Lectio 1
Lecture 1
6:1 In anno quo mortuus est rex Ozias vidi Dominum sedentem super solium excelsum et elevatum; et plena domus a majestate ejus; et ea quæ sub ipso erant implebant templum.
6:1 In the year that king Ozias died, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne exalted and elevated: and the house was filled with his majesty, and what was beneath him filled the temple.
6:2 Seraphim stabant super illud; sex alæ uni et sex alæ alteri: duabus velabant faciem ejus et duabus velabant pedes ejus et duabus volabant.
6:2 Upon it stood the seraphim: the one had six wings, and the other had six wings: with two they covered his face, and with two they covered his feet, and with two they flew.
6:3 Et clamabant alter ad alterum et dicebant: sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dominus Deus exercituum, plena est omnis terra gloria ejus.
6:3 And they cried one to another, and said: holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of hosts, all the earth is full of his glory,
6:4 Et commota sunt superliminaria cardinum a voce clamantis, et domus impleta est fumo.
6:4 And the lintels of the hinges were moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
6:5 Et dixi: væ mihi quia tacui, quia vir pollutus labiis ego sum et in medio populi polluta labia habentis ego habito et regem Dominum exercituum vidi oculis meis.
6:5 And I said: woe is me, because I have held my peace; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people that has unclean lips, and I have seen with my eyes the King the Lord of hosts.
6:6 Et volavit ad me unus de seraphim, et in manu ejus calculus quem forcipe tulerat de altari,
6:6 And one of the seraphim flew to me, and in his hand was a live coal, which he had taken with the tongs off the altar.
6:7 et tetigit os meum et dixit: ecce tetigi hoc labia tua, et auferetur iniquitas tua et peccatum tuum mundabitur.
6:7 And he touched my mouth, and said: behold this has touched your lips, and your iniquities shall be taken away, and your sin shall be cleansed.
204. In anno quo mortuus est rex. Postquam arguit in duabus tribubus culpam, adjungens poenam corrigentem, hic comminatur poenam condemnantem finaliter, scilicet poenam obdurationis; et ideo ista poena praedicitur per modum sententiae et cum solemnitate judicii. Dividitur ergo hoc capitulum in tres partes:
204. In the year that king Ozias died. After he denounces the fault of the two tribes, adding the corrective punishment, here he threatens the punishment of final condemnation, namely, the punishment of hardness of heart; and therefore that punishment is foretold in the manner of a sentence and with the solemnity of a judgment. Therefore, this chapter is divided into three parts:
in prima describitur sententiae auctor, scilicet judex;
in the first, the author of the sentence is described, namely, the judge;
in secunda sententiae denuntiator, minister judicis, ibi et dixi: vae mihi;
in the second, the one who announces the sentence, the minister of the judge, where it says, and I said: woe is me (Isa 6:5);
in tertia ponitur ipsa sententia, ibi audite audientes.
in the third, the sentence itself is set out, where it says, hearing, hear (Isa 6:9).
Circa primum duo ponuntur:
Concerning the first, two things are set out:
primo visionis tempus;
first, the time of the vision;
secundo ipsa visio, ibi vidi Dominum sedentem.
second, the vision itself, where it says, I saw the Lord sitting.
205. Quantum ad primum dicit in anno quo mortuus est Ozias, qui IV Reg. XV 5 dicitur Azarias, percussus lepra a Domino propter hoc quod usurpare voluit sacerdotale officium, ut dicitur II Paral. XXVI 21; sed postquam fuit percussus, filius ejus Joathan gubernavit domum regis et regnum usque ad mortem ejus: nec tamen dicitur regnasse tunc, sed magis vices patris gessisse; sed tunc primo regnavit quando mortuus est pater ejus. Unde ista visio ostensa est regnante Joathan, et praecedentia regnante Ozia.
205. As to the first, he says: in the year that king Ozias died. Ozias, who is called Azaraias in 2 Kings 15:5, was struck with leprosy by the Lord because he wanted to usurp the priestly office, as it says in 2 Chronicles 26:21; but after he was struck, his son Joatham governed the house of the king and the kingdom until his death; but nevertheless, he is not said to have reigned then, but rather to have been the vice-regent of his father; but then he first reigned when his father died. Thus this vision was revealed when Joatham reigned, and the preceding vision, when Ozias reigned.
