← Back to Distinction 33

Dist. 33, Art. 2, Q. 2

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 33

Textus Latinus
p. 790

QUAESTIO II.

Utrum ponendum sit peccatum originale unum, vel plura.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum sit ponere unum originale, vel plura. Et quod unum solum, videtur1:

1. Primo auctoritate Magistri in littera, capitulo Alioquin2, ubi sic ait: « Uno peccato, non pluribus parvuli obligati sunt ».

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione sumta a causa, quia peccatum originale contrahitur propter Adae inobedientiam: ergo si una tantum culpa fuit eius inobedientia, videtur, quod in quocumque reperiatur, sit unicum et nullo modo plura.

3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione sumta a poena. Originali enim debetur solum carentia visionis Dei, et haec est una poena; sed multis culpis multae debent respondere poenae: ergo etc.

4. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur in comparatione ad sequelam. Originale enim non solummodo est ab origine, sed etiam origo est et principium omnium malorum. Si ergo « quod per superabundantiam dicitur uni soli convenit3 », et status est per reductionem ad unum; videtur, quod originale peccatum non sit nisi unum solum.

5. Item, hoc ipsum videtur in comparatione ad subiectum. Originale enim est in anima ratione coniunctionis suae ad carnem: si ergo una est caro, cui anima coniungitur, et unica unione unitur, et unitas est in anima, secundum quod carni ut perfectibili unitur; videtur ergo, quod necessario peccatum originale sit unum.

6. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per comparationem ad oppositum. Originale enim peccatum est carentia debitae iustitiae; sed debita iustitia, cuius originale est privatio in homine, non erat nisi una, quia in uno innocente una est innocentia: ergo etc.

Sed contra hoc arguitur: Ad oppositum. 1. Primo auctoritate. Super illud Psalmi4: Ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum; Glossa: Iniquitates sunt « originalia peccata »; et multae auctoritates sunt ad hoc in littera.

p. 791

2. Item, hoc ipsum videtur rationibus sumtis per eandem viam, per quam sumebantur ad oppositum. Et primo ratione sumta a causa. Originale enim peccatum est in nobis propter peccatum primorum parentum; sed Adam et Eva plura commiserunt peccata: ergo videtur, quod plura sint in nobis originalia, quia, qua ratione redundat in nobis peccatum viri, eadem ratione peccatum mulieris.

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione sumta a poena, quia uni culpae unica debet respondere poena; sed multa genera poenalitatum ad originale peccatum consequuntur, ut fames, sitis, mors, infirmitas etc.; et « quatuor, dicit Beda, nobis per peccatum originale esse inflicta, scilicet infirmitatem, ignorantiam, concupiscentiam et malitiam »: videtur igitur, quod secundum diversa genera poenalitatum sit diversitas originalium.

4. Item, hoc ipsum videtur per comparationem ad capitalia subsequentia. Habitus enim diversificantur per actus, et actus per obiecta: si ergo originale peccatum reddit hominem proclivem ad septem peccata capitalia, quae sunt diversorum generum; videtur, quod in quolibet homine sit multitudo originalium.

5. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per comparationem ad subiectum, quia omnes vires animae inficiuntur per originale peccatum; sed multiplicatis corruptibilibus, multiplicantur corruptiones, et in diversis potentiis diversi sunt habitus: ergo in unoquoque homine necesse est ponere multiplex originale.

6. Item, hoc ipsum videtur per comparationem ad oppositum, quia per originale peccatum est privatio omnium virtutum, cum per ipsum fiat incurvatio animae ad vitia, omnibus virtutibus opposita: ergo si plures contingit in nobis reperire virtutes, plures in nobis contingit reperire culpas originales.

Conclusio.

Originale peccatum est unum secundum speciem, et in uno homine unum etiam secundum numerum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut vult magister Hugo5, originale peccatum dupliciter dicitur. (Originale dicitur dupliciter.) Uno modo dicitur originale peccatum, quod est origo omnium peccatorum, et sic peccatum Adae dicitur peccatum originale; et hoc modo peccatum originale (Conclusio 1.) non tantum est unum specie, verum etiam unum numero. Alio modo dicitur originale peccatum, quod est in nobis ab origine6, et a quo etiam cetera vitia sumunt in nobis originem; et hoc modo quaerimus hic de unitate originalis peccati7.

