Ondersoek en antwoord [...] op 't request door de gedeputeerden der Noordhollandsche synode tot Edam

Whoever looks at the passage from which they have extracted these words will need no small effort to find therein the irreverence that I am accused of showing to the Holy Prophets or Apostles by speaking thus. I say first of all that the Scripture speaks of Michael and Gabriel, two well-known angels referencing Revelation 12:7, 9; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Daniel 10:13, 12:1, 8:16, 9:20; Luke 1:11, 19, 26 in a verbloemder wijse figurative or metaphorical manner, that is, improperly and by analogy. If that is poorly said, then they must understand it literally, that Michael fought with the Dragon or Satan and threw him down from Heaven. But our translators can very well tolerate that one should understand not only this, but also the appearance of Satan before God's throne in Job 1 and 2, figuratively (which I call in Dutch "verbloemder wijse"). For they say in their notes on Revelation 12:8, number 20, that not much depends on a literal reading. But much would have to depend on it if such great irreverence toward the Holy Writers were contained therein. Or should one believe that the angels, being spirits, nevertheless have flesh and bone, and eyes to see God's face (or that God himself has a face), or feet to stand before God? If not, then that is also said there in a verbloemder wijse figurative manner.

But if it is about the last words (for I must guess what they mean), that "one can hardly know what to make of it," then they may again accuse the translators as much as me of irreverence. For they do not know it either. In Daniel 10:13, at number 40, they leave it undecided whether one should understand Christ himself or some created angel by the name of Michael. Yet they clearly acknowledge that the name Archangel in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is explicitly distinguished from Christ, at number 36. But then again, in Revelation 12:7, they work on this ground: that Christ himself, according to the opinion of almost all interpreters, must be understood by the opperengel archangel Michael. From which I may reasonably conclude that our interpreters and translators, concerning this matter (without offense), know even less what is to be said of it.

If it is quite irreverent to speak of Prophets and Apostles by admitting one's ignorance regarding such matters or words of Scripture where salvation does not depend on it, then how is it to be forgiven to most teachers? They show their knowledge from the pulpit or in their writings through various interpretations of Hebrew and Greek words, and then still leave the readers and listeners in uncertainty as to what they should make of it. This happens even in matters of the greatest importance, such as knowing whether the Scripture speaks of God or of the Devil, as in Isaiah 53:10, or whether something is the name of God or of a creature. They say this often differs by only a single dot or depends on the belief of the Jews, as in Genesis 18:10, and a hundred similar things. If that is