There is, among the Jews (in Abulensis, q. 41), an opinion that Moses asked that some one of his own sons should succeed him in the principate. But this is an open wrong against [both] the text and that most holy man. For he named no one at all; but, as appeared above, he asked only for some fit [man]; and because there are many recesses in the souls of men, [and] many masks and lies in [their] countenance and manners, therefore [he asked] not [for] one whom he himself should see and judge a good man, and apt and fit for such great affairs, but [for] one whom God Himself, the searcher of hearts, should most skillfully know and will [to be] fit — this one, whether he were kinsman or stranger, known or unknown, rich or poor: this one, [the one] into whom [God looks], he demands of God. And truly there was so great an equilibrium in his soul that, although he had had Joshua at home for so long, and had used his so faithful work and ministry, [and had known] his religion toward God, his justice and courtesy toward the people, his industry and fortitude in the war of the Amalekites, in the exploring of the land, and against the impious accusers and murmurers—
(col. 183)
…[his virtues Moses had proven — his defending of Moses’s cause with] skill and constancy, and had most accurately perceived his temperance and integrity in daily life — nay (though Oleaster denies it, ch. 27 on Numbers, in the moral [commentary], fol. 71) had already otherwise divinely known about him, and for that cause had taken him along with himself to the mountain, and to so many other [things], and so often — yet nonetheless [Moses] willed not that he be defined and named [as successor]: but, as though he knew nothing of him, had heard nothing and seen nothing, so indefinitely he beseeches [God for] the succession of whoever [is] fit. And that, as I indeed think, [for these reasons]. First, that he might receive a more confirmed divine sentence about Joshua. Secondly, that he might leave the same [sentence] better attested to the people. Thirdly, that he himself might strip off all human affections, and might himself more certainly know that he was giving nothing to favor, nothing to human zeal toward Joshua — if perchance any such might be, or seem to be, [in him]. Fourthly, that he might leave an example, to be preserved more absolutely and purely in the choosing of any successor: lest flesh and blood should prevail in that matter which, as it is most weighty, so ought to be conducted most weightily and most purely. All these [things] are confirmed by the most beautiful words of Philo (book On Charity), which — that they may be more at hand to anyone, and more profitable — are to be inscribed here.
“When,” he says, “the end of this mortal life was at hand — forewarned of this by an open oracle — he imitated no one, whether King or private man, whose one wish and study is held to be to leave [their] children as heirs: but although he was the father of two sons, he wished neither as his successor, [being] a conqueror of [his] affections toward [his] kindred and household; and he could, if he suspected [his] sons [to be] too little fit, certainly have exalted [his] brother’s sons, [who were] already deserving of the priesthood by [their] virtue. But perhaps either it did not please [him] that they should be drawn away from divine matters; or rather he thought [it] impossible that the same man should rightly care at once for kingdom and priesthood — since indeed the one professes the care of religion, the other [the care] of subjects; or perhaps he did not think a matter so great pertained to his own judgment, and he preferred to commit the judging [of it] to God, who by His power perceives even the inmost [parts] of breasts. That these [things] are true is gathered even from this: he had a friend and intimate, almost from boyhood, IESUS [Joshua] by name, conciliated not by vulgar arts, but by an integral and heavenly love, from which all virtues proceed. He was, moreover, [Moses’s] messmate and tent-companion — except when [Moses] himself sought retirement for the sake of divine colloquies; the same [Joshua was] a partaker of the administration of the commonwealth, and — well-nigh the prince’s vicar — was wont to do many [things] by [Moses’s] power. And yet, although he knew this [man] to be of long-proven probity, and had experienced the honesty of his words and deeds, and — what was most required — his benevolence toward the people, not even so did he dare to commit the principate to him, lest perchance he be deceived by opinion, not sufficiently trusting human judgment; and so, not even believing himself, [as] a suppliant he invoked God, who alone looks into the invisible soul and penetrates the secrets of minds, that from the nobles He might choose some one fit prince, who might bear a paternal care of [his] subjects; and, lifting up to heaven pure and (so to speak) virgin hands of chastity, thus he prayed: Let the Lord God of the spirits, and of all flesh, look upon a man who may care for this people, and pasture [it] without crime, lest it be corrupted like a scattered flock lacking the care and diligence of a Master. Who would not marvel at these prayers, and say: Master, what sayest thou? Are there so lacking to thee and to thy brother [thine] own-born sons, successors given by nature? Or to these,—
(col. 184)