Ad huius igitur quaestionis dilucidationem intelligendum est, quod cum quaerimus de unitate alicuius, aut quaerimus de unitate secundum speciem et formam communem, aut quaerimus de unitate secundum numerum et suppositum8. (Duplex unitas.) — Si primo modo loquamur de originali peccato, sic unitatem habet secundum speciem, eo modo, secundum quod peccatum dicitur habere speciem9. (Conclusio 2.) Unitas autem ista in originali peccato venit principaliter ex parte boni, quod privat, et ex parte peccati Adae, per quod introductum est, hoc est ex parte oppositi et ex parte principii. Una enim est secundum speciem originalis iustitia et innocentia, cuius privatio est originale peccatum. Una etiam fuit inobedientia, ratione cuius totum genus humanum est corruptum; et ideo secundum speciem originale peccatum est unum in nobis.

Si autem loquamur de unitate originalis quantum ad numerum; sic dicendum, quod in uno homine est unicum. (Duplex numeratio.) Et ratio huius est, quia peccatum dupliciter numeratur: aut ratione subiecti, in quo11, sicut in diversis hominibus diversa sunt peccata; aut ratione actus, per quem homo culpabilis efficitur, sicut qui pluries luxuriatus est plura habet peccata. Neutro istorum modorum originale peccatum multiplicatur, sed remanet indivisum; nam in uno homine una est anima, quae per originale peccatum inficitur. Item, unius hominis una est generatio, in qua et per quam originale peccatum transfunditur; et ideo originale peccatum in uno homine est unum solum quantum ad unitatem secundum speciem et quantum ad unitatem secundum numerum. (Conclusio 3.) — Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

Solutio oppositorum.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de Glossa, quae iniquitates dicit peccata originalia; dicendum, quod sicut dicit Magister, quod frequenter in Scriptura accipitur plurale pro singulari et e converso, sicut Magister exemplificat in littera10. Ratio autem, quare Scriptura originale, cum sit unum, pluraliter nominat, est propter multiplicitatem inclinationum ad malum, quae ex originali peccato nascuntur.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod originale peccatum ortum habet a peccato primorum parentum; dicendum est, quod quemadmodum in generatione prolis pater et mater sunt quasi unum principium completum, ita quod neuter eorum per se sufficit, quamvis sint diversae personae et distinctae; sic et (Notandum.)

p. 792

in originalis peccati transfusione intelligendum est. Etsi peccatum Adae et peccatum Evae fuerunt diversa, prout tamen in originali peccato inficiebatur in utroque vis generativa, unum peccatum originale in prole causabant, ita quod, sicut principaliter virtus generativa residet penes virum, ita etiam transfusio originalis principaliter attribuitur viro: nihilominus tamen utrique attribuitur suo modo. — (De incidente quaestione frivola.) Unde frivola est illa quaestio, qua quaeritur, utrum transfunderetur originale, si tantum vir vel tantum mulier peccasset; quia, cum ad generationem duo concurrant tanquam unum principium, non pateretur Deus, quod vir incorruptus mulieri corruptae commisceretur, vel e converso. Debet enim, sive in statu naturae institutae sive in statu naturae corruptae, servari proportio et conformitas viri agentis ad mulierem suscipientem, cum in actu illo efficiantur una caro12.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de multiplicitate poenarum, dicendum, quod uni culpae respondet una poena principalis; plures autem possunt esse non principales. (Poena principalis et non principalis.) Principalem autem dico poenam aeternam, non principalem autem poenam temporalem, quae quodam modo est ad bonum ordinativa. — (Aliter.) Vel principalem voco illam, quae primo pro culpa infligitur; non principalem vero, quae ad istam consequitur. Originale autem una poena aeterna punitur, videlicet carentia visionis Dei; unica etiam poena temporali principaliter, videlicet mortalitate carnis; sed ad mortalitatem multae consequuntur poenalitates.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de multiplicitate inclinationum, dicendum, quod sicut, una chorda rupta, qua multa colligantur, sequitur laxatio multorum, et tamen una est ibi prima corruptio et laxatio; sic intelligendum est et in proposito, quod iustitia innocentiae per originale peccatum privata, omnes vires animae relaxantur; una tamen est corruptio, loquendo essentialiter, plures autem intelligendo causaliter.

5. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod est corruptio diversarum virium; dicendum, quod verum est; sed sicut gratia ponitur esse in viribus animae, prout tamen continuantur ad unitatem substantiae animae, et ideo una est gratia in omnibus viribus13; sic et originale peccatum est corruptio plurium virium, prout tamen illae vires in unitate substantiae uni carni habent uniri. — (Quomodo originale sit in essentia animae.) Et sic intelligendum est illud verbum, quod ab aliquibus consuevit dici, scilicet quod originale inest animae secundum suam essentiam. Hoc enim non est intelligendum, quod ipsam substantiam animae originale prius respiciat quam potentias. Nam contrarium huius dicit Anselmus in libro de Conceptu virginali14, quod tam iustitia quam iniustitia primo est in voluntate, et loquitur ibi expresse de peccato originali. Et sic, intelligendo, quod originale peccatum, ut culpa est, sit primo in voluntate, ut vitium, sit in pluribus potentiis ad unam substantiam continuatis, intelligitur habere unicum subiectum, sicut sanitas una ponitur esse in omnibus membris eiusdem corporis, sicut vult Augustinus15. Non sic autem est de peccato actuali. Nam peccata actualia diversas potentias respiciunt, secundum quod ad diversos actus comparantur, unde et per diversos actus introducuntur in esse, et propterea secundum diversitatem potentiarum habent differre. Non sic est de originali peccato, quod contrahitur ex unione animae ad carnem16.

6. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur de comparatione ad oppositum, iam patet responsio. Nam originale peccatum primo et principaliter virtutibus non opponitur, sed opponitur iustitiae originali, de qua saepe dictum est17; et illam privando, per consequens inclinat ad diversa vitia, et sic inclinando cum omnibus virtutibus habet repugnantiam. Unde ratio illa non cogit, quia non arguit per illud quod opponitur directe, sed solum per id quod opponitur ex consequenti18.

---

English Translation

QUESTION II.

Whether one original sin is to be posited, or several.

Secondly it is asked, whether one original [sin] is to be posited, or several. And that there is one only, it seems1:

1. First, by the authority of the Master in the text, in the chapter Alioquin2, where he says thus: « By one sin, not by several, are little children bound ».

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown by a reason taken from the cause, because original sin is contracted on account of Adam's disobedience: therefore if his disobedience was only one fault, it seems that, in whomever it is found, it is single and in no way several.

3. Likewise, this same thing is shown by a reason taken from the punishment. For to original [sin] there is owed only the lack of the vision of God, and this is one punishment; but to many faults many punishments ought to correspond: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, this same thing is shown in comparison with the consequence. For original [sin] is not only from origin, but is also itself the origin and principle of all evils. If therefore « that which is said by superabundance belongs to one alone3 », and a stopping-point is reached by reduction to one; it seems that original sin is but one only.

5. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] in comparison with the subject. For original [sin] is in the soul by reason of its conjunction with the flesh: if therefore there is one flesh to which the soul is conjoined, and it is united by a single union, and there is unity in the soul, according as it is united to the flesh as to a perfectible [thing]; it seems therefore that original sin is necessarily one.

6. Likewise, this same thing is shown by comparison with the opposite. For original sin is a lack of the due justice; but the due justice, of which original [sin] is the privation in the human, was but one, because in one innocent [person] there is one innocence: therefore etc.

On the contrary it is argued: To the opposite. 1. First, by authority. Upon that [text] of the Psalm4: For behold, I was conceived in iniquities; the Gloss: Iniquities are « original sins »; and there are many authorities to this effect in the text.

2. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by reasons taken along the same path by which they were taken to the opposite [conclusion]. And first, by a reason taken from the cause. For original sin is in us on account of the sin of the first parents; but Adam and Eve committed several sins: therefore it seems that there are several original [sins] in us, because by the reason whereby the sin of the man redounds upon us, by the same reason [redounds] the sin of the woman.

3. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by a reason taken from the punishment, because to one fault one punishment ought to correspond; but many kinds of penalties follow upon original sin, such as hunger, thirst, death, infirmity, etc.; and « four [things], says Bede, were inflicted upon us by original sin, namely infirmity, ignorance, concupiscence, and malice »: it seems therefore that according to the diverse kinds of penalties there is a diversity of original [sins].

4. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by comparison with the capital [sins] that follow. For habits are differentiated by acts, and acts by objects: if therefore original sin renders the human prone to the seven capital sins, which are of diverse kinds; it seems that in any human there is a multitude of original [sins].

5. Likewise, this same thing is shown by comparison with the subject, because all the powers of the soul are infected by original sin; but when the corruptibles are multiplied, the corruptions are multiplied, and in diverse potencies there are diverse habits: therefore in each human it is necessary to posit a manifold original [sin].

6. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by comparison with the opposite, because through original sin there is a privation of all the virtues, since through it there comes about a bending of the soul toward vices, opposed to all the virtues: therefore if it happens that several virtues are found in us, it happens that several original faults are found in us.

Conclusion.

Original sin is one according to species, and in one human it is one also according to number.

I respond: It must be said that, as master Hugh5 holds, original sin is spoken of in two ways. (Original [sin] is spoken of in two ways.) In one way original sin is called that which is the origin of all sins, and thus Adam's sin is called original sin; and in this way original sin (Conclusion 1.) is not only one in species, but also one in number. In another way original sin is called that which is in us from origin6, and from which also the other vices take their origin in us; and in this way we here inquire about the unity of original sin7.

For the elucidation therefore of this question it must be understood that, when we inquire about the unity of something, either we inquire about unity according to species and common form, or we inquire about unity according to number and supposit8. (A twofold unity.) — If in the first way we speak of original sin, then it has unity according to species, in that manner in which sin is said to have a species9. (Conclusion 2.) But this unity in original sin comes principally on the part of the good which it deprives, and on the part of Adam's sin through which it was introduced, that is, on the part of the opposite and on the part of the principle. For original justice and innocence, of which the privation is original sin, is one according to species. The disobedience also was one, by reason of which the whole human race is corrupted; and therefore according to species original sin is one in us.

But if we speak of the unity of original [sin] as to number; then it must be said that in one human it is single. (A twofold numbering.) And the reason of this is that sin is numbered in two ways: either by reason of the subject in which [it is]11, as in diverse humans the sins are diverse; or by reason of the act by which the human is made culpable, as he who has committed lust many times has several sins. In neither of these ways is original sin multiplied, but it remains undivided; for in one human there is one soul, which is infected by original sin. Likewise, of one human there is one generation, in which and through which original sin is transfused; and therefore in one human original sin is one only as to unity according to species and as to unity according to number. (Conclusion 3.) — And the reasons which show this are to be granted.

Solution of the opposing [arguments].

1. To that therefore which is first objected to the contrary concerning the Gloss, which calls iniquities original sins; it must be said that, as the Master says, frequently in Scripture the plural is taken for the singular and conversely, as the Master gives example in the text10. But the reason why Scripture, although original [sin] be one, names it in the plural, is on account of the multiplicity of inclinations to evil which are born from original sin.

2. To that which is objected, that original sin has its rise from the sin of the first parents; it must be said that, just as in the generation of offspring the father and mother are as one complete principle, in such a way that neither of them suffices by himself, although they be diverse and distinct persons; so also (To be noted.)

p. 792

it is to be understood in the transfusion of original sin. Even though the sin of Adam and the sin of Eve were diverse, yet, insofar as in original sin the generative power was infected in each, they caused one original sin in the offspring, in such a way that, just as the generative power principally resides in the man, so also the transfusion of original [sin] is principally attributed to the man: yet nonetheless it is attributed to each in his own manner. — (On the frivolous incidental question.) Whence frivolous is that question by which it is asked whether original [sin] would be transfused if only the man or only the woman had sinned; because, since to generation two concur as one principle, God would not permit that an uncorrupted man be mingled with a corrupted woman, or conversely. For there ought, whether in the state of nature instituted or in the state of nature corrupted, to be preserved a proportion and conformity of the man acting to the woman receiving, since in that act they are made one flesh12.

