Bonaventure

Several codices with editions 1 and 2 read beatorum (of the blessed) [for bonorum].

The Vatican edition reads propriam (proper) [for primam].

In the Vatican edition there is alleged here c. 2, which begins Hic considerandum est etc.

Dionysius, On the Celestial Hierarchy c. 3, § 1ff. (according to the version of Scotus Eriugena). In the first definition almost all codices add consummata vel, which words are absent in the original text and in the Vatican edition; in the second, the original text substitutes deiformi for deiforme; in the third, omnis sanctae et scientiae for scientiae sanctae.

Chapter 30, n. 56.

Codex Y reads ut egredientem (as going forth).

James 1:17: Every good gift… is from above, coming down from the Father of lights.

This definition is found in Praepositivus, Summa part I, where it is also so explained: Ordered power is set down for the genus; of sacred things — to differentiate from profane things, such as wood and stone and others; of rational things — to differentiate from irrational; retaining the due dominion over subjects — to differentiate from those subjects who are not prelates over others.

Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith book II, c. 3, where the original text presents the last part of the definition thus: κατὰ χάριν ἐν τῇ φύσει τὸ ἀθάνατον εἰληφυῖα, that is, receiving immortality by grace in nature.

Dionysius, On the Divine Names c. 4, § 22. The version of Scotus Eriugena agrees, except for the last part of the definition: unpolluted, receiving whole — if just by adornment — the beauty of the well-formed deiformity, and purely declaring in itself, so far as is possible, the goodness which is in the hidden parts (τὸ ἀγαθὸν τῆς κρυφίας σιγῆς).

Augustine, On the Trinity book XIV, c. 8, n. 11.

Some codices with the Vatican edition read conformat (conforms); codex cc and edition 1 read confirmat (confirms) [for consummat].

Thus certainly read codices bb and ee; in other codices and editions activam, unless these are doubtful readings. Foeditas acta (foulness enacted) denotes a foulness produced in the will by sinful action. The threefold foulness corresponds to a threefold penalty, namely acted, inflicted, and contracted. Cf. below d. 35, a. 1, q. 2, where sin is considered as both corruption-as-action and corruption-as-passion. Culpa acta et contracta is read below at d. 31, a. 2, q. 2, in all codices and editions. See in addition d. 42, dub. 1. — Soon after foeditas actualis, codex I adds mortalis. The Holy Doctor below at d. 41, a. 2, q. 1, when he resolves the question whether every actual sin is voluntary, distinguishes the voluntary threefold, namely either by another's will, or by one's own will, or partly by another's will and partly by one's own. In the first mode voluntary is original sin; in the second mode voluntary is actual mortal sin; in the third mode is venial sin, which somehow has the character of penalty and somehow that of fault. Cf. also d. 42, a. 2, q. 1.

For venial sin adheres without expelling grace, and insofar as it is vice, it disorders sensuality — not free choice (below d. 24, p. II, a. 3, q. 1ff.) — insofar as the penalty comes upon one.

Here, c. 2 [of the Master's text]. — Cf. on these matters below, q. 2 and q. 3.

According to Aristotle, Topics book I, c. 1ff., that part of logic is called topical which contains places from which arguments are drawn by which we can dispute probably (dialectically) about things. Among these places is also reckoned the definition of a thing.

Praepositivus, Summa part II, says: The intermediate [angelic hierarchy] is tripartite: superior, intermediate, and lowest, which some, who prefer to Grecize, call epiphany, hyperphany, hypophany. The first contains the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones, whence it is so described: the superior celestial hierarchy is a distributed resultation from the kindling of inflamed affection, from the height of higher intellect, from the balance of judgment... In the second likewise are three orders, namely Principalities, Dominions, and Powers; which is so described: the intermediate celestial hierarchy is a divine illumination, signing the participant with scalar reverence, going beyond the use of dominating, and warding off the contrary... The third hierarchy likewise has three orders, namely Virtues, Angels, and Archangels; which is so described: the inferior celestial hierarchy is a divine principle meeting with the laws of nature, revealing secrets according to capacity, distinct or eloquent. — Codex cc and edition 1 read one Eparchia, another Mesarchia, another Hyparchia.

Dionysius, On the Celestial Hierarchy c. 6, § 2, and c. 8, § 1ff. — Gregory, Homily 34 on the Gospels, n. 7. — Bernard, On Consideration book V, c. 4, n. 8.

Dionysius, On the Celestial Hierarchy c. 6, § 2, and c. 9, § 1ff. — Gregory and Bernard at the places cited just above.

In almost all codices and editions the preceding [text] is mutilated, and, on account of what follows, less suitably exhibited thus: est duplex: vel secundum ea quae essentialiter respiciunt hierarchiam, quae sunt ordo, scientia et actio, sic triplicem etc. Codex cc, edition 1, and the Vatican edition, after actio, interpose vel secundum status et officia. Si primo modo. We have followed codex aa, with this exception, that in the second member of the disjunction in place of statum vel officia we have substituted status et officia, which a little below almost all the codices place.

Which see here in the Master's text, c. 2.

[I.e.,] of the second division, by which the celestial hierarchy is divided according to essentials or according to offices into supreme, intermediate, and lowest. — On the opinion of Dionysius cf. the second definition of hierarchy, which was set forth above; on the opinion of Gregory see here the Master's text, c. 2.

In codex cc and edition 1 the words per se are absent.

Edition 1, omitting the particle ex, substitutes deprehendi potest.

Codex aa: quam multitudini.

Codices F and H: si.

Gregory, Homilies on the Gospels, hom. 34, n. 112. — In the Middle Ages the books under the name of Dionysius were commonly attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, the disciple of St. Paul, which the author himself seems repeatedly to assert. But now, for very weighty reasons, it is fairly commonly held that their author belongs to a much later age. He is defended, however, by the learned Hipler, in a learned book, from the common accusation of fraud and of heretical doctrine (cf. Alzog, Handbuch der Patrologie, 3rd ed., pp. 443 ff.). ---