De Moor IX:13: The Division of Angels

[We could use your help: If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

Angels, α.  are ludicrously divided by Sex, since they are mere Spirits, among whom neither marriage nor generation obtains, according to Matthew 22:30.  Nevertheless, there were not those wanting, who established one of the Cherubs on the ark as male and the other as female, with Molanus, a Theologian of Leuven,[1] and with Arias Montanus[2] in his Besaleële, Critici Sacri, London, tome 8, column 612:  which yet others interpret allegorically.  Among the Papists there are not wanting those that dream some incubi and others succubi for generation, and also relate that from sexual congress of this sort offspring is able to be created and has been created:  see MARESIUS, Systemate Theologico, common place V, § 30, who observes that a figment of this sort is easily able to be twisted unto the prejudice of the parentage of Christ, but is altogether apt for covering the secret whoredoms of Nuns:  add VOETIUS, Disputationum theologicarum, part I, pages 785, 935-938, who enumerates a number of authors standing here both for the affirmative and for the negative opinion, to the latter of which he himself accedes.  The Jews speak in an equally nonsensical way concerning Lilith, a female demon, who was Adam’s first mate, before he took Eve to wife:  see Manasseh ben Israel, de Creatione, problem XXII, page 88.

Dionysius the Areopagites

β.  Equally ineptly is a Division of the Angels sought from the diverse condition of those Attending and those Ministering.  Thus DIONYSIUS the Areopagite, de cœlesti Hierarchia, chapters VIII, XIII; and from him GREGORY the GREAT, homily XXXIV in Euangelistas, opera, tome 3, columns 117, 118; and THOMAS AQUINAS, Summæ, part I, question CXII, pages 203-205, teach, that some Angels are Attendants, who always attend upon God and are never sent out, and such are the supreme Orders, namely, Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, and Dominions:  others are Ministers, who are sent for all ministry, and such are the remaining five inferior Orders:  compare also CORDIER, ad Dionysium de cœlesti Hierarchia, chapters V, XIII.  But À LAPIDE[3] himself on Hebrew 1:14, Commentariis in Epistolas Paul, page 844, refutes this opinion; warning at the same time, that DIONYSIUS does not assert this opinion, but only sets it forth as probable; and that GREGORY does the same, who admits that nothing certain is able to be said on this matter.  Certainly, 1.  those various Orders of Angels are thus supposed out of Dionysius without proof; compare the more lengthy discussion in § 19 of this Chapter.  2.  In Hebrews 1:14, Paul considers all Angels without distinction as Ministers and wont to be sent.  3.  Neither in Daniel 7:10 does he mean for these terms of Ministering and Attending[4] to be referred to diverse Classes of Angels, since to attend is verily a symbol of Ministry, 1 Kings 10:8:  and also all Angels are found as Attendants, 1 Kings 22:19; Revelation 7:11, and thus the Prophet describes the Attending Angels as ready for ministry, because after the likeness of royal attendants they are ever present before their Lord to receive and execute His commands.  4.  Gabriel confesses himself to be at one and the same of the Attending Angels, and to have been sent by God, Luke 1:19.  They name the Seraphim and Cherubim among the superior Orders, which are always attending upon God, and are not wont to be sent forth:  however, you find that Cherubim were sent to guard paradise, Genesis 3:24.   You read that one of the Seraphim was sent to Isaiah, so that he might fulfill the ministry concerning him, Isaiah 6:6, 7.

With respect to the Present State, they are Good or Evil.  They are thus called Good on account of their Goodness, in which they, having been created along with all the rest, persevered.

Those are called Elect, 1 Timothy 5:21; compare Chapter VII, § 3:  Holy, Matthew 25:31:  Heavenly, Matthew 24:36:  of Light, 2 Corinthians 11:14:  also simply Angels, as the better part of the same, or the Angels of God, of the Lord, of Christ, etc., over against the Angels of Satan, who with their Prince defected from God, yet they are not at all independent of the Government of the divine Providence.

