THOSE Novators being omitted & hissed off [explosis] who make S. Michael [to be] Christ, [there] are among Catholics three opinions concerning him. The first is [that he] is an Angel — of the second, namely, order of the first Hierarchy. D. Thomas insinuates [this] (1 quaest. 112 a. 3); & Julius Caesar Scaliger seems to make [him] still lower than Gabriel (in his Divinae, Cologne ed., fol. 61). The second: [that he] is a prince of the third & highest order of the same first hierarchy. There the same D. Thomas; & more openly on the Master of the sentences (2 d. 10), as I cited (cap. 3 Tobiae quaest. 2); & the other Scholastics, nearly [all], in the same place. The third [is that he], of the highest hierarchy & of its highest order, is [it]self both first & supreme; [this] Catharinus teaches, [and] Bellarminus (bk. 1 de Pontifice cap. 9), & [one] who has come forth in these days, P. Blasius Viegas (on Apocalypse 12, sect. 18). That I may respond distinctly:
I say first. The supreme & most excellent of all the Angels was [he] who, first of all, sinned against God, & stood forth [as] the author of sinning to the rest. This indeed Damascene denies (bk. 2 de fide cap. 4), & S. Augustine doubts [it] (bk. 3 de Gen. ad litteram cap. 10; bk. 11 cap. 9); yet the other Theologians, with a voice consenting well enough, affirm [it]: Tertullian (bk. 2 against Marcion c. 10) — on whom Junius (contro. 3, bk. 1, Num. 9) falsely indeed & impudently fastens a lie; but let the enumeration, already begun, go on — Origen (bk. 1 [Περὶ ἀρχῶν, On First Principles] cap. 8, & tract. 9 on Matthew); D. Chrysostom (homily on Adam & Eve, & homily on the fall of man); Lactantius (bk. 2 cap. 9 — even if [he] mixes in there many [things] which need animadversion); D. Jerome (or whoever is the author in his Tomes) on Job 40; Cyril (Catech. 2); D. Gregory (bk. 4 Moral. c. 12; bk. 9 c. 2; bk. 32 c. 24 & 25; homily 34 on the Gospels); the Author of the work On the marvels of sacred scripture (bk. 1 cap. 2); Isidore (bk. 1 de summo bono cap. 12); Pantaleon (orat. 2 de S. Michaele); D. Bernard (serm. 1 de adventu, & the tract de gradibus humilitatis, grade 1); the Gloss on Isaiah cap. 14 & Psalm 103; the Master of the sentences (2 dist. 6); D. Bonaventure, Durandus, & nearly all the [other] disputers on that place; & Alexander of Hales (2 p. q. 109 membr. 1 art. 1 & 2); Albertus Magnus (2 p. q. 20, & bk. de 4 coaevis q. 10 a. 1); D. Thomas (1 p. q. 63 a. 7; bk. 3 against the Gentiles c. 109). And for this they bring scriptures out of Isaiah c. 14, Job 4, Ezekiel 28 — which signify it either by the primary & proper sense, or certainly by the secondary & allegorical [sense]. Reasons too are brought forward — two above all. The prior is: [that] for him who is endowed with free will, [there] are only three [things] which can entice & rouse to sin — namely, a certain innate propensity to evil; a cause [that is] exterior, proposing the enticement to sin; & some forbidden object [that is] alluring. But the first has place indeed in men (Gen. 6), not in the Angels, to whom [there are] no bodies, & therefore no cupidities which are from these. The second troubles us too — finally, namely, either [some man—]
(col. 658 — right column; printed “669”)
—or some criminal of men. But indeed, before the fall of the Angels, [there] was no demon; & before the first [one] who fell from among them, [there] was nowhere any [demon] who might impel others to sin. [It] remains, therefore, that the third [factor] be considered — & indeed [that it was greatest] in the first of all who fell, [and] greatest [of all]. Concerning which, thus:
[He] seems to have sinned first of all the fallen Angels, for whom the object was greatest — which, though [it] was forbidden, nevertheless allured him. But of such a kind was the supreme of all the Angels. For since [it] is agreed [that] pride was the first of all sins (Ecclesiasticus 10, v. 14 & 15; D. Thomas 1 p. q. 63 a. 2), and the matter of this [pride] is excellence, [he was] more enticed to sin than others [in proportion] as that [excellence] is greater in [him]. But [it] was greater in the supreme of all. He, therefore, who sinned first of all, seems to have been [the supreme]. The other [reason]. From all the orders of the Angels [some] fell; & in scripture we see the names of the higher orders attributed to the demons — namely “principality” & “power” (Ephes. 6) — to say nothing of D. Thomas (q. 63 a. 9 ad 3), D. Bonaventure (bk. cited, q. 2 a. 1), [and] Alensis (q. 110 membr. 3): [namely] that [they] were, without doubt, from these [higher orders], as Hugh of St Victor says (bk. 1 de sacram. p. 5 cap. 30). And [a demon] is likewise called “Cherub” (Ezek. 28). But, [you] will say, nowhere is “Seraph” said of any of the demons. [To this] D. Thomas answers (in the cited question of part 1): [that they] are called Seraphim from the ardor of Charity, which — by losing [it] — those also lost, even [as they lost] the name, who fell from that order. Yet [it] can be added [that] they are Seraphim even now, in that manner in which the fiery serpents were called, in Hebrew, Seraphim (Num. 21, verse 7 & 9) — & that, because in deed & fact [those serpents] were the very figure & likeness of the demons, [which is] most true. Then, since they burn with those everlasting fires themselves, & with the same perpetually consume & torment wicked men — why should they not be called both Seruphim, & Sorephim, & Seraphim? Then, the Apostle, in the same [epistle] to the Ephesians cap. 6, calls them κοσμοκράτορας [kosmokratoras, “world-rulers”]: for the same reason, namely, because [they] were cast down from the supreme apex τῶν κοσμοκρατόρων [tōn kosmokratorōn, “of the world-rulers”]; & whereas before [they] were the κοσμοκράτορες [kosmokratores, “world-rulers”] of light & of glory, now [they] are κοσμοκράτορες [kosmokratores] — that is, the world-rulers of these darknesses; or, as in the Greek the same sense is, of the darkness of this age. And all the Angels indeed can in some manner obtain that of [their] name, as D. Thomas shows (1 part. quaest. 110 a. 1) — but most of all those [Angels] to whom some special excellence [is] attributed, so that on that account [they are] described by scripture as great princes, & as [it were] the more inward & more familiar to God (Daniel 10, Tob. 12, Apocalyp. 1). And [these Angels] — do we not prudently reckon [them to be] either all, or some, from the supreme order of the Angels? If, therefore, some fell headlong even from the supreme order, [is it] not [so] also among these, [namely one] who [was] supreme? These reasons do not, indeed, thoroughly prevail; yet in this opinion [there] hold me so many & so great authors, praised before, & — among the reasons — the latter more than the prior. For, first, the matter of pride is not simply excellence, but excessive & forbidden [excellence]. But when is [it] taken [so]?—
(col. 659 — left column; printed “670”)
—For the [things] which are moderate do not snatch us beyond measure; & [the things] which befit [our] state & person do not call [us] to [things] alien [to us]. Secondly, [one] must descend by degrees: if the greatest excellence drove headlong the supreme of the Angels, then the excellence which was next to it drove headlong [the one] next to him — that is, the second in dignity & pre-eminence; & so the third, [an] inferior excellence, [drove] the third inferior Angel; & so on in order — so that only from the supreme orders would be [drawn] the whole crowd of the unhappy demons cast down from heaven. [There] is added [this]: that the excellence [that was] excessive & forbidden — which destroyed those [angels] — was rather exterior: the cupidity, namely, of a greater excellence & glory than what was inherent in any [given angel]. But this could be common to any Angel whatever. Nevertheless, from this very [point], some probability can be joined to that first reason. For what [is] more likely than that [it was] not just any greater excellence, but the divine [excellence], that he coveted, who in all the rest already excelled in all glory & dignity, & therefore was also supreme? Yet [that] there was someone who would covet this — [that there was] someone [of] almost the concordant opinion of all. For hence [is] that [word] of Isaiah 14: I will be like the most High, &c. Nevertheless, [that] he attended to this reason alone, D. Thomas (quaest. 63 a. 7) subjoined: “[It] is not thence to be prejudicial to the other opinion — because even in a prince of the inferior (not the superior) Angels there could have been some motive to sin.” But if to it the other reason be joined, & [an authority] so various & rich, deservedly indeed ought the other opinion to yield; & most of all the Calvinian Junius, when (contro. 3, bk. 1, cap. 9, num. 11) he writes: “[That] the Devil was prince of the universality of the Angels [before he fell] is uncertain.” Neither, indeed — because [a thing] is not certain & defined by the certitude of faith — is [it] therefore straightway uncertain. But two [things] can here be inquired.
