Concerning the time of this apparition — as to the day, & the portion of the day — judgment will be made from those [things] which, in the following chapter, will be brought forward in the destruction of Jericho: & otherwise R. Iuchanan [Yohanan] weighs this time in the Tractate Sanhedrin, ch. 6, fol. 44.
But concerning the mode of the apparition, the matter stands thus. If any of the Angels wishes to appear to a man, it is necessary that [he] take on to himself some embodied figure. Four kinds of spirits, says D. Bernard on the Canticle, sermon 5, are known to us: [that] of the beast, our own, the Angelic, & [that of him] who founded these. There is not [one] out of them all for whom — whether for its own sake, or for another’s, or for both — a body is not necessary, or the likeness of a body — excepting only that [One] to whom every creature, as much corporeal as spiritual, deservedly confesses, & says, Thou art my God; since thou hast no need of my goods. And afterwards: Now [as to] whether the super-celestial spirits have need of bodies; that most true & truly divine sentence makes us most certain [of it]. Are they not all, [he] says, ministering spirits, sent into ministry for the sake of those who receive the inheritance of salvation? In what mode, then, do they fulfil their ministry without a body? Finally, [it] is not [possible] to run about, nor to pass from place to place, except for bodies — which authority, as much undoubted as [it is] noted, proves the Angels frequently do. Hence [it] is that they both were seen by the Fathers, & entered in to them, & ate, & washed feet. Thus the inferior & the superior Spirit have need of their own bodies, but yet [of bodies] which they help, [and are] not also helped [by].
But what figure the holy Michael took to himself is declared in the text, v. 13, in a threefold [manner]. For, first, [he] is called a Man [Vir], in whom is recognized the human species, the male sex, [full] age, strength, [and] bearing. For otherwise [Michael] could have appeared, like the other Angels, in the shape of some bird — e.g. of a dove; in the feminine sex, as was perhaps done in many apparitions, when the B. Virgin, or other [women] from the heavenly [ones], wished to be seen. (Otherwise, I certainly know [these to be] the trifles [nugas] which Mahomet attributes to I-know-not-whom concerning the feminine sex of certain Angels, azoara 53 & 63.); in a childish or youthful age, as in Tobit ch. 12, q. 18; in a weaker body, as if [he] had put on the person of an old or decrepit [man]; in another bearing [habitu], which would have suited another either sex, or age.
(col. 676 — right column; printed “683”)
Michael, says Pantaleo in oration 1, swiftly goes about the ends of the earth, & — for those for whom God wills, & devoutly — appears with changed figure, [he] who came to Gideon like a ray of the sun. But if certain apparitions are attributed to this same Archangel by the same Pantaleon, [and] he himself went through all of them by his very self, [it] appears most clearly with how various both modes & forms of men he can offer himself to the sight. But if not all are his own apparitions, as is probable enough; nonetheless the same variety is understood [still] to be able to befit him. For what can other Angels [do], which he himself cannot?
Secondly, [he] is said [to be] standing over against Joshua [stans contra Iosue] — that is, in the region opposite, or in front of Joshua. Not, therefore, did [he] appear either flying, or sitting, or in another posture of body, than [befitted one] who [was] a man before a man, & strong & great before [one] strong & great. And [he] stood not aloft in the air, as that [Angel] of 1 Paralip. [1 Chron.] 21, v. 16, nor at the side, but on the ground & in front — yet not close by. For, so that Joshua could more inwardly behold, & thoroughly recognize, & address him, [Michael] had to advance some paces, v. 13.
Thirdly, [he] is said [to be] holding a drawn sword [euaginatum tenens gladium]. And in the Latin [one] could add, his own [suum]. For the Hebrew says, & his sword [was] drawn in his hand. The Greek [has] καὶ ἡ ῥομφαία ἐσπασμένη ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ [kai hē rhomphaia espasmenē en tē cheiri autou, “and the sword drawn in his hand”]; & therefore likewise, from the Hebrew, [one] could add ἡ ῥομφαία αὐτοῦ [hē rhomphaia autou, “his sword”] — which, although [it] seems to be understood well enough (for [he] did not have another’s sword), yet that reciprocation of the pronoun has an I-know-not-what of energy for signifying that [Michael] was girt with a sword, & had that sword drawn out from the sheath which was then hanging empty at [his] side. For if we only say, He carried a naked sword in [his] hand, [it] seems that [he] either bears it, so received from another, or [carries it] from home to some pomp — as if [he] is to be borne before a Judge or some Lord, or, in comedies, before Justice herself. But if [it] be said, He was holding his own sword in [his] hand, [it] appears that [he] drew it from its sheath, & that [he] had earlier been girt [with it]. And the exact same mode of speaking [is used] also of the Angel who appeared to David, 1 Paral. [1 Chron.] 21, v. 16, where the 70 [LXX] did not omit that αὐτοῦ [autou, “his”]; but in Num. 22 [Balaam’s angel] the same Hebrew phrase [was] twice rendered by the same [translators] as in this place. And hence [it] is understood [that] the bearing of this appearing Angel was not the simple [one] which would suit a man in any manner whatever, but a military [one]; & one all but rousing battle already. For [he] had already drawn the iron [sword]: [he] was already brandishing [it]: & with hand & eyes [he] seemed to seek him on whom he might fix it. From this warlike bearing, & from the person of archistrategus [commander-in-chief], which is indicated afterwards, since it is right, as I at least judge, to gather both the august species of him who was seen, & the rest — the panoply [full armor]: namely, on the head a helmet, on the breast a coat of mail [loricam], on the girdle a baldric, on the legs greaves [zosmata], & boots [ocreae] or military footwear [caligae] — so that [he] altogether represents the warrior whom the Apostle depicted, Ephes. 6. But all these [things] were so [arranged] that no sign appeared from which [one] might discern whether [he] were a soldier of this or of that side. Otherwise Joshua would have had no need of this question, Art thou ours, or of the adversaries? [Josh 5:13]. In this martial guise, therefore, S. Michael was seen by S. Joshua.
(col. 677 — left column; printed “684”)