And there is one of them known by the Proper Name of Gabriel.  Concerning Michael consult the things said in § 2.  That by Gabriel a Divine Person is also understood, namely, the Holy Spirit, HEINRICH HULSIUS thought, de Prærogativis Israel, Dissertation II, § 43, and Dissertation VI.  The same is held by FREDERIC ADOLPHUS LAMPE on Psalm 45:3, Exercitation III, § 12, pages 120, 121, and Dissertationum philologico-theologicarum, volume II, Disputation IX, chapter X de Spiritu Sancto, § 25-28, pages 341-345.  HONERT, in his Veris Dei Viis, book V, chapter II, tome 2, pages 953-956, in the notes, by Gabriel and Michael understands the Holy Spirit; which HONERT the Younger also defends in his Dissertatione de Angelo loquente in Campis Bethlehem, Miscellaneorum Sacrorum, part II, pages 594-607.  But not without good reason does the Most Illustrious VRIEMOET, in his Dissertatione de Angelo Gabriele, § 10, page 12, ask, speaking of Michael:  Who would believe that by this name, diverse from Gabriel, the very same person with him is designated in one and the same book of Daniel?  While VRIEMOET in the Dissertation just now cited, but also our AUTHOR in his Exercitationibus Textualibus XXV, Part VI, contend that Gabriel is a created Angel, and not the least among these, on account of the notable messages conveyed by him.  Nevertheless, that he is a created Angel, our AUTHOR thinks, because he is reckoned with the Angels, is sufficiently distinguished from Michael, and to him is nothing attributed that is not applicable to created Angels.  α.  For, whether by the Mighty one of God, or the Strength of God, or my Fortitude is God (which last WITSIUS maintains, but with VRIEMOET disapproving), or by Man of God, as the Most Illustrious VRIEMOET is altogether convinced ought to be done, you translate this name Gabriel with respect to dignity, strength, or ministry; it is most aptly applicable to a created Angel with respect to its common condition, while with respect to use it is applied to one alone.  β.  That Gabriel is appellatively called ‎הָאִישׁ, the man,[5] an Angel, the Angel of the Lord:  all the works ascribed to him are ministerial, most aptly applicable to a created Angel, namely, to declare the vision to Daniel; to give him understanding of the most useful things, having regard both to the mysteries of the Gospel, and to the future happenings of the World and Church, Daniel 8-12; finally, to convey the announcement to Zacharias concerning John the Baptist, to Mary concerning the future nativity of the Lord, Luke 1 (where in verses 15 and 35 Gabriel speaks of the Holy Spirit in the third person, without any indication to justify that he thus speaks of himself), and perhaps to the shepherds of Beth-lehem concerning the Christ just now born, Luke 2.  In addition, both MARCKIUS and VRIEMOET resolve whatever things are alleged by others in favor of understanding a divine person in Gabriel.  That by Gabriel is understood a created Angel, is also the position of ALPHEN on Daniel 9, page 258, and also on 1 Thessalonians 4:16, pages 37, 38, 40; and likewise ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section X, § 34, 35, 37, pages 1051-1054, 1058-1061; but also JACQUES ALEXANDRE VOS, Commentario in Danielem, tome 2, pages 154-158, 302, 303.

At the same time, that the name Gabriel is a name Proper to any one Angel, appears to be sufficiently evident; so that, although with respect to its signification it is able to be accommodated to all Angels, it is not actually bestowed promiscuously on them all, which was the opinion of COCCEIUS, writing on Daniel 9:21, that the Name Gabriel was not proper to one Angel, but to all the holy myriads, one of which speaks in the name of God to men, which makes for the glorifying of God.  The Most Illustrious WITSIUS rightly observes to the contrary, Miscellaneorum sacrorum, tome 1, book I, chapter VI, § 2:  I am not able to agree with Cocceius.  Because Daniel distinguishes this Angel, marked with the name Gabriel, from the rest, and discerns that he is the same one that he had previously seen.  And that very Angel expressly says to Zacharias, I am Gabriel, who standeth before God;[6] building greater confidence in his words by that emphasis, and teaching that he is the same one that had of old revealed those tremendous mysteries to Daniel.  Add the Most Illustrious VRIEMOET in the Dissertation cited, § 9.  Especially at this point is it also worthy of note, that, although ‎גַּבְרִיאֵל/Gabriel probably means Man of God, not only is it not distinctly read אֵל גֶּבֶר, mighty man of God, or אֱלֹהִים אִישׁ, man of God, but as one composite word, ‎גַּבְרִיאֵל/Gabriel:  but that in addition before this word is set the noun אִישׁ/man, which would only be done if גַּבְרִיאֵל/Gabriel were a Proper Name:  ‎וְהָאִ֣ישׁ גַּבְרִיאֵ֡ל, even the man Gabriel, Daniel 9:21.

And a third, Raphael…Uriel, etc.  Concerning these names of Angels, the offices of the same Angels, their emblems, etc., you are able to read charmingly discoursing with pleasure CORNELIUS À LAPIDE on Revelation 1:4, pages 17-20, especially pages 19, 20; and also À LENT,[7] de Theologia Judaica moderna, chapter VIII, § 5 and following, § 16:  see also ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section VIII, chapter I, § 12, 14, pages 750, 751.

[1] Joannes Molanus (1533-1585) was a Flemish Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation priest and theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at the University of Leuven (1578-1585).

[2] Benedict Arias Montanus (1527-1598) was a Spanish Benedictine monk.  He attended the Council of Trent, and he was heavily involved in the production of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible.  Montanus also commented on a number of Biblical books.

[3] Cornelius à Lapide (1567-1637) was a Flemish Jesuit scholar.  His talents were employed in the professorship of Hebrew at Louvain, then at Rome.  Although his commentaries (covering all the Roman Catholic canon, excepting only Job and the Psalms) develop the four-fold sense of Scripture, he emphasizes the literal.  His knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and the commentators that preceded him is remarkable.

[4] Daniel 7:10:  “A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him:  thousand thousands ministered unto him (‎יְשַׁמְּשׁוּנֵּ֔הּ; ministrabant ei, in the Vulgate), and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him (‎קָֽדָמ֣וֹהִי יְקוּמ֑וּן; assistebant ei, in the Vulgate):  the judgment was set, and the books were opened.”

[5] Daniel 9:21.

[6] Luke 1:19.

[7] Johann à Lent (1654-1696) served as Professor of Church History, Hebrew, and Syriac at Herborn (1686-1696).