One: By what excellence did that supreme Angel excel all the rest? Two opinions. Of which the prior is D. Thomas’s (quaest. 50): [that] he excelled by essential [excellence], & [by] accidental. For that holy [Doctor] thinks, in that place, [that] all the Angels differ in species. The posterior: [that he] excelled only by accidental excellence, because [there] is one nature & species of all the Angels — as very many & most weighty [authors] assert: Dionysius Areopagita (celestial Hierarchy cap. 11); Didymus (de Spiritu sancto, & bk. 3 de Trinitate); Basil (de Spiritu Sancto bk. 3); the Author of the quaest. ad Antiochum (q. 4); D. Augustine (bk. 12 Civit. c. 1); Isidore (bk. 1 de summo bono cap. 12); Paschasius the deacon (bk. 2 de Spiritu sancto cap. 3); S. Anselm (bk. cur Deus Homo cap. 21); Pantaleon (orat. 2 de S. Michaele); Michael Glycas (part 1, fol. 148 & following) — where, “one,” he says, ”& the same [is] the nature of all, by the opinion of those who embrace the right faith of the Church.”
The other [question]: How is that supreme Angel & archdemon called? First. Commonly [he] is wont to be called Lucifer. But behold — just as, out of the number of the Angels, [the Novators] exempted S. Michael & made [him] CHRIST (the Novators cited before, q. 42) — so Beza denies Lucifer to be a demon (on Matth. 25 v. 41): “The name of Lucifer,” he says, “which arose from a most false & most inept [interpretation] of the place of Esaias, from cap. 14 verse 12 — by [that] in-
(col. 660 — right column; printed “671”)
—terpretation,” [Beza continues,] “I cannot wonder enough [that it] is retained by some who understand that crass madness.” His own [followers], namely, whether the Calvinians or other heretics — who understand [it as] a delirium, & yet still name the devil Lucifer — Beza pricks & chastises with these words. Yet these [followers] are, in the matter itself, both more modest & much wiser. For what [is] that so-false, so-inept exposition of Isaiah? “Of the King of Babylon,” he says, “is [it] there treated.” Be [it] so, by all means. But cannot [it] at the same time be [that] the discourse is of the King of all the devils? [It] can entirely be [so] — & indeed in three ways. The first is: that under the person of Pharaoh of Egypt the Archdemon be described. And this mode Origen hands down (bk. 6 against Celsus; bk. 1 de principiis c. 5; bk. 3 c. 2; homil. 1 in Iosue; & hom. 9, 10, 11 on Numbers; & bk. in Roman. 1.8); [and] Athanasius (de passione Domini). The other: contrariwise, that by [a] comparison & a certain analogy, under the person of the Archdemon, Pharaoh be described — [namely] that, as that [Lucifer] fell from heaven, so this [Pharaoh] from [his] throne & from life itself. The third: that by an apostrophe those [words] at verse 12 be said: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer? For [it] happens sometimes very usefully, that when some vice is reprehended in certain [persons], a sudden conversion of the speech to others [affected] by the same vices — & marked out for the punishments of [their] vices — be made. For instance, if [it] be instituted [as] a reprehension of lust, I would insert, beyond all expectation: How art thou burned up, O Sodom? How hast thou gone mad, O Solomon? Since, therefore, the pride of the King of the Egyptians was there being censured, rightly did the speech of the Prophet turn itself — most elegantly & most vehemently — to the prince of pride, the Archdevil [Archidiabolus]. And therefore [it is] a huge [mark] both of Beza’s pride, & of [his] impudence, [that] he — so rashly & without any argument — hisses off [exibilat] that exposition, handed down by so many, & so great, most illustrious Greek & Latin Fathers, [and] pleads Lucifer’s cause against them; & [so does] Franc. Junius, at the chapter cited (Numer. 10). And truly, even if that [reading] were not the interpretation of that place, [could] not, nevertheless, the authority of so many & so great men — & so [greatly] the whole Christian world — have coined this name of Lucifer, & first imposed [it] on the demons; or [could it not] receive [it] from that very place of Isaiah on account of the likeness, & [so] wear [it] all the way down [to us]? Is a Phalaris & a Nero rightly called cruel, & for [his] pride does he not avail [to be so called], who is the proudest of all — [namely to be] called Lucifer? Is the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of CHRIST the Lord, the supreme Pontiff, assiduously called Antichrist by those Luciferian shade-lovers [tenebriones] — & (as at the recent Regensburg colloquy Hunnius clamored) “so ought he to be called,” because forsooth [it] so pleases those [men] — & by us the prince of the darkness of this world could not be called Lucifer? — especially since hitherto all Christians have so called him, as [those] Fathers (bk. ij) who have been cited teach. Let [there] be seen also Nazianzen (orat. on the Nativity of the Lord), S. Brigitta (bk. 6 c. 115), Caesarius (bk. 5 cap. 13). [He] who, says Nazianzen — & [in] the place cited, Anastasius Nicenus — “was Lucifer for [his] splendor, [but was] cast down & made [a thing] of darkness for [his] elevation [pride].” But just as, concerning his Satanael, [they] trifled in Euthymius (part 2, tit. 23) — the Bogomils; & just as concerning Satan the Epicurean Celsus mocked in Origen (bk. 6) — so concerning Lucifer [Beza] plays those trifles—
(col. 661 — left column; printed “672”)
—[he] plays [them], [being] friendlier to Lucifer than to CHRIST & the Church. Which also is clear from this, that concerning the Bezan Iconomachs [image-fighters] he [Lindanus] reports, in the booklet On the idols to be fled (c. 13, p. 109): [that] they, in the London temple of D. Paul, shattered the statue of S. Michael, but left safe & whole the dragon which was being trodden under his feet; & likewise, at Antwerp, [that they] struck axes into the crucifix — not into the demon, who was present at the evil thief [malo latroni]. Secondly, [he] is called Satan (Luc. 10 v. 18). Thirdly, by some Beelzebub — even out of Matthew 12 v. 24 & 27; & [it] seems [to be] the opinion of the Jews in the same place, & [in] Matthew 9 verse 34; & of Machomet in the Alcoran (azoara 17), where [he] narrates the sin & fall of the Angels; & [in] the cited place of Beza, [though] with some doubting. But in the Gospel of Nicodemus (fol. 655) Beelzebub is described [as] “Prince of perdition, leader of extermination, mockery of the Angels of God, filth of the just, prince of the lower regions, under whom [is] Satan” — which last I do not accept. Fourthly, by some [he] is called zabulus. By S. Hilary, often; [by] S. Paulinus (epist. 2, & elsewhere); [by] Cassian (collat. 1 & 2); [by] Cyprian, often; [by] the Author of the book de aleatoribus [attributed] to the same S. Cyprian; & [by] others — nay, even by the Church herself, when in a hymn [she] says:
We praise together, venerating, all the soldiers of heaven, but chiefly the primate of the celestial army, Michael — in [his] power crushing Zabulus [the Devil].