206. Vidi Dominum sedentem. Hic ponitur visio.
206. I saw the Lord sitting. Here the vision is set out.
Et primo describit judicis solium;
And first, he describes the throne of the judge;
secundo assistentium ministerium, ibi seraphim.
second, the ministry of his assistants where it says, upon it stood the seraphim (Isa 6:2).
Haec autem visio dicitur a quibusdam fuisse imaginaria, a quibusdam intellectualis. Et assumitur ab ipso propheta figura ex consimili, sicut dicit Dionysius in Epistola ad Titum quod prophetae his quae plane vident sine figuris, circumponuntur figurae ad manuductionem audientium, qui per figuras sensibiles faciliter accipere possunt. Qualitercumque autem sit, oportet hic duo videre.
Now this vision is said by some to have been imaginary, by others to have been intellectual. And thus the figure is taken up by the prophet himself from something similar, as Dionysius says, in his letter to Titus, that figures are placed around things which the prophets see plainly and without figures in order to guide those who hear the prophecy, who can more easily receive what the prophet has seen plainly through sensible figures. But however it may be, it is necessary to see two things here.
Primo imaginationem figurae: vel a propheta visa, vel ab ipso composita;
First, the imagination of the figure, either seen by the prophet or composed by him;
et secundo ipsius figurae significationem: ad aliquid enim significandum spiritualiter inducuntur sensibiles figurae spiritualium in sacra Scriptura, sicut dicit Dionysius, et ille erit litteralis sensus, sicut etiam in locutionibus metaphoricis non illud quod significatur per verba, sed quod loquens per verba vult significare.
second, the signification of this figure: for sensible figures are introduced in Holy Scripture to signify something spiritually, as Dionysius says, and that will be the literal sense, just as in metaphorical speech the literal sense is not that which is signified by the words, but that which the speaker wishes to signify by the words.
207. Circa primum ergo sciendum quod templum aedificatum a Salomone habuit in altitudine centum viginti cubitos, sicut dicitur II Paral. III 3–4; et erat distincta altitudo per tres domos, quarum suprema habebat sexaginta cubitos, et utraque inferiorum triginta. Et de istis dicitur III Reg. VI 8 per cochleam ascendebant in medium coenaculum, et a medio in tertium. Vidit ergo solium Domini in supremo coenaculo, propter quod dicitur excelsum, id est altum, sicut et elevatum super omnia coenacula; et a claritate vultus ejus resplendebat medium coenaculum, propter quod dicitur domus plena majestate, id est gloria ejus; et ea quae sub ipso erant, id est ornamenta throni ejus, vel etiam splendor vestimentorum sive subditorum agmina, implebant infimum coenaculum in quod intrabant sacerdotes: propter quod dicit templum.
207. Concerning the first, therefore, it should be known that the temple built by Solomon was one-hundred-twenty cubits in height, as is said in 2 Chronicles 3:3–4, and this height was divided into three houses, the highest of which was sixty cubits, while both lower ones were thirty cubits. And of these is said in 1 Kings 6:8: by winding stairs they went up to the middle room, and from the middle to the third. Therefore, he saw the throne of the Lord in the highest room, because of which is said, exalted, that is, high, as it is elevated, above all rooms; and the middle room shines from the brightness of his face, because of which is said, the house was filled with his majesty, that is, his glory; and what was beneath him, that is, the adornments of his throne or also the splendor of his garments, or the ranks of his subjects, filled the lower room, in which the priests entered: because of which he says, the temple.
Alii dicunt aliter quod vidit solium altum in medio coenaculo, quod dicitur domus, quae plena erat mediis membris et brachiis Domini; inferius, quod dicitur templum, pedibus et tibiis, sed caput et collum prominebant in tertium tabulatum: III Reg. ult. vidi Dominum super solium suum sedentem, et omnem exercitum caeli assistentem et a dextris et a sinistris, Prov. XX 8 rex qui sedet in solio judicii dissipat omne malum in circuitu suo.
Others say otherwise, that he saw the high throne in the middle room, which is called the house, which was filled with the middle members and arms of the Lord; the lower room, which is called the temple was filled with his feet and legs, but his head and neck stuck up into the third story: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the army of heaven standing by him on the right hand and on the left (1 Kgs 22:19); the king, that sits on the throne of judgment, scatters away all evil with his look (Prov 20:8).
