[BY] the opinion of those of whom [something] was said in the foregoing question, the Angel would have to be distinguished into creator & creature — or into [Angel] properly said, & improperly. And properly indeed an Angel is a spiritual creature; improperly, the creator himself, CHRIST JESUS, whom those men say appeared in this place. But since [they] have already been sufficiently refuted, here [it] will only be inquired: of the Angels properly so called, who does [it] seem to have been? [That it was] Gabriel is maintained by Abulensis (quaest. 71), Vatablus, & Raschi [Rashi]; but [that it was] Michael, by Theodoret (quaest. 4), in these words: “Some say [that it was] the divine word [that] was seen: but I judge [it] to be Michael the Archangel: for where [they] had transgressed, the God of all things said: ‘I will not go up with thee, because the people is of stiff neck: but I will send my Angel before thy face, who shall go before thee.’ This [one], I think, was now beheld by Jesus [= Joshua], bidding him be of good courage, & making [him] more certain of succors.” [So also] Pantaleon, Deacon & Chartophylax of Constantinople, [in his] oration on S. Michael; Lyranus [Lyra] on this place, & in him the Rabbis; Caietanus; Blasius Viegas in Apol. cap. 12; Villalpandus on Ezech., chapter 40, ch. 7, pag. 264; Georg. Schererus, concio 2 on the feast of saint Michael. And with these I altogether assent — not only because [they are] more numerous & weightier, but also because, given the fewness of the former, Abulensis in the same place likewise nearly supports these; most of all because scripture stands wholly by them. For [he] who appears here says (vers. 14) [that] he [is] the prince of the ar-
(col. 640 — right column; printed “647”)
-my of the Lord. But that description, & a certain proper token [tessera] as it were, is attributed to Michael in Daniel — and indeed three times: ch. 10, vers. 13, Behold Michael, one of the first princes; vers. 21, Michael your prince — namely of the Israelites; ch. 12, v. 1, Michael the great prince, who standeth for the sons of thy people — the Israelitic [people], namely. Or, as the 70 [the Septuagint] render [it]: Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας, ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου [Michaēl ho archōn ho megas, ho hestēkōs epi tous huious tou laou sou, “Michael the great prince, who standeth over the sons of thy people”] — who standeth over the sons of thy people, or, who is set over them. And on ch. 9, vers. 11 [the phrase “prince of the host” in fact stands at Dan. 8:11], Abenezra [Ibn Ezra] says [that] he is named in the same manner in which [he] is named here — namely, Prince of the host of the Lord. Thou wilt say: over the same [people] was set Gabriel too, who bore their care, and pleaded [their] cause — Dan. 8, vers. 7 [Gabriel is named at 8:16], ch. 9, vers. 21, ch. 10, vers. 5 & following. I answer [that he] was indeed set over [them]; but so, that [he] was under Michael, depended on him, and received help [from him], just as he himself confesses, ch. 10, v. 13 & 21, ch. 9, vers. 16 [so printed]. But a prefect who is inferior — if [he] be asked who [he] is, & be wise and modest — does not absolutely [and] at once claim to himself the title of prince. For who would not rebuke his arrogance, who, being a Centurion, calls himself Tribune? [or,] being a Tribune, [calls himself] Commander [Imperator]? being a Satrap, Prince? being a Prince, King? But he who gave himself to be beheld by Joshua, being questioned who [he] was, answers most absolutely: I am the prince of the host of the Lord. Of which words, again, hereafter.