But of this name [zabulus] I see various etymologies brought forward by various [authors]. For, first, Bibliander, on that chapter of the Alcoran: “zabulos,” he says, “that is, [the] suggester of evil counsels.” [This] because, since βουλή [boulē] signifies “counsel” generally, whence [comes] to that particle za [ζα] the force that [it] makes [the] counsel [to be] depraved — since [the particle] is otherwise wont to have the force of intensifying, as in ζάθεος [zatheos, “very divine”], & the like. Secondly: for the word diabolus, this [form zabulus] Lindanus thinks feigned (epistle de Aquilone fol. 167); & so also Erasmus annotates on the New Testament (cap. 4); & Morellius, in [the notes to] S. Cyprian’s epistle against Demetrius — because Dorically za is used for διά [dia]. Io. Scaliger (in [his] animadversions on Eusebius, pag. 209): “Adiabenicus & Azabenicus is the same,” he says, ”& by the [Doric] diet [dialect] zeta, Diabolus [becomes] zabolus. For zabolos is a fault in the [παρῳδίᾳ] στροφῇ [printed Greek unclear — roughly ‘the (mis)twisting of speech’] of the vulgar so speaking, & using zeta for the [proper] diet [pronunciation].” Thirdly: P. Salmerón (in proleg. 9, cant. 41) [says it] is either a Hebrew word, which signifies “flowing”; or Syriac, which [signifies] “dung.” For so he says on Ephes. 6: D. Jerome [reads] zabulon καταρρέων [katarrheōn], that is, flowing downward — which can be said, because gradually [it slips away]—
(col. 662 — right column; printed “673”)
—[Michael] the Syngelus [companion-angel], in the oration on S. Dionysius the Areopagite (fol. 350). For brevity’s sake, therefore, as [is done] in many other [cases], for Beelzebul there remained zebul & zabul, or zabulus. And to Lindanus, indeed, [it] gives not zabulus only, but even the German Teuffel [Devil]: because [the devil] was first called diabel — as [in] French diable — afterward dibel & disel (as by the Saxons & Westphalians [it] is still pronounced), [and] at length, by the upper Germans, Teuffel. And this [is] more probable than that [Scaliger] leads it [back] to à Tebelo — some [word] “de-God-ed” [à Deo, i.e. god-forsaken], I know not what — in Ausonius (concerning which, Judges cap. 2). Others [derive it] from the hatred of baptism — [the devil], who [is called] Teuff [i.e. “the one at the font,” Taufe] by antiphrasis, as bellum [war, from bellus, “fair”] & Eumenides [the Furies, “the kindly ones”]; or from the Hebrew אפל [ophel], that is, “darkness,” into which, as said above, [he was] changed from Lucifer. But since many German [words are drawn] from the Syriac & Chaldee, the origin of that name could perhaps be fetched from דיוא [daiwa], as [it were] Deuffel, which among the Syrians is “demon” (Matth. 9 & 12); as also from that [word] which is nearest to this name, דיוא [deyo], which is [the] German atramentum [ink], Dinte [Tinte]. But now [there is] too much about the “black” & “light-fleeing” [devil] (as Arnobius speaks) [and his] “nation”; & therefore I omit also the [things] which the ancient heretics feigned about Sabaoth & others, in Theodoret (bk. 2 Fab.), Epiphanius (bk. 2), Irenaeus (bk. 1 cap. 24), & others.
I say secondly. After the fall of Lucifer, the supreme & most excellent of all the blessed Angels is Saint Michael. For, first, the princes of the Angels — not just any, but the first (Daniel 10, verse 13) — are deservedly thought [to be] the supreme & most excellent of all the Angels. For why would this elogium “of the first ones” be added to them, unless [it were that] they obtained the prerogative, the principate, & the first eminence of all? Very coldly [frigide] do Junius & Tremellius (on Daniel 10, Number 29) wish all the Angels there to be called “princes” in respect of the earthly princes. For, first, how minute [a thing is] the praise of CHRIST — whom they understand through Michael — if [he] be called only “one of the Angels,” or “the first of the Angels”? Secondly, not even a good comparison admits that mode of speaking. Thirdly, in the same way they say the Angels are called (Ephes. [3:]10) “principalities [imperia] & powers.” For similarly [they] ought to be called “first principalities & first powers.” In any kingdom certainly [it] is so, that the first princes are supreme [next] to the king himself, & excel & are eminent above all — as in the seven wise men of the Persians, & others, I said (Esther cap. 1, pag. 1, partic. 3, quaest. 5; & Tob. 12, quaest. 8). And [Angels] of this kind can be called either simply ἀρχάγγελοι [archangeloi, “archangels”] or πρωταρχάγγελοι [prōtarchangeloi, “first-archangels”]. But among these first princes is numbered — in that same place of Daniel — S. Michael, & indeed so, that he is the first of those very [princes]. For either we embrace that exposition, of which [was] spoken above (quaest. 42), [namely] that one of the first princes be the same as the first, & [the matter is] settled: or we do not embrace [it]; & from elsewhere [it] is proved [that he] is the first — from a chapter, namely, of the same Daniel (12, verse 1), where [he] is called the great prince [princeps magnus]. For since before (cap. 10) [he] had been said [to be] one of the first princes, [he] seems, in respect of those same [princes], to be called great. But [he] who, [as] a Prince compared with all the [other] first princes, is called great — is [he] not signified [to be] the first of those [princes]? If our Most Reverend [Archbishop] of Mainz [Moguntinus] were called one of the seven Electors, & afterward were named the great Elector, would [he] not, among the Electors,—
(col. 663 — left column; printed “666”)
—the first [places] which he holds, be attributed to him [Michael]? Therefore, as Junius & Tremellius there confess in fact, the Hebrew [words] can be rendered: Michael, that greatest prince.