208. Circa secundum sciendum est quod hujus visionis significatum tripliciter a diversis assignatur.
208. Concerning the second, it should be known that the signification of this vision is assigned in three ways by various interpreters.
Quidam enim dicunt per sessionem in solio significari oppressionem captivitatis futuram, per repletionem domus a majestate significari quod hostes, qui sub ipsius dispositione erant, essent impleturi templum; et hoc tangunt Historiae.
For some say that the sitting on the throne signifies the coming oppression of their captivity; the filling of the house with majesty signifies that their enemies, who were under his direction, were to fill the temple; and the Histories touch on this.
Hieronymus autem aliter exponit, et melius, per sedentem significari Filii Dei majestatem, propter quod dicitur Jo. XII 41 haec dixit Isaias, quando vidit gloriam ejus et locutus est de eo; per solium significari angelos, in quibus sedet Deus, Ps. qui sedes super cherubim; per domum, Ecclesiam triumphantem, quae plena est gloria ejus; per templum, Ecclesiam militantem, quae plena est miraculis, vel angelorum agminibus quasi custodibus.
Jerome, however, explains, and better, that the seat signifies the majesty of the son of God, because of which it is said in John 12:41: these things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him; the throne signifies the angels, on whom God sits: you that sit upon the cherubims (Ps 79:2[80:1]); the house signifies the Church triumphant, which is full of his glory; the temple signifies the Church militant, which is full of miracles, or the ranks of angels, like guards.
Dionysius aliter exponit in XIII capite Caelestis hierarchiae, et melius, ut videtur. Per solium significatur eminentia divinae naturae, et dicitur excelsum propter sui nobilitatem, elevatum quasi supra alia levatum, in quantum omnia in infinitum excedit; in quo dicitur sedere, propter immobilitatem: unde dicit IX cap. De divinis nominibus quid autem dicendum de divina statione, praeter hoc quod manet in se ipso immobili identitate singulariter fixus. Et dicitur domus tota creatura, quae plena est majestate in quantum impletur participatione bonitatis ipsius secundum suam capacitatem; et per templum videtur intelligere ipsas superiores creaturas, quae replentur his quae sub ipso sunt in quantum bonitates receptae in ipsis deficiunt a bonitate Dei, quae tamen videntur propinquare.
Dionysius explains this otherwise in the Celestial Hierarchy 13.4, and better, as it seems. The throne signifies eminence of the divine nature, and it is called exalted, because of its nobility, elevated, as if raised above others, insofar as it exceeds all things infinitely; and he is said to sit in this because of his immovability; hence Dionysius says in the Divine Names 9.8: what also do we say concerning the divine standing other than that he remains in himself singularly fixed in immovable identity? And the house is said to signify all creation, which is full of his majesty, insofar as it is filled according to its capacity by participation in his goodness; and by the temple he seems to understand the superior creatures, which are filled by those things which are beneath him inasmuch as goods received in them fall short of the goodness of God, which they nevertheless seem to approach.
209. Sed contra hoc objicitur: Exo. XXXIII 20 non enim videbit me homo, et vivet, id est in hac mortali carne vivens; et Jo. I 18 Deum nemo vidit unquam. Ergo nec Isaias.
209. On the contrary, it is objected that, according to Exodus 33:20: for man shall not see me, and live, that is, living in this mortal flesh; and 1 John 4:12: no man has seen God at any time. Therefore, neither did Isaiah see God.
Ad quod dicendum quod nec interior nec exterior visus potest videre nisi moveatur a visibili, et secundum quod perfectius immutatur a visibili melius videt; et tunc perfectissime videt quando recipit actionem visibilis secundum totam suam virtutem: et inde est quod idem videtur diversimode a diversis, et interius et exterius, a quibusdam melius et a quibusdam pejus.
To which is to be said that neither interior nor exterior vision is able to see unless it is moved by the visible object; and insofar as it is more perfectly changed by the visible object, it sees better; and then it sees most perfectly when it receives the action of the visible object according to its whole power: and hence it occurs that the same thing is seen differently by different persons, both interiorly and exteriorly, and better by some, and worse by others.
