← Back to Distinction 17

Dist. 17, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 4

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 17

Textus Latinus
p. 316

QUAESTIO IV.

Utrum caritas terminum habeat in augmento.

Quarto quaeritur et ultimo de augmento caritatis quantum ad terminum, et quaeritur, utrum habeat statum vel terminum, ultra quem non possit augeri. Et quod sic, ostenditur hoc modo.

1. Omne quod est in aliquo, non excedit capacitatem eius in quo est; sed caritas est in anima: ergo non excedit animae capacitatem. Sed capacitas animae est finita, quia omnis potentia finita habet capacitatem finitam: ergo et caritas.

2. Item, augmentum caritatis attenditur secundum quantitatem virtutis; sed quantitas virtutis similis est quantitati molis et perfectior; sed in quantitate molis in augmentando1 est status, unde Philosophus: «Omnium natura constantium terminus est et ratio magnitudinis et augmenti»: ergo similiter et in quantitate virtutis.

3. Item, augmentum caritatis attenditur per ascensum ad quantitatem perfectam2, ergo quod semper augetur nunquam venit ad perfectum, «perfectum autem est, cui non est possibilis additio3»; sed caritatem, cum sit opus Dei, contingit perfici, Dei enim perfecta sunt opera4: ergo etc.

4. Item, augmentum caritatis attenditur secundum approximationem ad finem, nam quanto caritas maior, tanto fini proximior5; ergo aut nunquam pervenit ad finem, aut si sic, necesse est stare, quia alias esset frustra: ergo etc.

Contra: 1. Quod non sit status, ostenditur a parte virtutis augmentantis. Tantum enim extenditur augmentum, quantum virtus augmentativa; sed virtus augmentans caritatem est virtus divina, quae non habet terminum nec6 statum: ergo etc.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur7 a parte suscipientis. Sicut enim se habet transparens ad lumen corporale, sic capacitas animae ad lumen gratiae sive caritatis; sed aer nunquam tantum recipit de lumine, quin adhuc possit plus recipere: ergo etc.

3. Item, hoc videtur posse ostendi a parte augmentabilis, quod est caritas, quia ipsa est aeque in actu vel amplius quam8 ignis materialis; sed ignis materialis ratione suae actualitatis augetur in infinitum, si adsit combustibile, sicut dicit Philosophus9: ergo similiter caritas de se.

4. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur a parte obiecti caritatis, quod est summum bonum non habens mensuram: ergo si mensura caritatis debet attendi per10 magnitudinem obiecti, et illud caret modo et mensura, ergo et caritas: et si hoc, ergo non habet statum nec terminum.

CONCLUSIO.

Caritas habet terminum in augmento, quod colligitur ex parte tum virtutis agentis, tum potentiae suscipientis, tum formae perficientis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod status est in augmento caritatis secundum omnem modum, secundum quem contingit esse statum et perfectionem in motu augmenti.

Augmentum enim, sicut patet in corporalibus, habet statum a tribus: videlicet a virtute agente et potentia suscipiente et forma perficiente. Sic11 est in homine, cuius augmentum stat, quando virtus caloris et carnis secundum speciem non potest amplius convertere, quam deperdatur; quando potentia humidi radicalis non potest plus extendi12; quando

p. 317

corpus perfectum est, secundum quod congruit perfectioni animae.

Sic dicendum, quod caritas stat a parte virtutis agentis; sed huiusmodi status potest esse dupliciter13. Nam illa virtus aut est operans naturaliter, aut a proposito; si naturaliter, tunc stat, quando non potest amplius; si a proposito, tunc stat, quando non disponit amplius; et hoc modo stat caritatis augmentum, cum deventum est ad mensuram, quam mensus est Deus homini secundum distributionem suae sapientiae. Et ideo, quamvis14 virtus augmentans sit infinita, tamen operatur secundum dispositionem sapientiae limitantis effectus varios, secundum quod sibi placet. Non enim operatur secundum omnimodam possibilitatem.