II. Gabriel is [one] of the highest & most excellent Angels, as the magnitude & excellence of the work to which he was sent declares. A great [thing], & the greatest & most admirable, [was] the new & unheard-of matter: [that] God be made man, be conceived of a virgin, & be born of a virgin. On whom would the Lord impose the legation of so great a matter, & whom would he send as messenger to so great a Virgin, but some one eminent [Angel] out of the whole number of Messengers — & if not the first, yet next to the first? “For this ministry,” says homily 34, S. Gregory, “it was fitting that the highest Angel come, who announced the highest of all.” And S. Bernard (on Missus est, homily 1): “I do not think,” he says, “this Angel to be of the lesser, who are wont to be sent to earth on any occasion [and] frequently in legation. Which is also given openly to be understood from his very name — which is interpreted ‘the fortitude of God’ [fortitudo Dei]: & because [it] is reported [that he] was sent not perhaps by some other more excellent [angel] (as is wont), but by God himself. On this account, therefore, [he] was set by God, or for this reason [he] is said [to have been sent] by God — that not to any even of the blessed spirits was God thought to have revealed his own counsel, before the virgin, except only to the Archangel Gabriel, who indeed could be found of such great excellence among his own, that [he] be held worthy also of such a name, & of the message. Nor does the name disagree from the message. For whom did [it] better befit to announce Christ, the fortitude [virtue] of God, than him whom a like name honors? For what else is fortitude, than virtue? Nor would [it] seem unbecoming or incongruous, [that] the lord & the messenger be reckoned by a common word: since, [though] the appellation in each [is] alike, the cause of the appellation is nevertheless not alike in each. For otherwise is Christ called the fortitude, or virtue, of God — otherwise the angel. For the angel [is so called] only nuncupatively [in name], but Christ substantively as well. Christ both is called & is the virtue of God — [he] who, [as] a stronger [man] coming upon [the strong one] who was wont to keep his court in peace, overcame him with his own arm: & so mightily wrested from him the vessels of [his] captivity. But the Angel is called the fortitude of God, either because [he] merited the prerogative of an office of this kind, whereby [he] should announce the advent of that [same] virtue, or because [he] was to comfort the virgin — timid by nature, simple, bashful — lest [she] take fright at the novelty of the miracle. Which also [he] did: ‘Fear not,’ saying, ‘Mary, thou hast found grace with God.’ But her spouse too — a man, at all events, nonetheless humble & timorous — not irrationally, perhaps, [it] is believed [that] the same Angel comforted, although [he] be not then named by the Evangelist. ‘Joseph,’ [he] says, ‘son of David, fear not to take Mary [as] thy spouse.’ Fittingly, therefore, Gabriel is chosen for this work: nay, because such a business is enjoined on him, [he] is rightly designated by such a name.” [Thus] the Angel Gabriel was sent by God. By Hesychius (homily 2) the Mother-of-God [Deipara] is called the Prince of the Angels; by Andrew of Jerusalem (homily on the annunciation), one of the chief Angels. But than Gabriel — so great, [and] so eminent a Prince of the Angels — S. Michael is greater, as appears from Dan. 10 v. 13 & 21, & likewise c. 8, as there S. Jerome notes, & more manifestly (bk. 5, at the beginning of [the commentary on] the Apocalypse) Rupert. Michael, nevertheless, I said [that] Julius Scaliger seems to rank after Gabriel himself. First: because (bk. 8 of the Epidorpides), when [he] invokes all the holy Angels, & indeed by name S. Gabriel & Raphael, S. Michael [is] omitted. Secondly: in his Divae [Divine poems] he invokes [them], indeed—
(col. 664 — right column; printed “667”)
—S. Michael too, but in the place after S. Gabriel, [as] second. Because, however, [it] can happen that [Scaliger] had regard not for [Michael’s] dignity, but for his own personal pious affection toward S. Gabriel — & the verses [are] pious & useful — [it] pleases to ascribe them here. In [his] Divae:
Holy band, [ye] who bear the commands of the highest Father through the airs, swifter than fire, a chosen cohort [with] hair of lightning. Thee [I revere] before others, O eternal, unconquered power of the right hand: [for] the first salvation flowed forth, indeed, from thy mouth. Thee too I venerate, O Warrior, Olympus being pacified, [thou] who drivest the blackening flock to the lowest places. And thee, whose help the Father sends easily from the starry citadel to wretched, sick mortals. And [you], whatever other fire-born Minds [Mentes] [move], by an unknown Godhead, the waters congealed on the ground, [to] turn [them] at [your] will. And thou, to whom the Lord [entrusted] — [thou] truly without a name — a body, & committed my soul, [thou] holy [one], [to] my unholy [self]. You I acknowledge gladly, an admirer of your love: when the dire perils are driven from my house. My wife, [though] great with child, fell safe from a high summit: & the work [the unborn] hung, almost, in the empty air. And in the midst the infant, yet burned by no fire: & the rain of flame, driven off, fled from the cradle. Who gave these [things], if not fortune, the pitier of bitter [fate]? Who did [them], if not you, the ministering throng of God? Therefore, even if any perils by chance threaten me (for what else does hard fortune prepare for me?): from the pious neck of your poet, [the perils] hanging over [him], drive [them]; for to continue a good [work] is [the mark] of the good.
And in the seventh book of the Epidorpides (fol. 291):
Bright Minds, [ye] who whirl the swift orbs [of heaven]: [and] other Minds, [ye] who bear through the empty airs the commands of the Father, to this our useless race: Thee, Gabriel, I call, the fortitude of the highest Father: truly Evangel [good-news-bringer], announcing the rewards of salvation. Thou didst announce to God’s holy people the coming greatest wonders of earth-born John. Thee the Spirit sent before [him], to go into Bethlehem: that the virgin might foreknow the new love of the Lord; whereby [he] makes [her] fruitful [with] offspring, that [he] may free the enemy [i.e. mankind]. And thee I invoke, [O] medicine of God: & thee, the powerful [one]. And you, [ye] other Genii [guardian-spirits], by whose guardianship [warning] our minds forbids [them] to sin: a flaming cohort, close-packed [in] bright companies: an army innumerable, with radiant wings. And you, [ye] souls, seedlings [now] rid of perils: to whom now [God] shines, to be beheld face to face, although pious [affection] & good charity was warning you that [it] pleased [you] to relieve our [state] by your prayer. Hear, nonetheless, mindful of us, these few [words] of ours: & that which [it] behooved us to will in [our] former life: grant to us, that a firm will may now favor [us].
To all others, therefore, [is] Michael by far greater; & so the greatest of all. But if we ask why S. Michael himself was not sent to so great a business, [there is] no doubt [that] the causes [were] many to God. Of these, perhaps this [is] one: that, whereas on earth, among the men who are, will be, [and] have been, Christ the Lord & the Blessed Virgin hold the first [place], & [Michael] be much greater & more excellent than this [business] — nay, [be] to it [the] author of all magnitude & excellence — [it] was fitting that to that [business], out of the celestial messengers the simply greatest of all, [there] be sent, for this [reception] of all the rest the greatest, [an angel] lesser than that one [Michael]. And therefore among the Angels, who ministered to [Christ when he was] tempted & victorious, the prince was Michael (Matth. 4 v. 11): [Michael] was the Angel who, [Christ] praying in the garden—
(col. 665 — left column; printed “672”)
—[praying in the garden], afflicted with sadness & grief, consoled (Luke 22, verse 43); [he] who at other times so often appeared & spoke to him [Christ]. Hence Pantaleon (in the cited sermon): “Through these,” he says, “[the] two, Michael & Gabriel, descends every good giving, & every perfect gift, which is sent down upon the earth from God omnipotent [cf. James 1:17].” For these are the two greatest, & of equal moment, lamps of the divinity, which is one & triune.
III. If against a great King a great & grave [war] be [to be waged] against another King — or certainly [if] a war is to be conducted against an apostate & deserter of his own kingdom — [does he] not either preside over it himself, or certainly [does he] not send [as leader] the greatest & most powerful of his Princes against him? But for Christ the Lord, King of all, [there is] the greatest & gravest war against Lucifer, the Apostate of the celestial kingdom: & this [war Christ] wills to wage — & thoroughly to finish — not by his very self, but through S. Michael. Him, then, among Christ’s Captains & Princes, who would not reckon the greatest & most powerful? That the war is indeed of this kind, & that S. Michael is set over it, S. John teaches (Apoc. 12) — whether that war be taken as already past (in the world’s beginnings, when Lucifer fell), or [as] the world’s redemption (when, Christ the Lord suffering, the Prince of this world was conquered — as [they] thought in Andrew of Caesarea, & Bartholomew Sibylla, cap. 2 quaestione 9); or (which seems more correct) [as] a war [that is] still future, when the wickedest of all two-legged [creatures], Antichrist, shall either creep forth or burst out — as that same Andrew, [and] Aretas, & (homily 34) S. Gregory explain.
IV. “After the fall of the devil,” says Bellarmine (bk. de Pontifice cap. 9), “that S. Michael is prince of all the Angels is gathered from chapter 12 of the Apocalypse, where [it] is said: ‘Michael & his Angels.’ For what is ‘Michael & his Angels,’ but ‘Michael & his army’? For as, when [it] is said there, ‘the Devil & his angels,’ we understand all the evil Angels to be subject to the Devil, [as] soldiers to an emperor: so, when [it] is said ‘Michael & his Angels,’ we must understand [that] all the good Angels acknowledge Michael [as] their prince.”
