Nowhere, indeed, in the whole book of Joshua, is it related [that] the Lord was interrogated, either by the Prince of the Priests or by the Priest; yet it cannot be doubted that each [Joshua and Eleazar] discharged his own parts excellently enough. For neither did GOD command these [things] so seriously in vain, nor is He like men — who sometimes prescribe certain [things to be done] if some case should arise, which [prescriptions], because that [case] does not arise, are therefore never carried out. For those [men] provide, by human prudence, only for those [things] which can happen, but not [for] those which will certainly happen. But both the divine eye beholds most clearly. And therefore, if any future things were never [to be], He would give no precepts about them. Nor [is it] new in the scriptures, [that things] which have been done more frequently — even in this kind of consultation — are wrapped in deep silence. “Have I today,” said that Priest (1 Kings [Sam.] 22:15), “begun to consult the Lord for him” [David]? It is established [that] the same Lord was very often consulted by Moses, and yet [it is] articulately reported not except three (at most, five) times. There is added [this]: that only once (Josh. 9 [the Gibeonites]) do we find this divine inquiry omitted, and the omission reprehended. How much more numerous would the reproaches be, if [there were] more omissions? What thunderbolts [would there be], if [Joshua] had interrogated, and [received] a response, and yet—
(col. 230)
—[the answer had] nevertheless not been obeyed?