Stat etiam a parte suscipientis, quia sicut dicitur Matthaei vigesimo quinto15: Dedit unicuique secundum propriam virtutem. Et huiusmodi status potest intelligi tripliciter: aut secundum actum, cum amplius non procedit, et sic stat in viris perfectis, qui non assurgunt ad maiora; aut secundum aptitudinem, et sic stat in beatis, qui amplius non possunt se disponere et tantum habent, quantum se disposuerunt, unde status est in eis; aut secundum possibilitatem suscipientis, et sic statum habet in Christo16, et credo etiam, quod in beata Virgine, et aliqui dicunt, quod in Angelis; utrum in aliquibus aliis, nescio. Scio tamen de Christo, quod17 tantum habet de gloria, quantum potest recipere creatura unita, et credo hoc ipsum de Matre dulcissima.

Stat etiam a parte augmentabilis, cum pervenit18 ad quantitatem perfectam. Sed notandum, quod quantitas virtutis perfecta est dupliciter: vel simpliciter, vel in genere. Simpliciter perfecta est in summo et simplicissimo, ut in Deo; in genere vero in omnibus, qui19 pertingunt ad actum completum, ad quem sunt, et hoc est diligere Deum ex toto corde et ex tota anima et ex tota virtute20. Primo modo non est status, sed secundo solum.

Ad 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur primo de infinitate virtutis agentis, dicendum, quod illa ratio teneret, si virtus caritatem augmentans ageret naturaliter et secundum impetum sive secundum totum suum posse; nunc autem agit sapienter et ita ponit unicuique limitem, ipsa in se non limitata.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur per simile in aere, quod suscipientis potentia est ad infinitum; dicendum, quod lumen augeri in aere hoc est dupliciter: vel per ipsius clarificationem, vel per luminum aggregationem. Primo modo credo quod statum21 habeat; adeo enim posset aer illuminari, quod si etiam superveniret aliud lumen, non magis claresceret. Alio modo potest augeri lumen in aere per luminum aggregationem; et sic, quia lumina diversorum luminarium sunt in eodem puncto aeris, non se coangustant22 nec se expellunt, sicut multae species in uno medio; et ita nunquam sunt tot species, quin plures possint esse; similiter de luminibus. Sed tunc non est simile de caritate, quoniam, sicut prius tactum est23, in una anima una tantum est caritas; non sic est de lumine, quod egreditur a diversis luminaribus.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur a parte augmentabilis, quod ignis in infinitum est augmentabilis; dicendum, quod calor potest augeri dupliciter: vel intensive, et sic statum habet et summum; vel extensive24, ut sit in pluribus, et sic non habet statum a parte sua, sed a parte combustibilis, quod finitum est. Similiter dico, quod caritas potest augeri intensive, ut magis diligat, et sic habet statum, sicut ignis; alio modo extensive, ut a parte dilectorum, et sic non habet statum ex parte sua, quia nunquam tot diligit, quin adhuc nata sit diligere plures.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur a parte obiecti25, dicendum, quod obiectum nihil ad hoc facit, quia obiectum semper est idem non mutatum et est infinitum; et ideo nunquam ei caritas commensuratur nec ad eius mensuram26 recipit augmentum nec decrementum.

p. 318
Scholion

I. Hanc quaestionem alibi tractat S. Thomas, scil. III. Sent. d. 13. q. 1. a. 2. n. 1, altius in Sum. II. II. q. 24. a. 7., ubi inter alios Caietanus ad locum docet, eius verba in iis posse intelligi de gratia seu caritate aliud in superlativo gradu. Quod autem definitum est a Clemente V. in Concilio Viennensi (Clementinarum, cap. Ad nostrum, lib. V. tit. 3. n. 11. 12.) sententiam communem docere de Christo, animam eius habuisse summum gradum gratiae secundum quantitatem intensivam etc., satis ostendit, non dissentire eum a S. Bonav., qui (hic dub. 1.) de Christo idem profitetur cum communi meliorum Scholasticorum sententia, cui Durand. ubique pauci contradicunt.

II. Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 21. m. 3. a. 8. 6. — Scot., in utroque scripto III. Sent. d. 13. q. 1. 2. 3. — B. Albert., I. Sent. d. 17. a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 4. (qui expresse sententiam S. Bonaventurae dicit esse «planiorem atque communiorem»). — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic 1. princ. q. 4. — Henr. Gand., Quodl. 5. q. 22. — Durand., hic q. 8. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 8. — Biel, hic q. 8.

---

English Translation

QUESTION IV.

Whether charity has a term in its augmentation.

Fourthly and lastly it is asked concerning the augmentation of charity with respect to its term, and it is asked whether it has a state or term, beyond which it cannot be augmented. And that it has [such a term] is shown in this way.

1. Everything which is in something does not exceed the capacity of that in which it is; but charity is in the soul: therefore it does not exceed the capacity of the soul. But the capacity of the soul is finite, since every finite power has a finite capacity: therefore so also is charity.

2. Likewise, the augmentation of charity is regarded according to the quantity of power; but the quantity of power is similar to the quantity of mass and more perfect; but in the quantity of mass, in being augmented1, there is a state, whence the Philosopher: "Of all things constituted by nature, there is a term and a measure of magnitude and of augmentation": therefore likewise also in the quantity of power.

3. Likewise, the augmentation of charity is regarded by ascent to a perfect quantity2; therefore what is always being augmented never comes to the perfect, "but the perfect is that to which no addition is possible3"; but charity, since it is the work of God, comes to be perfected, for the works of God are perfect4: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the augmentation of charity is regarded according to approximation to its end, for the greater the charity, the closer to its end5; therefore either it never arrives at its end, or if it does, it is necessary that it stop, since otherwise it would be in vain: therefore etc.

On the contrary: 1. That there is no state is shown from the side of the augmenting power. For the augmentation extends as far as the augmentative power; but the power augmenting charity is the divine power, which has neither term nor6 state: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this same is shown7 from the side of the recipient. For as the transparent stands to corporeal light, so the capacity of the soul to the light of grace or of charity; but air never receives so much of light, but that it can still receive more: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, this seems to be demonstrable from the side of the augmentable, which is charity, since it is equally in act, or more, than8 material fire; but material fire, by reason of its actuality, is augmented infinitely, if there is fuel, as the Philosopher says9: therefore likewise charity from itself.

4. Likewise, this same is shown from the side of the object of charity, which is the highest good not having any measure: therefore if the measure of charity ought to be regarded by10 the magnitude of the object, and that lacks mode and measure, therefore so also charity: and if so, therefore it has neither state nor term.

CONCLUSION.

Charity has a term in its augmentation, which is gathered from the side both of the agent power, and of the receiving potency, and of the perfecting form.

I respond: It must be said that there is a state in the augmentation of charity according to every mode by which a state and perfection in the motion of augmentation can occur.

For augmentation, as is evident in bodily things, has a state from three [things]: namely from the agent power, the receiving potency, and the perfecting form. So11 it is in a human being, whose augmentation stops, when the power of heat and of flesh according to species can no longer convert more than is lost; when the potency of the radical moisture cannot be extended further12; when

the body is perfected, according as is congruent with the perfection of the soul.

So it must be said that charity stops from the side of the agent power; but a state of this kind can be in two ways13. For that power either acts naturally, or by purpose; if naturally, then it stops, when it can [act] no further; if by purpose, then it stops, when it disposes [it] no further; and in this mode the augmentation of charity stops, when it has come to the measure which God has measured out to a human being according to the distribution of his wisdom. And therefore, although14 the augmenting power is infinite, nevertheless it operates according to the disposition of [his] wisdom, which limits the various effects, according as is pleasing to it. For it does not operate according to its every-modal possibility.