V. If in the greatest matters, pacts & covenants are to be made with some King or people, must not the King himself — either by his very self, or (if for certain causes he will not) through him who is second Prince from himself — do all these [things]? But the Lord willed to speak with the human race, & to covenant certain great & grave [things] (Exod. 3; c. 20; Acts 7); nor did [he] think [it] fitting to do these by his very self, as [is] disclosed elsewhere. On him, therefore, whom [he] had as the greatest & most fitting among those subject to him, [he] imposed this his own person [role]. And that [one] was S. Michael, as the not-ignoble Pantaleon (cited before) hands down.
VI. If some King have several peoples & kingdoms, [and] one of these be the greatest & dearest to the King himself, over which he wishes to set someone of his Princes: whom, I ask, would he set [over it], but the greatest & best? But the Church, which is on earth, is that greatest people & kingdom, & dearest to God; & that both formerly & now S. Michael has been set over it by God, I showed above (quaest. 42). Therefore [Michael is] the greatest & most power-
(col. 666 — right column; printed “673”)
-ful of all the Angels.
VII. If someone lead me into the hall of some great King, & bid [me] look at all who are around the King — the princes & magnates — & say which of all these would seem the Prince, & inferior to the one King [alone]: I would ask for some delay, I would carefully survey all with [my] eyes; & then at last I would judge him the Prince in dignity, to whom the King himself bore greater honor than to all others, & whom [he] wished to be cultivated & observed more than [all] by all. For into this opinion both the daily usage of palaces, & that ancient [example] in [the book of] Esther — the figures of Haman [Aman] & Mordecai [Mardochaeus] — would lead me. But whom of the celestial spirits, hitherto, in the Mosaic & Christian Church, has God prosecuted with greater honor than S. Michael? to whom did [he] assign nobler & more excellent elogia in the scriptures? on whom did [he] place greater & more splendid offices? whom did [he] adorn with more & more marvelous miracles? unto whose veneration did [he] will more temples & chapels, more images & statues, more feasts & public & private prayers, to be made? Repeat what [things], in question 43, [were] few indeed, but truly done.
VIII. This was also the opinion of great men, both formerly & now. “To thee,” says S. Basil (homily on the Angels), “O Michael, leader of the supreme spirits — [thou] who in dignity & honors [art] preferred above all the rest & the supreme spirits — to thee, I say, I make supplication.” “First,” says the oft-cited Pantaleon, “Michael obtains the [first] place among those thousands, & the ten-thousand myriads of Angels; & nearest [to God], & without amazement [stupor] (each of which is a token of the highest dignity, & of a certain — so to say — familiarity with God himself), [he] sings the thrice-holy & admirable hymn: & [he] is the greatest & most brilliant Star of the Angelic order.” Again, in Surium (fol. 407): “[God] willed Michael, the supremely-blessed & everywhere-to-be-heard & from-every-side-to-be-venerated Prince of the militia, to be the president of the better & divinely-inspired & most-faithful men, & to bear the care of their salvation.” And (pag. 408): “Michael is the true & sincere assessor of God, & leads the orders of the celestial virtues: & is the wise governor of those who have believed in God.” And: “Michael, the supreme of all, & bearing the fire, the lamp of the divinity — which is the beginning of light, one & triune — & of subtle natural constitution: [he] who swiftly traverses the ends of the earth, & piously, to those to whom God wills, appears with changed form.” And below: “Since therefore we have him [as] a patron to be looked up to & the greatest, & a powerful defender, & an intercessor who speaks freely & confidently before the King of all,
(col. 667 — left column; printed “634”)
—[an intercessor who speaks freely & confidently before the King of all — let us have] as the divine prince of the militia, Michael — O dear fathers, brethren, & assembly gathered by God; [and] let us all, always, piously, in pure hearts, magnificently extol him, as [one] truly most pure; & with words of gladness & spiritual exultation, as befits an Archangel, let us today attend [him] with honorific words & praises, & offer [ourselves] to him with love & desire, & venerate [him] — because [we] ardently flock together to his sacred feast, to venerate his temple, which is of [that] pious name — that [we] may abundantly gather his perennial & salutary graces & defenses of intercession. For that great Leader of the army of God is liberal & munificent — [who], with his most divine co-archangel Gabriel, blesses, strengthens, fills with grace, gladdens & adorns & bedecks the hearts of the faithful, as [one] who is more powerful than all the saints. For [he] leads all the created nature that is under the sun to the light. And all his praisers [he] has eminently snatched from various necessities: & those who in every place have piously invoked him, [he] frees from perils, both those which are seen, & those which fall under [our] understanding. The Churches of the faithful & orthodox peoples [he] gladdens, [he] guards the Commonwealth of the Romans, [he] arms the Emperor who loves Christ against the Barbarians, [he] renders the Christians victors, [he] pursues the enemy foes, from the calumnies of men [he] preserves his own servants: from those who persecute [them], [he] frees the pious [from] troubles: from the huge waves of the sea [he] snatches those who invoke him: [he] supplies the fertilities of the fruits of the earth: those who are in darkness [he] leads: those to whom wrong is done [he] defends: [he] consoles those who are faint-hearted: the sick [he] visits, [he] goes surety for sinners; [he] repels the assaults of demons, [he] quenches the flame of the vices: that we may do sanctity [i.e. holiness], [he] leads us [on]: & all who, [with] faith & desire, alacritously celebrate his holy & venerable feast, [he] frees from every difficulty & harmful encounter, & gives salutary grace [as] prince of the militia of God, to a petition always useful [he] leads [them], & to the way of penance, & for them [he] procures the remission of sins, & into the station of the just [he] numbers [them], in the kingdom of heaven, by the grace of Christ the most clement God.”* And in the narration of the miracles of the same: “For by how much the holy nation of the Christians is more excellent than all the rest, by so much [it] is necessary [that] the dignity of the Archangel Michael, who bears the care of the Christian race, be greater. For the essence of the Angels has no difference, but [only] an excellence of dignity. For [he] wills all men to be saved, [he] who bears the care of all, & is by nature benign.” Rabanus (bk. 1 de cruce fol. 193): “But Michael, prince, the Leader of those who dwell on high.” & (in book two, in the same [work], figure 3): “Michael, Leader & Prince of the people of God.” Nicetas Coniates (bk. 3, fol. 208): ὁ ἀρχιστράτηγος τῶν θείων καὶ ἀΰλων τάξεων Μιχαήλ [ho archistratēgos tōn theiōn kai aülōn taxeōn Michaēl, “Michael, the commander-in-chief of the divine & immaterial orders”]. “Michael,” says Laurentius Justinianus (at the cited place), “is set over the holy spirits, as Lucifer over the evil.”
