alone, for the same cause, He calls “my servant” — [a title] of how great praise, is plain from this, that, about to praise Moses supremely, He adorned him with this very eulogy of “servant” (Num. 12, as is said more fully below, ch. 1, q. 2). 3. He said he “has my spirit.” But such a one is called “a son of God” (Rom. 8). What more excellent than this? 4. He said he had His spirit not only, but had it “unto fullness.” What rarer and more unwonted [than this]? The second argument is drawn from the divine promises. For not content with that praise of words (which is nonetheless the greatest), the Lord added a most ample matter besides: that both he himself and his posterity should obtain a most choice portion, in perpetuity, of the land he had surveyed and had so bravely and strenuously defended against its slanderers and deserters; and this Moses confirmed by a most solemn oath (Josh. 14, v. 9). The third is: since Joshua escaped the death inflicted on the other explorers, what cause could there be why he is never praised in the quelling of this sedition, unless we understand that Caleb far surpassed him? But these [arguments] show that Caleb was a certain great man, a most fervent zealot and most steadfast defender of Moses and of the divine promises; that he is nevertheless to be preferred to Joshua himself in this matter, they do not persuade me. For nearly all the same things fit Joshua likewise (as I shall say a little later); and if any are lacking, how tiny they all are, if they be compared to that which was divinely given to Joshua himself! He, indeed — he alone — received the supreme principate in that people, obtained Moses’s place, and not only entered the promised land with the people, but led them into it, with command and with divine prodigies and portents; wrested it from the enemies’ hands, distributed it to the Israelites, and settled and confirmed them all in it as in a divine inheritance. If (as Abulensis wants) he had faltered through some fear, and either assented to, or joined himself with, those who spurned that land and wished to return to Egypt — nay, if he had not, with a spirit greater than all, and with prudence and constancy, withstood them — would he, chosen and created by the divine reckoning as the Prince and Commander of all, [have been the one] both to enter it and to abide in it, to make war, to fix dwellings, and to raise up the commonwealth? I know that holy Peter once lapsed through a certain trembling — and yet [was] appointed by God the supreme head and governor on earth of the whole Church. But read that same holy Peter’s—
(col. 172)
—tears, and bitter ones; whereas of Joshua [there is] not one little tear, nor the least token of repentance. No doubt, he had not only sinned in nothing, but had borne himself excellently and most nobly, through the whole time of this storm — from the first blast and commotion right up to the tranquillity restored. It seems necessary only this: that I show that nothing is snatched from him, or lessened, of this glory and praise, by those three reasons which Abulensis brought forth. To the first I say that Joshua too was adorned, by God’s mouth, with all those same praises. For 1. it was already said above (q. 4) that Joshua is either joined as Caleb’s associate, or, if sometimes he is put first (as happens), a reason of the omission [of the other] is given. 2. Joshua too is called “servant of God” (Josh. last, v. 29; Judg. 2, v. 8) — and, is it not, in a far nobler way than Caleb ever was God’s servant (Num. 27; Josh. 1, v. 9; ch. 4, v. 14)? 3. the Spirit of God was also in Joshua (Num. 27, v. 18); and that the fullness of the Spirit too was not lacking to him, was proved before (q. 4, from Num. 32, v. 12). To the second reason I say two [things]. One: to Joshua himself was given something greater than to Caleb — namely, that he himself, being prince, should choose whatever land, and however much, he wished, and should ask it of no one; whereas Caleb, if he wished to have anything, had of necessity to ask it of Joshua himself (Josh. 14). The other: perhaps for this [reason] no such promise about the land was made to Joshua, because he was to live a celibate life, and to leave no children or grandchildren. For so St. Jerome holds (against Jovinian) — but of this elsewhere afterward (Josh. ch. last). To the third, finally: I have already shown (q. 4) that Joshua himself was praised, and, if he was ever passed over, I showed why that was done. Certainly, because Caleb has no deed more illustrious and holy than this, therefore it is chiefly praised; but of Joshua there are very many other and greatest [deeds], so that this, like some little star, may not seem so conspicuous among his most brilliant deeds. If anyone still presses that Caleb holds the first place, in that, when he is named together with Joshua, he himself is set in the prior place (Num. 14, v. 30; ch. 26, v. 65; ch. 32, v. 12; Deut. 1:36), I answer that in that naming no reckoning of greater praise is had, but only of necessity — because, since they could not be named at once, one had to be set before the other. But if it be further urged, and said, that at least in that necessity Joshua could sometimes have been set first, I say that so it was indeed done. For in that same [chapter] (ch. 14, v. 30) it is said: “But Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephone rent their garments”; and (v. 38): “But Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephone lived, of all who had gone to survey the land.” If, however, anyone wishes to take up some thought of dignity, let him think that the tribe of Judah is often, in hidden ways, preferred in Scripture. But of it was Caleb; of Ephraim, however, [was] Joshua.