It stops also from the side of the recipient, since, as is said in the twenty-fifth of Matthew15: He gave to each according to his proper power. And a state of this kind can be understood in three ways: either according to act, when it does not proceed further, and so it stops in perfect men, who do not rise up to greater [things]; or according to aptitude, and so it stops in the blessed, who can no longer dispose themselves and have as much as they have disposed themselves [to have], whence the state is in them; or according to the possibility of the recipient, and so it has a state in Christ16, and I believe also that [it has a state] in the Blessed Virgin, and some say that [it has it] in the Angels; whether [it has it] in any others, I do not know. I know nevertheless concerning Christ, that17 he has as much of glory as the united creature can receive, and I believe the same of the most sweet Mother.

It stops also from the side of the augmentable, when it has arrived18 at the perfect quantity. But it must be noted, that the perfect quantity of power is in two ways: either simply, or in a kind. Simply perfect [it is] in the highest and most simple, as in God; in a kind, however, in all those who19 attain to the complete act for which they are, and this is to love God with one's whole heart and with one's whole soul and with one's whole power20. In the first mode there is no state, but [there is] in the second only.

To 1. To that which is objected first concerning the infinity of the agent power, it must be said that that argument would hold, if the power augmenting charity were to act naturally and according to impulse or according to its whole power; now however it acts wisely and so sets a limit for each one, [while] itself in itself not limited.

To 2. To that which is objected by a likeness in air, that the potency of the recipient is to the infinite; it must be said that for light to be augmented in air is in two ways: either through its clarification, or through the aggregation of lights. In the first mode I believe that it has a state21; for so much could the air be illuminated, that even if another light were to supervene, it would not become more clear. In the other mode, light can be augmented in air through the aggregation of lights; and so, since the lights of diverse luminaries are in the same point of air, they do not crowd22 each other nor expel each other, as do many species in one medium; and so there are never so many species, but that more can be; likewise concerning lights. But then [the case] is not similar concerning charity, since, as was touched on before23, in one soul there is only one charity; not so is it concerning light, which proceeds from diverse luminaries.

To 3. To that which is objected from the side of the augmentable, that fire is augmentable infinitely; it must be said that heat can be augmented in two ways: either intensively, and thus it has a state and a maximum; or extensively24, that it be in many [things], and thus it does not have a state from its own side, but from the side of the fuel, which is finite. Likewise I say that charity can be augmented intensively, that it love more, and thus it has a state, like fire; in another mode extensively, that is, from the side of those loved, and thus it does not have a state from its own side, since it never loves so many but that it is naturally apt to love more.

To 4. To that which is objected from the side of the object25, it must be said that the object does nothing toward this, since the object is always the same not changed and is infinite; and therefore charity is never commensurated to it nor receives augmentation or decrement to its measure26.

Scholion

I. This question St. Thomas treats elsewhere, namely III Sent. d. 13, q. 1, a. 2, n. 1, more deeply in the Summa II–II, q. 24, a. 7, where among others Cajetan at the place teaches that his words can be understood concerning grace or charity in another, superlative, degree. Now what was defined by Clement V in the Council of Vienne (Clementines, ch. Ad nostrum, bk. V, tit. 3, nn. 11–12) — that the common opinion teaches concerning Christ, that his soul had the highest degree of grace according to intensive quantity, etc. — sufficiently shows that he does not dissent from St. Bonaventure, who (here, dub. 1) professes the same concerning Christ, with the common opinion of the better Scholastics, against which Durandus and a few others everywhere contradict.

II. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. I, q. 21, m. 3, a. 8, 6. — Scotus, in both writings on III Sent. d. 13, qq. 1, 2, 3. — Bl. Albert, I Sent. d. 17, a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 4 (who expressly says the opinion of St. Bonaventure to be "plainer and more common"). — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here 1st princ., q. 4. — Henry of Ghent, Quodl. 5, q. 22. — Durandus, here q. 8. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 8. — Biel, here q. 8.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Libr. II. de Anima text. 41. (c. 4.). — Paulo ante cod. S cum ed. 1 augmento pro augmentando. Mox post similiter ex multis mss. ut AGHITWX etc. et ed. 1 substituimus et loco est.
    Book II On the Soul text. 41 (c. 4). — A little before, codex S with edition 1 [reads] augmento in place of augmentando. Soon after, after similiter, from many manuscripts such as AGHITWX etc. and edition 1 we have substituted et in place of est.
  2. Vat. contra mss. et ed. 1 accessionem ad caritatem perfectam; multi codd. ut A C F G I L P Q R S T U W etc. cum edd. 3, 6 qualitatem loco quantitatem, sed in se minus bene et contra ea quae in corp. quaestionis circa finem habentur. Codd. aa bb et perfectionem pro perfectam; aliqui codd. ut K X cum edd. 2, 3 ascensionem loco ascensum.
    The Vatican edition, against the manuscripts and edition 1, [reads] accessionem ad caritatem perfectam; many codices such as A C F G I L P Q R S T U W etc. with editions 3, 6 [read] qualitatem in place of quantitatem, but in itself less well and against what is had in the body of the question near the end. Codices aa bb [read] et perfectionem in place of perfectam; some codices such as K X with editions 2, 3 [read] ascensionem in place of ascensum.
  3. Aristot.; vide supra q. 2. ad 3. — Mox ed. 1 cum aliquibus mss. expresso et bene contingit loco convenit.
    Aristotle; see above q. 2, [reply] to 3. — Soon after, edition 1 with some manuscripts expressly and rightly [reads] contingit in place of convenit.
  4. Deut. 32, 4.
    Deuteronomy 32:4.
  5. Sub hoc respectu ait Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 21. (IV. c. 16.): Etenim secundum quod habent finem, perfecta dicuntur. — Mox ex aliquibus mss. ut MT YZ adiecimus primum aut.
    Under this respect Aristotle says, V. Metaph. text. 21 (IV. c. 16): For according as they have an end, they are called perfect. — Soon after, from some manuscripts such as MT, YZ we have added the first aut.
  6. Substituimus ope antiquiorum mss. et ed. 1 nec loco et.
    We have substituted, by the help of older manuscripts and edition 1, nec in place of et.
  7. Vat. cum cod. cc videtur, sed ceteris mss. et ed. 1 refragantibus.
    The Vatican edition, with codex cc, [reads] videtur, but with the rest of the manuscripts and edition 1 resisting.
  8. Fide plurimorum mss. et ed. 1 posuimus quam loco sicut.
    On the testimony of most manuscripts and edition 1 we have placed quam in place of sicut.
  9. Libr. II. de Anima text. 41. (c. 4.): Ignis enim augmentum in infinitum est, quousque fuerit combustibile.
    Book II On the Soul text. 41 (c. 4): For the augmentation of fire is to infinity, as long as there is fuel.
  10. Ed. 1 secundum.
    Edition 1 [reads] secundum.
  11. Aliqui codd. ut K V cc cum edd. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 sicut; cod. Z et sic. Mox cod. K post stat addit a tribus scilicet.
    Some codices such as K, V, cc with editions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 [read] sicut; codex Z [reads] et sic. Soon after, codex K, after stat, adds a tribus scilicet.
  12. Quid sit humidum radicale secundum opinionem illius aetatis explicat Scotus, 1. Phys. q. 10. n. 23: «Unde nota secundo, quod duplex est humidum, radicale scilicet et cibale. Radicale non est in aliqua parte corporis determinata, sed est sparsum per totum corpus estque tota illa materia corporea, in qua introducitur anima in initio generationis, in qua anima fovetur et radicatur, cuius virtute postea reliqua efficiuntur in corpore. Et hoc humido durante, durat vita et consumto, consumitur, et recedit anima. Humidum cibale seu nutrimentale est quod fit ex cibo per conversionem eius in substantiam aliti, ad reparandum quod deperditur ex humido radicali per actionem caloris naturalis. Nam licet calor naturalis praecipue resideat in corde, quod est omnium membrorum calidissimum, ab eo tamen derivatur in ceteras partes corporis estque sparsus per totum corpus et immersus humido radicali, in quibus actione sua consumitur, atque adeo, ne consumatur, necesse est, quod continue reparetur per intus susceptionem extrinseci alimenti» etc. — Paulo ante cod. K cum ed. 1 amplius loco plus. Paulo infra cod. M operationi pro perfectioni.