IX. What of the Church? Does she not teach this openly enough — when, as we saw above, she sings him the primate of the celestial army, the victor & treader-down of Zabulus [the devil]? when in other prayers she calls upon [him as] the Prince of the celestial militia, & the provost of Paradise (as also noted, bk. 8 cap. 45, by Caesarius)? when — as Catharinus observes at the cited place — she assigns him the first place among all the Angels, & (after the Blessed Virgin) the nearest [place] in the litanies? when she designates him the standard-bearer [signifer], who represents the souls of the departed into the holy light? For although the standard-bearer seems to be under the Leader [Dux]: nevertheless, when [it] concerns the place & army in which the greatest King himself is present, the chief standard of the chief Leaders is wont to be entrusted to the chief [officer]: nay, even if the King wish to be absent, when [he] creates for himself a Vicar & Imperator, [he] gives into his hands his [own] sign & labarum — so that even from this one [thing] one may understand the supreme & chief dignity of S. Michael. But that sign — what [is it]? Is it indeed nothing, but — because in the militia there are wont to be signs [standards], & because they excel in it, [and] are called standard-bearers — for that cause only is [he] metaphorically called standard-bearer, that his excellence may be known? Or is there indeed some sign, which [he] really bears? And this can be spiritual, [something] which spiritually is conspicuous to all the spirits of the celestial militia, nay & to the spi-
(col. 668 — right column; printed “635”)
-ritual powers of wickedness also, & likewise to the souls translated from this state of life into that other. But what [sign is it]? [It] can be of such a kind as displays the great grace & benefit of CHRIST JESUS toward men & Angels, & thereby wondrously refreshes all the good [and] terrifies the evil — in that manner, namely, in which a sure character is taught to be engraved on souls in baptism, confirmation, & orders, & the “sign of faith” in the Canon of the Mass. In the hymn Vexilla, & in the [office] of the Holy Cross, & in [its] Exaltation, [it is] often the standard of the cross. [It] can also be material. And this — by Eck, [in the] homily on Saint Michael — is handed down [to be] the sign of the cross, which they hand down (in Matt. 24) will appear on the highest [last] day of this world: D. Jerome, & other Fathers, Greek & Latin; & likewise D. Chrysostom (homily de cruce), S. Leo (epist. 97), Hilary (book three de Trinitate), Julius [Firmicus] (book three chapter five), D. Augustine (sermon 130 de tempore), S. Hippolytus (oration on the consummation of the world), S. Ephrem (book on true penance, chapter 4), the Sibyl (book 6), & the Church herself, singing: “This sign shall be in heaven, when the Lord shall come to judge” — whether it be that true cross to which the Lord was affixed (as S. Chrysostom, Blessed Ephrem, the Sibyl, & others think), or [whether it be] some other similar to it (as S. Anselm in the Elucidarium; S. Antoninus 4 p. tit. 24 cap. 11; & others, to whom [in] tome 2 disp. 59 sect. 2 Suárez subscribes). But to whom would so noble, so salutary & venerable a sign be entrusted, in that so-great solemnity of the whole world, except to him who — under the supreme Emperor CHRIST JESUS — is of the first dignity among those who are either called, or truly are, men (that I may not seem, namely, to be treating of the B. Virgin)?
X. But before the last Day of Judgment, in yet another way the Church declares this his first place. For in the third Antiphon of Lauds, she gives to God this prayer: “Archangel Michael, I have constituted thee prince over all the souls to be received.” Two [things] here to be observed: 1. that [it] says all souls; 2. to be received.
And concerning the former [point] it can be asked: Whether even the souls of infidels, of unbaptized infants, of Christians either impious & condemned to eternal punishments, or indeed of the pious but still needing some purgation, are to be received by Saint Michael?
Concerning the latter [point] it can be asked: Whence, & whither, does the same Michael receive them? Whether from [the body…]
(col. 669 — left column; printed “676”)
[…answering the first sub-question — whose souls Michael receives:] First, because [it] would not be fitting otherwise. Secondly, from various visions, in which foul spirits receive foul souls. Thirdly, because the souls which the Church asks to be represented by S. Michael into the holy light, she says are [those] of the faithful departed.
II. S. Michael does not lead the souls of the pious from the body to the particular judgment. Because there is properly no leading from the body to the particular judgment. For this judgment takes place in the same place where the body is: & in the very moment in which the soul leaves the body, as our Suárez most learnedly shows in his manner (tom. 2 disput. 52 sect. 2). I said “properly,” because where neither any place nor any time [is] interposed, no one can be led from anywhere to anywhere — unless he who merely stood by were called a “leader.” Which is improper. And yet not even so does [Michael] lead all by his very self, as will appear below.
III. From the particular judgment [Michael] receives all souls which fly straight & immediately from the body into heaven, or [which], already expiated, [fly] from purgatory: & [he] leads them thither. [It] is proved first, because the Church seems to say this very thing, when in the Mass of the Departed she prays that the standard-bearer S. Michael represent the souls of the faithful departed into the holy light. What [is] that holy light, but the place of everlasting light, & the empyrean heaven? Secondly, because in that very prayer she speaks of the dead as if of the dying (as [it is] explained, bk. 2 de purgatorio cap. 5, by Bellarmine): & by the phrases of hell properly-so-called she understands the pains of purgatory — that their magnitude, & why deliverance from them is deservedly sought, might in some way be shown [as] the reason — calling [them] “the pains of hell,” “the deep lake,” “the mouth of the lion,” & “something obscure.” Then, indeed, to almost all these she opposes: “but let the standard-bearer S. Michael represent them into the holy light.” Therefore the Church prays that the souls of the faithful either, without purgatory, immediately enter the dwelling of eternal light by S. Michael’s work; or certainly, if [they] must go to purgation, [that they] not tarry there longer, but be led out as [it were] by the hand of the same saint, & attain the most-shining homes of the heavens. Moreover, in the responsory of the 4th lesson, on his feast, is read: “Archangel Michael, provost of Paradise, whom the citizens of the Angels honor: whose honor bestows the benefits of the peoples, & [whose] prayer (another mode is not denied) leads through to the kingdoms of heaven.” And in the 5th responsory: “Michael the Archangel came with many Angels, to whom the Lord delivered the souls of the saints, that [he] might lead them into the Paradise of exultation.” In the responsory of the 7th lesson, on S. Martin — whom Michael took up with the Angels, whom [namely] S. Severinus had seen.
S. Michael receives these pious souls, & carries [them] into the light, not all by his very self, but through various ministering Angels. For it could happen that at the same moment many pious [persons] die & are judged in the most diverse regions, at whom [he] cannot conveniently be present by his very self. 2. This itself is enough, that [he] be said to preside over the reception of these souls. 3. [It] is quite consonant with reason, that various men of various merits & states be led by various Angels also. 4. This appears from the Gospel of Lazarus (Luke 16, verse 22 [the angels carrying Lazarus to Abraham’s bosom]); [and] from another beggar in Nicephorus (bk. 14 cap. 52); from another in S. Chrysostom (bk. 6 de sacerdotio): from others in R. David [Kimchi] on Zecha-
(col. 670 — right column; printed “677”)
-riah cap. 3. From these, therefore, I construct this Argument. He to whom this office [is] assigned by God among the Angels — that [he] receive the souls of all the pious, as [they] depart from the body or from purgatory, whether by himself or through those whom [he] shall have appointed, & lead [them] into the hall of celestial light — he is deservedly reckoned the first & most excellent of all the Angels. 1. because this office & dignity is most ample. 2. because Kings are wont to set the greatest of their Princes over [those] to be received, & to send [him] to meet [those] whom [they] esteem most & love [most]. 3. because, of the pious, for whom [heaven] is [the goal], many attain even the supreme choirs of the Angels, & dwell in them perpetually. For receiving these, therefore, none but the supreme Angels [must] likewise [be] confessed [to be] set [over them]. But over both these, & all simply to be received, S. Michael is set. Therefore [he is the first]. And to here pertain [the things] which I shall borrow below from Sophronius. Nor is there [reason] that the barking of the heretic Junius (controvers. 3 bk. 1 cap. 9) should delay [us], saying: “All these [are] not pious enough.” For either S. Michael is CHRIST, as he [Junius] himself wishes — & [then] why [are] these not pious enough? Do not these elogia agree with Christ the Lord in a much greater & later manner? — or [he] is not CHRIST, as we say, & what [is] impious in these?