3. To that which is objected concerning the multiplicity of punishments, it must be said that to one fault there corresponds one principal punishment; but there can be several non-principal ones. (Principal and non-principal punishment.) And I call the eternal punishment principal, but the temporal punishment, which in some manner is ordinative toward the good, non-principal. — (Otherwise.) Or I call that one principal which is first inflicted for the fault; but that non-principal which follows upon this. But original [sin] is punished by one eternal punishment, namely the lack of the vision of God; and by one temporal punishment principally, namely the mortality of the flesh; but upon the mortality many penalties follow.

4. To that which is objected concerning the multiplicity of inclinations, it must be said that, just as, when one cord by which many things are bound together is broken, there follows the loosening of many [things], and yet there is there one first corruption and loosening; so it must be understood also in the matter at hand, that, the justice of innocence being deprived by original sin, all the powers of the soul are loosened; yet there is one corruption, speaking essentially, but several [corruptions] understanding [it] causally.

5. To that indeed which is objected, that it is a corruption of diverse powers; it must be said that it is true; but just as grace is posited to be in the powers of the soul, yet insofar as they are continued toward the unity of the substance of the soul, and therefore there is one grace in all the powers13; so also original sin is a corruption of several powers, yet insofar as those powers, in the unity of the substance, are to be united to one flesh. — (How original [sin] is in the essence of the soul.) And thus is to be understood that saying which by some is wont to be uttered, namely that original [sin] is in the soul according to its essence. For this is not to be understood as though original [sin] regards the substance of the soul itself prior to the potencies. For the contrary of this Anselm says in the book On the Virginal Conception14, that both justice and injustice are first in the will, and he speaks there expressly of original sin. And thus, understanding that original sin, as it is a fault, is first in the will, [and] as it is a vice, is in several potencies continued to one substance, it is understood to have a single subject, just as one health is posited to be in all the members of the same body, as Augustine holds15. But it is not so concerning actual sin. For actual sins regard diverse potencies, according as they are referred to diverse acts, whence also they are brought into being through diverse acts, and therefore they must differ according to the diversity of the potencies. It is not so concerning original sin, which is contracted from the union of the soul with the flesh16.