Hoc igitur visibile quod est Deus nihil perfecte comprehendit, nisi quod totum ipsum capit, et ideo ipse solum sic se videt. Unde caeleste secretum, dicit Chrysostomus, non videtur in essentia sua sine medio, a quibusdam ad hoc secundum perfectionem quam habent a suscepto divino lumine attingentibus, sicut a beatis in patria et ab his qui elevantur per raptum ad illum modum visionis. Ab his autem minus perfectum visum habentibus videtur secundum similitudines quasdam bonitatis ipsius, sive in rebus sensibilibus sive in imaginibus sive in speciebus intelligibilibus: et hujusmodi est visio qua viderunt prophetae per lumen prophetiae, et qua videmus per fidem, et qua videtur per lumen rationis etiam a philosophis qui cognoverunt Deum, sicut dicitur Ro. I 20.
Therefore, nothing can see this visible object, which is God, perfectly, except what grasps it whole, and therefore God alone sees himself thus. Hence, according to Chrysostom, the heavenly secret is not seen in its essence without medium by some men who attain to it according to the perfection which they have from the divine light they have received, as by the blessed in heaven and by those who are elevated by rapture to that mode of vision. By those, however, who have a less perfect vision, God is seen according to certain similitudes of his goodness, whether in sensible things or images, or intelligible species: and of this kind is the vision which the prophets saw by the light of prophecy, and which we see by faith, and which is seen by the light of reason and even by philosophers, who know God, as is said in Romans 1:19–20.
210. Sed tunc restat quaestio utrum talem visionem immediate a Deo perceperint prophetae, vel mediantibus angelis. Et videtur quod immediate, ex ipso modo loquendi, quia dicit vidi Dominum, et non vidi angelum. Item de Moyse, Exo. XXXIII 11 loquebatur Dominus ad Moysen facie ad faciem, sicut solet homo loqui ad amicum suum. Item viderunt in speculo aeternitatis, ut communiter dicitur. Ergo viderunt quidam Deum.
210. But then the question remains whether the prophets perceived such a vision immediately from God, or by the mediation of angels. And it seems that it was immediately from his very manner of speaking, for he says, I saw the Lord, and not, I saw an angel. Likewise, of Moses, Exodus 33:11 says, the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man is wont to speak to his friend. Likewise, they saw in the mirror of eternity, as is commonly said: therefore some men have seen God.
Ad quod dicendum, secundum Dionysium IV cap. Caelestis hierarchiae, quod nullus purus homo, neque in patribus Novi neque Veteris Testamenti, accepit aliquam revelationem a Deo nisi mediantibus angelis. Et hanc dicit esse legem inviolabilem ut per prima media reducantur infima. Et hoc probat per locum a majori: quia etiam Moyses legem accepit mediantibus angelis, qui tamen excellentissime vidit; quod probatur per id quod habetur Gal. III 19 quid igitur lex? Propter transgressionem posita est, donec veniret semen cui promiserat Deus, ordinata per angelos in manu mediatoris, Act. VII 53 qui accepistis legem in dispositione angelorum, et non custodistis.
To which is to be said, according to Dionysius in the Celestial Hierarchy 4.3, that no mere man, neither of the fathers of the New nor the Old Testament, received any revelation from God except by the mediation of angels. And he says that it is an inviolable law that the middle should be restored through the first [and] the lower [through the middle]; and he proves this by an argument from the greater, for even Moses received the law through the mediation of angels, though he saw most excellently; which is proved by that which is said in Galatians 3:19: why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom he made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator, and Acts 7:53: who have received the law by the disposition of angels and have not kept it.
211. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod haec ratio potest esse et ex parte finis visionis, et ex parte principii.
211. To the first, therefore, is to be said that this reason can be on the part of the end of the vision and on the part of the principle.
Ex parte finis, quia angelus revelans intendit ducere hominem in cognitionem Dei et non in cognitionem sui: et ideo format visionem de Deo ut ex his quae figuraliter videntur aliquid de Deo cognoscatur.
On the part of the end, because the revealing angel intends to lead man to knowledge of God, and not to knowledge of himself: and therefore he forms a vision of God, just as out of things which are seen figuratively, something of God is understood.