XI. Most well-known to all [is] that picture, which places a balance [scales] in Saint Michael’s left [hand]: in whose one pan [is] a little soul; in the other are the works of that little soul. And this picture, indeed, Molanus (book de picturis chapter 16) numbers among those which could give the unlearned occasion of dangerous error — because they might gather from it that those are to be saved who, though they have evil works, yet have more good [works], which outweigh those [evils]: & contrariwise [that] those are to be damned in whom the evil outweigh the good. Something like which, he says, seems to be found in Augustine, [in] the sermon of some unskilled man, which is the first in the Vigil of Pentecost (in the Appendix, 59, quite near the end), where also, in the margin of the Louvain correction, [it] is noted: “To be read cautiously.” But this censure of Molanus is too harsh, & the picture has its origin from elsewhere. I will first count up the words of that sermon: “[It] is certain,” he says, “[that] he who carries thither more good works, & more evil works, will have in the punishments themselves some refreshment: but he who has nothing of good works, & brings with him a great store of evil — what awaits him, there is no need to say. For there will be there, without doubt, a compensation of goods & evils, & as [it were] both parts placed on a balance [statera]. Whichever [part] shall sink down, that will claim its workman for [the side] toward which the weight inclines. If, therefore, the multitude of evils prevail, [it] drags its workman to gehenna. But if the [works] of the good be greater, [they] will resist with utmost force, & fight against the evils, & recall their operator to the region of the living, from the very border of gehenna itself.”
(col. 671 — left column; printed “678”)
[…the pseudo-Augustine sermon, on the four cases:] “…namely, [provided] they shall have washed away those evils with the waters of penance, or decocted [them] with purgatorial fires.” But what unlearned [person] would gather anything more learned than this from [it]? And therefore these [images] are rather to be placed among symbolic pictures, which signify something not historical but dogmatic — as (cap. 18) the same Molanus adds, saying: “Michael’s balance, or scale, signifies that we ought to have laid aside every weight & the sin that surrounds us (Heb. 12), that S. Michael may represent us into the holy light.” And this indeed it signifies, but somewhat more too: namely, that the works of men are, after death, diligently examined, weighed, & assessed — so that, if the excessive gravity of sins depress the pan, one must perish; if otherwise, one ascends to eternal life. For something of the kind, through symbolic marks, is signified by the balance of Critolaus in Cicero; & [by] that [balance = Libra] which the Astrologers raised into the stars that gird the Zodiac twelvefold: but much more [by] that which Daniel most clearly depicted for us, when [he] said to the Babylonian King (cap. 5 v. 27): “Thecel [Tekel]: thou art weighed in the balance, & art found wanting.” Whence in Saint Damascene, [the] oration on the faithful departed: “Certain men, divinely enlightened,” he says, “relate [that] the actions of men, at the last breath of life, are weighed just as in a balance. And if the right pan exceed the other, [it is] manifest that he whose works are examined will be refreshed among those on the right. But if both hang equally, divine mercy will nevertheless altogether prevail: nay, as the Theologians report, if the left incline a little, the mercy of God will fill up the whole. Behold three divine judgments of the Lord: the first just; the second, indeed, merciful; the third, finally, more than merciful. One may add to these a fourth, when the evil works greatly outweigh. Alas for me, brethren, because even this [judgment] is in all ways most just, & pronounces justly against the guilty.” [So it] was — as is seen in the book of the life of S. John the Almsgiver [Eleemosynarius] — [that there] was a certain Publican, Peter, who, when [he] had thus, provoked, thrown a loaf into the face of a certain beggar, was afterward rapt out of himself, & saw all his works weighed in a balance, & that very loaf placed in the right pan. And, moved by this vision (says that same oration), this blessed man is reported to have attained to a huge magnitude of piety. This, then, is the signification of that balance, & [its] origin (as I think) [is] from that very place of Daniel. For who described those horrific symbolic [words] on Belshazzar’s [Balthasar’s] wall (Dan. cap. 5 v. 5)? To which same King did fingers appear on the surface of the wall? Did not an Angel do all these? Did not an Angel weigh that King in a balance? For Daniel indeed said: “The Lord hath numbered thy kingdom”; but not, “God hath weighed thee in a balance”; rather, “thou art weighed” — because, namely, this office [was] delegated to the Angels, just as, by a King or some powerful lord, the office of assaying gold & coin is wont to be entrusted to servants. But why is the same balance attached to Saint Michael, before the other Angels, by the Painters? “Michael is believed,” says (at the cited place) P. Viegas, “to exercise the particular judgment of the souls departing from the body: & thence [it] is, that [he] is painted with a sword & balance, that his supreme power, & the equality of [his] justice, may be declared, in weighing our merits or demerits.” But whence, & by whom, is this believed? I see testimony brought from him [Michael] himself, [as] set over the souls to be received, & representing them into the holy light—
(col. 672 — right column; printed “679”)
—but from that, how is the power of the particular judgment shown? For without this, both the reception & the representation of them [the souls] can perfectly well happen, as [was] said above: & [it] is one thing to be set over the souls to be received, another [over souls] to be judged: & to represent them into the holy light presupposes them already to be judged, & adjudged to the holy light. I would rather gather [it] thus. The particular judgment, though [it] is done first by God, & by his power & authority, seems nevertheless fittingly to be done through God’s ministers rather than through God himself immediately. First, because of this judgment, as of others, [there] are two actions on the Judge’s part: the examination [discussio] of deeds, & the pronouncement of just punishment or reward; & on the part of those who are judged, likewise two: namely, that in the examination [they] truly recognize the matter to be so; [and] in the pronouncement of punishment or reward [they] know, truly & certainly, that this, which is decreed, will be [theirs] in future. But the examination is said to be — not such as requires witnesses & time (as in our courts), but spiritual & sudden — [taking place] when to him who is judged all the [things] he did are so shown, & as [it were] read out [beforehand], that [he] is forced to assent to all. But does not this happen in these ways, if an Angel implant those species & notions in the mind, & so speak to him that [the] judged [one] recognize & confess all — [rather] than if God himself immediately spoke to each soul, [and] immediately by his very self infused that kind of species, or supernaturally elevated its mind? Likewise, the sentence itself — whether of punishment, or the decree of reward — is [it] not better made known, through Angels, to him who is judged, than if the Lord promiscuously addressed the good [and] evil by his very self immediately? Secondly, great Princes are wont rather willingly to entrust small & obscure judgments to some of their own [officers]. Thirdly, [it] is fitting that the general judgment be done by God himself publicly before the whole world: therefore, that the particular [judgment, done] before any single [person], [be done] by his ministers. Fourthly, in the last general judgment [there] will be a public approbation of all the particular judgments: therefore these can be exercised by an inferior. Fifthly, almost all the other [things] which pertain to men, God has done through Angels, as long as this state of things endures: therefore also the particular judgment. Sixthly, the general judgment will be exercised by God, & Christ’s humanity, as the head of all creatures. Therefore the particular [judgments] can now be exercised through the Angels, the ministers of God & of the same [Christ’s] humanity. Seventhly, before Christ the Lord was incarnate, particular judgments were made: & now all confess [that] these are not exercised immediately by God, because Christ the Lord says of himself, according to [his] humanity (Matth. 28): “All power is given to me in heaven & on earth.” Therefore, before the incarnation too, [they] were not exercised immediately by God. For the particular [judgments] must be exercised in the same manner [as] also the general judgment of all will be one. Therefore, before the incarnation, [they] were exercised through Angels. Therefore now too — but with this difference, that now [they] are exercised also by the power & authority of Christ the Lord’s humanity [now] existing: formerly not so. From these, moreover — [would] not [one] easily gather [that] S. Michael presides over the particular judgments, [one] who holds as certain both this which has now been proved, [namely] that these particular [judgments are], by Christ the Lord, committed to the Angels as inferior Judges, & that [other point] which above was already before establish-
(col. 673 — left column; printed “680”)
—ed, [would he not] join [the point] that S. Michael is, & always was, the president of the whole Church? For if, under the supreme Judge, [there] are Angels [as] particular Judges, who [is] more apt, & — to preside over all — more suitable, than he who bears a certain universal care & patronage of the universal Church? And hence, at last, arises that [conclusion], for the sake of which all these [things] have been said by me [as] an argument. He is deservedly held the highest & first of all the Angels, who received from God the power of presiding over all men individually to be judged — so that either by his very self [he] act [as] Judge, or subdelegate other Angels. For [it] is not right [that] anyone be judged by an inferior. But many of men are raised to the supreme orders of the Angels — so that the B. Virgin alone, who is superior to all the Seraphim (as D. Bernard & S. Chrysostom show, in the sermon on the Nativity of the B. Virgin, in the lesson of the 12th day of September), seems to be judged immediately by Christ the Lord: & [so that] the balance may be the index & ensign of S. Michael’s so-great power & justice.