6. To that which is lastly objected concerning the comparison with the opposite, the response is now clear. For original sin is not first and principally opposed to the virtues, but is opposed to original justice, of which it has often been spoken17; and by depriving [the human] of that, it consequently inclines [him] to diverse vices, and thus by inclining [him] it has repugnance with all the virtues. Whence that reason does not compel, because it does not argue through that which is opposed directly, but only through that which is opposed by consequence18.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 sunt.
    The Vatican [edition] with edd. 3, 4 [reads] sunt.
  2. Hic c. 2. — Quantum ad reliqua argg., quae sequuntur, cfr. fundam. 2-4. quaest. praeced.
    Here c. 2. — As to the remaining arguments which follow, cfr. fundamenta 2–4 of the preceding question.
  3. Aristot., V. Topic. c. 3. (c. 5.). De eo, quod status sit per reductionem ad unum, cfr. supra pag. 99, nota 3. — In principio huius arg. codd. T bb ee et alii omittunt in ante comparatione, codd. cc et ed. 1 legunt per comparationem.
    Aristotle, V. Topics c. 3. (c. 5.). On the [point] that a stopping-point is reached by reduction to one, cfr. above p. 99, note 3. — At the beginning of this argument codd. T bb ee and others omit in before comparatione, codd. cc and ed. 1 read per comparationem.
  4. Psalm. 50, 7. — Glossa est interlinearis et habetur apud Lyranum. — Auctoritates, quae hic memorantur, intellige testimonia Augustini, quae hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1. seqq. adducuntur. Idem S. Doctor etiam in libro de Corrept. et grat. c. 6. n. 9. ait: Peccata quidem ista originalia ideo dicuntur aliena, quod ea singuli de parentibus trahunt, sed non sine causa dicuntur et nostra, quia in illo uno omnes, sicut dicit Apostolus (Rom. 5, 12.), peccaverunt.
    Psalm 50, 7. — The Gloss is interlinear and is found in Lyra. — The authorities here mentioned: understand the testimonies of Augustine which are adduced here in the text of the Master, c. 1. seqq. The same holy Doctor also in the book On Rebuke and Grace c. 6. n. 9. says: These original sins are indeed called another's, because individuals draw them from their parents, but not without cause are they called ours also, because in that one [man] all, as the Apostle says (Rom. 5, 12.), have sinned.
  5. Vide supra pag. 528, nota 2.
    See above p. 528, note 2.
  6. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. et supra d. 22. a. 1. q. 1. seq.
    See here the text of the Master, c. 2. and above d. 22. a. 1. q. 1. seq.
  7. Libr. I. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 26.
    Book I. On the Sacraments p. VII. c. 26.
  8. Secundum Aristotelem, ut colligitur ex testimoniis, quae supra notavimus pag. 561, nota 3; pag. 635, nota 5; pag. 653, nota 6. — De septem peccatis capitalibus vide infra d. 42. dub. 3.
    According to Aristotle, as is gathered from the testimonies which we noted above p. 561, note 3; p. 635, note 5; p. 653, note 6. — On the seven capital sins see below d. 42. dub. 3.
  9. Cfr. Aristot., I. Topic. c. 6. (c. 5.); III. Metaph. text. 14. et V. text. 12. (II. c. 4. et IV. c. 6.). — Mox pro secundum quod ed. 1 secundum quem, Vat. quo.
    Cfr. Aristotle, I. Topics c. 6. (c. 5.); III. Metaphysics text. 14. and V. text. 12. (II. c. 4. and IV. c. 6.). — Soon, for secundum quod ed. 1 [reads] secundum quem, the Vatican [edition] quo.
  10. Hic c. 2. — Paulo superius pro iniquitates dicit, ut habetur in codd. et primis edd., Vat. iniquitates esse; restituimus autem relativum quae ex cod. aa, quod excidit in aliis codd. et edd.
    Here c. 2. — A little above, for iniquitates dicit, as is found in the codices and the first editions, the Vatican [edition] [reads] iniquitates esse; but we restored the relative quae from cod. aa, which dropped out in the other codices and editions.
  11. Vat. cum edd. 3, 4 in quo: sic in diversis etc., et paulo inferius efficitur: sic qui plures etc. Deinde post Neutro cod. A interserit autem.
    The Vatican [edition] with edd. 3, 4 [reads] in quo: sic in diversis etc., and a little below efficitur: sic qui plures etc. Then after Neutro cod. A interpolates autem.
  12. Respicitur Gen. 2, 24.
    Reference is made to Gen. 2, 24.
  13. Ut ostensum est supra d. 26. q. 5. et d. 27. a. q. 1. seq.
    As was shown above d. 26. q. 5. and d. 27. a. q. 1. seq.
  14. Cap. 3. seq., ex quo iam supra pag. 722, nota 3. quaedam allegata sunt.
    Cap. 3. seq., from which already above p. 722, note 3. certain [things] were adduced.
  15. Epist. 187, (alias 37.) seu Libr. ad Dardanum de praesentia Dei, c. 4. n. 13.
    Epistle 187, (otherwise 37.) or the Book to Dardanus on the presence of God, c. 4. n. 13.
  16. Quoad totam hanc solutionem et diversam sententiam S. Thomae cfr. supra d. 31. a. 1. q. 2.
    As to this whole solution and the differing opinion of St. Thomas cfr. above d. 31. a. 1. q. 2.
  17. Quaest. praeced. ad 6, a. 1. q. 2. fundam. 2. et ad 3, d. 5. a. 3. q. 1. in corp., d. 29. a. 2. q. 1. ad 2.
    The preceding question, ad 6; a. 1. q. 2. fundamentum 2 and ad 3; d. 5. a. 3. q. 1. in the body; d. 29. a. 2. q. 1. ad 2.
  18. Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion on the preceding question.
← Dist. 33, Art. 2, Q. 1Dist. 33, Art. 3, Q. 1→