—or wilt thou leave the principate to those? But if thou judgest neither fit, and the reckoning of the commonwealth is weightier to thee than that of domestic relationship, thou hast certainly an irreprehensible friend, and of proven virtue — even by thy own most wise judgment. Why then dost thou not choose this [man], if probity, not lineage, be regarded? But he will answer truly: since in all matters judgment is not to be precipitated, so most of all in these which, rightly or wrongly administered, bring felicity or calamity to very many. But nothing [is] greater than the principate, to which the arbitration of war and peace is committed by the citizens. For just as, for a prosperous voyage, there is need of a good and skilled helmsman, so also [there is need] of a wise prince for guarding the tranquillity of a well-constituted commonwealth. But concerning wisdom — which is more ancient not only than me, but than the whole world — it is not lawful for anyone to judge, except God, or some sincere, pure, and genuine lover of that same wisdom. And already, by my own example, I have learned not to decree the principate even to [men] any-how fit in appearance. For I undertook the care of the commonwealth unwilling — designated prince not by human votes, but by manifest oracles, at the divine voice commanding — however much I deprecated [it], fearing the mass of affairs, until, again and again commanded, I was compelled by fear to obey. Would it not therefore be absurd now not to walk in the same footsteps? — and, since I myself was unwilling to take the principate except by God’s sentence, now by my own arbitrament to choose a successor, not even awaiting the votes of men? — especially since the matter is of the ruling of a nation not common, but first the most populous of all that are anywhere, then professing the greatest thing, the worship of Him who is [the] Father and Founder of all things. For whatever else befalls [others] from the study of each best philosophy, that [belongs] to the Jews from their own laws and manners — namely, the knowledge of the supreme God, the error of gods consecrated from creatures being repudiated. For nothing created is truly God, however much it be held for God, since it lacks eternity, without which there is no godhead. This is one evident argument of [Moses’s] singular charity and faith toward his own nation.”
And [so too] St. Jerome, on chapter 1 to Titus: “Moses, the friend of God, to whom God spoke face to face, could certainly have made his own sons successors of the principate, and left the dignity as their own to [his] posterity; but a stranger, of another tribe, is chosen — JESUS [Joshua] — that we might know that the principate over peoples is not to be handed down by blood, but by life. But now we discern very many doing this thing [as] a benefit: that they seek not those who can profit the Church more, and raise up columns in the Church, but those whom either they themselves love, or by whose obsequiousness they are charmed, or for whom some one of the great has asked — and, to be silent of worse [cases], those who by bribes have obtained to be made Clerics.” Not unlike — neither in sense, nor in the profit of readers — [are] those [words] of Origen (hom. 22 on Numbers): “Moses, about to depart from the world, prays God to provide a leader for the people. What doest thou, Moses? Are there not sons to thee, Gershom and Eliezer? Or, if thou doubtest anything about them, are there not the sons of thy brother, great and excellent men? How dost thou not pray God for them, that He may constitute them leaders of the people? But let the princes of the Churches learn [that they are] not to sign by testament as their successors those who are joined [to them] by consanguinity of family, nor those who are allied by nearness of flesh, nor to hand down the principate of the Church as an inheritance — but to refer [it] to the judgment [of God]…”
(col. 185)
…[but to refer it to] the judgment of God, and not to choose that [man] whom human affection commends, but to permit the whole [matter] concerning the successor’s election to God’s judgment. Could not Moses choose a prince for the people — and choose by a true judgment, and by a right and just sentence — [he] to whom God had said: “Choose elders for the people, whom thou thyself knowest to be elders” — and he chose such [men] in whom God’s spirit might continually rest, and [who] all prophesied? Who, then, could so choose a prince for the people as Moses could? But this he does not do, he does not choose, he dares not. Why does he not dare? Lest he leave to posterity an example of presumption. But hearken to what he says: “Let the Lord God of the spirits, and of all flesh, provide a man over this synagogue, who may go out before their face, and who may go in, and who may lead them out, and who may lead them back.” If, then, that Moses — so great and such — does not permit to his own judgment [the choosing] of a prince for the people, [the] constituting of a successor, who will there be that dares — whether from the plebs (which is often wont to be moved by clamors to favor, or perhaps to a bribe), or even from the priests themselves — who will there be that judges himself fit for this, unless it be revealed by the Lord to one praying and asking? — Beautifully and truly [does], in Flavius Vopiscus, in [the Life of] the Emperor Tacitus, that consular Senator Falconius Nicomachus [say]: “It is a great glory of a dying prince, to love the Commonwealth more than [his] sons.” And of the Emperor Theodosius likewise St. Ambrose [says]: “I loved the man,” he says, “because, when he was now being released from the body, he was troubled more about the state of the Churches than about his own perils.”