Not of this time only, in which the prince Joshua was created, are those actions, but of the future — which, namely, afterward, when he should really now bear the principate, he ought to do. For since it was already said above [that] he was constituted before the Pontiff, why is this now said, unless as future, “and he shall stand”? Then, at this very time of [his] creation, what was there that he should ask the Pontiff? But no doubt it is prescribed that thereafter, when he should begin to discharge the imposed office, he inquire. Twofold, therefore, [is] that status of Joshua before the Pontiff: One, while he is raised to the principate; the Other, after he has been raised. Two [things it] signifies. One, [that] it behooved him deservedly — [he] who is to be set over God’s people [as] Leader, King, and Commander — to be set before the Pontiff: first indeed, that the Priest should approve his Principate and Empire by his [own], as it were divinely-sent, suffrage. For it concerns not a little the salvation of the sheep of the eternal supreme shepherd, who and of what sort the prince may be who lords it over them with command and power — whether he be of sound faith and religion, whether he seem about to rule them rightly and by the laws, not, however, tyrannically. And therefore also the Lord commanded (Deuteronomy 17, v. 15): “Thou shalt not be able to make a man of another nation King, who is not thy brother.” For others, from other nations, were either not imbued with the true knowledge of God, and with the sanctity of His laws and ceremonies; or, [being] of Israel’s seed, from which they [themselves] were not, [were] less inclined, and less solicitous about conserving, amplifying, and adorning it. Then, [it signifies] that by that very standing before the Priest, the prince might do God a certain [act] of honor. For the reverence of God’s Priests redounds to God Himself, as I noted also (ch. 4 [of commentary] on Judges, theol. quest. 2). By this thing it is commanded that the Prince venerate the Pontiff, as [one] set over himself — says—
(col. 204)
—Cajetan. Thirdly, that by that same act he cheerfully and expeditiously testify [that] he would show compliance to the Priests [when they are] about to say and prescribe something. Whence also [comes] that illustrious custom which flourishes in the Christian Church: that not only Ecclesiastical Princes — Bishops, Archbishops, and Patriarchs — but also Political Princes, Kings, and Emperors, when by themselves they cannot [be present] before the Pontiff, present themselves through letters and legates, open to him their faith, and promise reverence and obedience — as by very many examples from antiquity the Annals of Baronius show, and [the examples] of the present-day Emperor, and of the Kings of France, of the Spains, of Lusitania [Portugal], and of Poland — [in their] legations, epistles, [and] orations to the Pontiff, which either Muretus or others published; and lately, when Henry IV entered upon the most Christian kingdom of the French, [there was] his legate before the holy Apostolic See. [On this] can be seen, against Machiavelli, P. Ribadeneira (bk. 1, ch. 7 & 12). The other [thing] which that latter status signifies is, that now in the very deed be performed that which at the beginning of the principate was begun and best promised — namely, toward the obsequy, observance, and obedience of God’s Priest. But see, at the end of ch. 1 of Ezekiel, Pradus (p. 57); and to these add, if it please, [the things] which I added (in the [book] On the Joshuan Priests, ch. 1, number 7). But “before all the multitude also stood Joshua”; yet for a wholly different cause — as the text itself indicates. For of that [standing before the multitude] it is said, “that all the synagogue of the children of Israel may hear him”; but of [standing before] the Priest, “at his word shall he go out.” Therefore the status before the people [is] recorded twice only; but before the Priest, thrice — that, as toward the people the office of the Prince had been explained, so also the Prince’s observance toward the Pontiff might be denoted. Whence also the 70 Interpreters, not except once (when it is treated of the people), use the verb “to stand” — and that, when already the manner of standing before it [the people], and before the Priest, had been clearly [expounded] differently. But Procopius of Gaza: “God commands,” he says, “that the prince be consulted indeed by the people, the Priest by this [prince], [and] God finally by this [Priest].” But to inquire “by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord” is either “concerning the judgment,” or “to be roused [to inquiry] according to the judgment of the Urim themselves” — that is, either according to the formula, custom, and rite of the Urim, which are wont to be applied before the Lord; or “to inquire by the application of the pontifical Ephod, or of the pectoral” — which (Exod. 28) is called “the pectoral of judgment” (vv. 15 & 30). But those Urim, and that custom and judgment of them, are to be somewhat more illustrated. For [the things] which once, in the booklet On the Joshuan Priests (ch. 2), I published, were drawn almost from these same disputations.