This was posited above as the third action of the created Prince. And this “going-in and going-out at the word of the Priest” amounts to the same as: in all things, without any repugnance or evasion, to obey the Priest. “At his word,” it says, “shall he go out and go in.” In Hebrew, “at his mouth.” But it is agreed [that it is] no infrequent metonymy that the cause be put for the effect. And therefore rightly the interpreter [translator], for the Hebrew “mouth,” gave us “word.” But “to go out” and “to go in” are most frequent in the scriptures, for “to begin, undertake, [or] complete anything” — so that, the Priest’s word being heard, anything is either to be undertaken or omitted. But whose word, or mouth, is it, to which one must so greatly defer? It is GOD’s word, he says indeed. Nor do I object — provided that this be reckoned to be uttered (the Priest [being] interpreter) to the ears of the Prince and the people, so that the voice which strikes their ears is indeed of the Priest speaking, but of GOD as of Him who gave [it] to the Priest to speak these things, and who through this very one, as through a go-between, speaks. For thus we read [that] GOD touches the mouths of certain [men], places His words in their mouth, [and] names certain [men] His mouth. Whence also that [saying]: “He who hears you, hears me” [Luke 10:16]. Another, indeed, believed this to be the word of Joshua himself. Where, in truth, you would most deservedly say [that] the otherwise most excellent Homer nods. For it seems clear [that] it is commanded concerning the word of that one who is interrogated. But whether he be God (as that superior [author] wished), or rather the Priest (as the connexion of the things themselves indicates), in no way will it be the word of Joshua. And truly, is not the end [purpose] — why the Prince must stand before the Priest, why something is to be inquired of him — explained by these words? For just as, a little before, the purpose was expounded why he [Joshua] had to be set before the multitude of the people — “that all the Synagogue may hear him” — so also in this very place [is set out] why [he must] stand before the Priest, [and] seek counsel from him: namely, that he may hear the Priest’s word, [and] comply with it. And therefore — however much [the point be] put forward by the enemies of the Pontifical power — thus, on this passage, writes Vatablus: “He understands [it] of the speech of the Priest. The Lord wills not [that] Joshua and the people undertake anything without consulting the high Pontiff, to whom the Lord revealed His judgment about all things to be done.” Yet I confess [that] the mine [tunnel] — into which [they] would betake themselves should there be need — seems dug in that very place. For there is added: “As if the Lord should say: According to that which the Pontiff himself, taught by me, shall speak, he [the Prince] and the sons of Israel shall undertake something to be done, or shall desist.” For the light-shunners [lucifugi, the adversaries] wish this very exception to be granted them against those [things] which the Pontiff has pronounced: [namely] that that one [speaks] not from GOD, but—
(col. 228)
—[speaks] from himself, being self-taught — [and that] otherwise they would most willingly obey. But then, what authority [would there be] of the divine oracles? what usefulness of the priestly responses? Never will the levity of human wits fail to run riot: always, whatever GOD may say, or warn, or teach through the priests, it will yap [carp] that these did not interrogate GOD well, that they applied not the diligence and knowledge of the scriptures that was fitting, [applied] not enough of prayers, not enough of synods; or [that they] either received no voices and inspirations of GOD truly speaking at all, or, if they received [them], certainly did not understand them. Finally — however all those [things] may stand — [that they] announce the divine judgment and will to the people neither sincerely nor simply; [that they] by their own judgment feign certain dreams, and mix in fables, [and] contaminate everything with their own inventions. And therefore, so that the Lord might restrain such clamoring tongues, and cut [them] utterly away, [He speaks] simply. “At his word,” He says, “shall he go in (HE, AND ALL) the sons of Israel with him, and the rest of the multitude.”
Now, therefore, consider this for me: “Jesus [Joshua] son of Nave,” says St. Ambrose (bk. 2 On Duties, ch. 20 — as [cited] above, ch. 4, q. 2), “[whom] the companionship of Moses not only instructed unto the knowledge of the law, but also sanctified unto grace. When in his [Moses’s] tabernacle the divine presence shone forth, and the majesty of the Lord was seen, Joshua son of Nave was alone in the tabernacle. Moses was speaking with GOD: Joshua likewise was covered by the holy cloud. The elders and the people stood below: Joshua was ascending with Moses to receive the law. All the people was within the camp; Joshua [was] outside the camp, in the tabernacle of testimony. When the pillar of cloud descended, and spoke with Moses, [Joshua] stood by as a faithful minister. Nor did the young man go out of the tabernacle, when the elders, placed far off, trembled at the divine miracles. Everywhere, therefore — [amid] admirable works and revered secrets — inseparable, he clung to holy Moses; whence it came about that he who had been the companion of [his] converse became the successor of [his] power. Deservedly did such a man turn out [to be one fit] to halt the courses of rivers; [one to whom] it became [to say], ‘Stand still, O Sun,’ and the Sun stood still — as if the spectator of his victory; [fit] to defer the night, [to] prolong the day; and — what indeed was denied to Moses — [that] he alone be chosen to lead the people into the land of promise. A great man in the miracles of faith, great in triumphs.”
If, therefore, so great a man — educated in the great school of Moses (or rather [his] bosom) from his first boyhood, as the Hebrews hand down; perfected in a discipline so holy and illustrious; ennobled by so many and so great things both done and to be done; deemed worthy even of the very colloquy of GOD; [being] leader of the people, servant of GOD, Prophet — nay, as indeed Augustine expounded, even an Angel — [if such a man nonetheless] had to depend on a Priest, to go to him, consult [him], hear [him], and follow [him] in all matters somewhat more intricate: is it understood [to be] a small [thing], how great is the authority of the Pontiffs of the old law — [and] of ours, of whom those were the shadow? As many, indeed, as have been “Joshuas” in the Christian Commonwealth [i.e., all Christian rulers] have both had, and greatly venerated, all their own “Eleazars”: nor have they given any ear to Abulensis — saying (on Num. 27, and on Joshua 14, q. 2) [that] Eleazar had to go out and in at Joshua’s command — nor to that Constantinopolitan—
(col. 229)
—[nor to] that Constantinopolitan Emperor, who wrote that Joshua [Jesus] had received command over the Priest: and [this] is established from the epistle of Innocent III, which is cited [in] the chapter “Solitae” (X [Decretals], On Majority and Obedience [bk. 1, tit. 33]). Where indeed that one [Innocent] answers that the Benjamite Joshua (I would read “Ephraimite”) bore, according to the spirit, the figure of the true Jesus [Christ]; but [that] it must be added that he [Joshua], because he was a secular Prince, in no way had dominion over the Priests.