Question XXXV. (marg.) Was it Joshua alone who had to obey the Priest's command? [printed marginal numeral "XXXIII"; = XXXV by the run of the questions.]

Even if the Lord had said nothing else than that Joshua ought to go out and in at the Priest’s word, He would have sufficiently signified the same — and [that] by others [it must] be done much more. For since the Prince goes before the whole people, if he here follows the Priest, the people too will follow the Lord. Yet, since He wished this priestly obedience to be strongly impressed and inculcated upon all, after He had spoken about the Prince, He added, “and all the sons of Israel with him.” And when that now seemed more than enough, still He further subjoined: “and the rest of the multitude.” Three kinds, therefore, of those who ought to obey the Priest are enumerated: 1. the Prince himself. 2. “All the sons of Israel with him” — all the tribes, I say, and the Phylarchs [tribal chiefs] themselves. No one is excepted. If the Prince must hear [obey] the Priest, [then] others much more. It is fitting [that] all and each follow the example of the Prince going before; and this is what “With him” signifies. Although the Seventy [LXX] seem to refer this particle to the very consensus of all in such obedience, when they translated [it] ὁμοθυμαδὸν [homothymadon, “with one accord”] — so that no one resists, no one — even by mind and thought alone — struggles against [it]. 3. “The whole Synagogue,” as the same Seventy translated. For although this embraces the very same [persons] who were thus far enumerated, [it does so] in another manner: before, they were regarded singly; but now [as] conjoined, and gathered as it were in one body of some council. For not even the whole rest of the Church can spurn the word of the Supreme Pontiff, or prefer its own to it.