XII. [There] is a certain prayer in the litanies of the Angels (fol. 79 of the Brussels edition), this: “O God, who to Blessed Michael — the Prince standing by [thee], & fighting [as] the supreme of the celestial forces, under the aid of the salvific cross foreseen from eternity — gavest a glorious triumph over the most proud Prince-of-demons [Daemoniarcha]: we beseech thee, that to us — arming our forehead with the salutary sign, & invoking the name of the aforesaid Michael the triumpher — thou grant fortitude & victory against the visible & invisible enemies, that we, free from their impediment, may be able to conduct our [life] according to thy divine commands.”
[There] is also a history, which shows S. Michael to be — not, indeed, precisely the highest, but yet from the highest order of the highest [angels] — provided that (against Maximus & Pachymeres) that [teaching] be held, which by Dionysius the Areopagite (cap. 7 of the Celestial Hierarchy), by D. Gregory (homily 34 on the Gospels), & by the Theologians following these thereafter, is handed down: [namely] that the highest order is [that] of the Seraphim. For, in the year of the Lord 1224, in September, when — in his usual manner in the mountains of Alvernia [La Verna], in honor of S. Michael, besides that Lent common to all Christians, [he was keeping] another “forty-days” [fast], which [he] prolonged from the [feast] of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin to the very feast of our Archangel — S. Francis was fasting: behold, [there] flying down to him from the summit of the heavens, on the very day of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (or certainly about that day), one of the Seraphim, shining with marvelous light, & conformed into the likeness of the crucified [Christ], engraved the stigmata of the sacred wounds of CHRIST the Lord on that saint’s side, feet, & hands. But who [was] that Seraph? Whom did our Lord JESUS CHRIST deign to invest with the power & authority of representing himself, placed on the altar of most-ardent charity, & of conforming his own sacred wounds onto the members of the saint? Who, but S. Michael — whom that saint was wont to venerate especially among the celestial minds, whom he was worshipping by that very [fast] which he had then appointed himself, & by fasting, & solitude, & daily & nightly prayers? I know what Luther barks against this history on chapter 6 of [the epistle to the] Galatians, [and] what Beza [barks]. But are these more knowing of ancient matters than [those] who lived in those very times, & saw the stigmata themselves, & [handled them] with their own—
(col. 674 — right column; printed “681”)
—hands? Are they [themselves] more lovers of the truth, or worthier of faith, than the innumerable [witnesses] who are testifying [to it]? than S. Bonaventure & S. Antoninus, who committed [it] to writing? than God himself, who confirmed [it] with so many & so great miracles? But I have treated this very [matter] more [fully] on that place of that epistle [Galatians]. [It] can also be seen [in] cap. 13 of our Turrianus against Boquinus. XIII. To here also pertain those encomia of the Rabbis, which were set down in question 42. XIV.
[It] remains that [the things] which can be objected against [this] be resolved. 1. [Objection:] “He is called Archangel.” But I have already said [that] this name extends quite broadly, so that generally all who excel the inferior Angels are called Archangels: yet sometimes [it] be taken for a certain genus of those superiors, in two ways. 1. as [it were] a name of a genus, left to one species for which no other name has yet been found. And so [it] is said [that] in the lowest Hierarchy the second order is [that] of the Archangels — as, among the Philosophers, that kind of names are also used, [in the] verse [of the] chapter “disposition,” in the first species of quality. 2. κατ’ ἐξοχήν [kat’ exochēn, “par excellence”], & so, only the highest of all are Archangels: & among these, most of all S. Michael — just as, among us, “the Orator” [is] Cicero, “the Poet” Virgil, “the Apostle” D. Paul; concerning which mode of speaking [see] also the Institutes of law (bk. 1 tit. 2). II. “[Those] who are of the higher Hierarchies are not wont to be sent [as] Angels [messengers].” [This] is denied out of Hebrews c. 1; & the causes, as I think, [being] by no means futile, of the negation [made] there, I have adduced; & at the same time [it] has been shown [that] by that very [text] nothing is detracted from the authority of D. the Areopagite. And I see that opinion now approved by very many — as by P. Ribera (on c. 1 of that epistle), [and] P. Blasius Viegas (on c. 12 of the Apocalypse). III. “[Angels of the highest order] are at least not wont to be sent to such [tasks], & so often, as those to & for which S. Michael is read [to be] sent.” I answer, [that] therefore S. Michael is sent to such & so often, because to him have been committed, by Christ the Lord, the chief [care] of the whole Church, & of [the care] of its individual members. IV. Many & good authors have placed S. Michael, in the lowest Hierarchy, among the inferior Archangels. I am not ignorant of that, as I noted at the beginning of the question. But in a matter which is sanctioned by no dogma of faith, to go to this or that side [is] licit — whither, namely, the probity of the arguments, [and] piety, & the love of truth shall have led us. And truly, that opinion which I have hitherto set forth concerning S. Michael’s dignity is most pleasing to me for this reason too, that it is a middle between the extremes. For those Catholics who give him lower places [in the hierarchy] depress S. Michael more than [is] fair; those heretics who make him God — [i.e.] both [him and] Christ Jesus — exalt [him] more than [is] fair.
I say thirdly, [that] S. Michael is now simply the chief, & first & supreme, of all the Angels. For [he] holds the principate both of the good Angels, as has hitherto been shown, & of all the damned. For although Lucifer was once prior to him [in rank]: yet — whether [he] be of a diverse species of nature, or (as [was] said above) of the same — [Lucifer] is now much inferior, despoiled of all the ornaments of grace; hindered also in his natural endowments, & constrained [so] that [he] cannot, by his own choice, use — or rather abuse — them; cast out from the celestial hall; thrown into darkness & filth; consigned to eternal flames; conquered & trodden down by all the Saints; by boys, as Michael says—
(col. 675 — left column; printed “682”)
—Michael Syngelus [says] in [his] oration on S. the Areopagite, & before him, S. Athanasius in [his] first oration against the Arians — [Lucifer], like a little sparrow, [is now] despised & mocked: the laughing-stock of the whole world, a running-sore [vomica], & a thing of shame [propudium]. But it pleases [me] to close the streamlet of this question with the most beautiful & most useful little prayer from the cited place of Sophronius, this: Thou indeed, [he] says, thrice-most-holy Prince of the sacred host, & minister Michael, coryphaeus [leader] of the Angels, most worthy of all worship, & of all praise & celebration, illumine my inner senses: strengthen my heart, tossed by the waves of this life: raise up my mind, inclined to earthly things, upward to celestial prudence: strengthen [my] dead feet, lest I forsake the path which leads to the heavens: heal my actions, which breathe forth rankness [gravedolentiam], & plainly rot away: [and] at last take care of the rest of my miseries, & the troubles of my labors. Again, [both] by thing & by name, Thee, Michael, I beg & beseech, & with as-great feeling as I can, that to me — [about] to go out from the racecourse of this life — thou mayest appear glad & peaceful: & mayest hide me under the honored veil of thy wings: & mayest establish me, snatched from the narrow & dark places of the lower regions [inferorum], in the place of the admirable tabernacle. Amen.