    What radical moisture is according to the opinion of that age, Scotus explains, Physics I, q. 10, n. 23: "Hence note secondly, that moisture is twofold, namely radical and nutritive. The radical is not in any determinate part of the body, but is dispersed through the whole body and is the whole of that bodily matter, in which the soul is introduced at the beginning of generation, in which the soul is cherished and rooted, by whose power afterwards the rest are produced in the body. And while this moisture endures, life endures, and when it is consumed, life is consumed, and the soul departs. Nutritive or alimentary moisture is that which is made from food by its conversion into the substance of the one nourished, for the repair of what is lost from the radical moisture by the action of natural heat. For although natural heat resides chiefly in the heart, which is the warmest of all the members, yet from it it is derived into the other parts of the body and is dispersed through the whole body and immersed in the radical moisture, in which by its action it is consumed; and so much so that, lest it be consumed, it is necessary that it be continually repaired by the inner reception of extrinsic nourishment," etc. — A little before, codex K with edition 1 [reads] amplius in place of plus. A little below, codex M [reads] operationi in place of perfectioni.
  13. Aliqui codd. ut X V duplex. Paulo ante ed. 1 huius loco huiusmodi. De proxime sequenti divisione virtutis operantis cfr. Aristot., I. Magn. Moral. c. 16. (17.), ubi de προαίρεσι, quod in antiquioribus translationibus nomine propositum vel delectus exhibebatur.
    Some codices such as X, V [read] duplex. A little before, edition 1 [reads] huius in place of huiusmodi. Concerning the immediately following division of the operating power, cf. Aristotle, I. Magna Moralia c. 16 (17), where concerning proairesis, which in the older translations was rendered by the name propositum or delectus.
  14. Vat. cum cod. cc licet. Paulo ante cod. C daturus loco mensus.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc [reads] licet. A little before, codex C [reads] daturus in place of mensus.
  15. Vers. 15.
    Verse 15.
  16. Plura vide infra d. 44. dub. 3, ubi et de B. V. Maria, et III. Sent. d. 13. a. 1. q. 3.
    See more below at d. 44, dub. 3, where also concerning the Bl. Virgin Mary, and III Sent. d. 13, a. 1, q. 3.
  17. Ex antiquioribus mss. et ed. 1 substituimus quod loco quia. Paulo infra post dulcissima in cod. H additur plena gratia, quae Deum genuit et hominem.
    From the older manuscripts and edition 1 we have substituted quod in place of quia. A little below, after dulcissima, in codex H is added plena gratia, quae Deum genuit et hominem ("full of grace, who bore God and man").
  18. Cod. Y pervenerit, qui et mox duplex ponit loco dupliciter.
    Codex Y [reads] pervenerit, which also soon after puts duplex in place of dupliciter.
  19. Antiqui codd. cum ed. 1 quae loco qui. Paulo ante aliqui codd. ut HMPQV cum ed. 1 post vero addunt est, pauci vero ut VX ut.
    Old codices with edition 1 [read] quae in place of qui. A little before, some codices such as HMPQV with edition 1 add est after vero, while a few such as VX [add] ut.
  20. Matth. 22, 37, et Marc. 12, 30.
    Matthew 22:37, and Mark 12:30.
  21. Codd. aa bb adiungunt illuminari.
    Codices aa, bb add illuminari.
  22. Vat. cum cod. cc angustant.
    The Vatican edition with codex cc [reads] angustant.
  23. Supra q. 2. ad 4. — Mox cod. I nec pro non, et cod. Y ut loco quod.
    Above q. 2, [reply] to 4. — Soon after, codex I [reads] nec in place of non, and codex Y [reads] ut in place of quod.
  24. Vat. addit id est, cod. cc et, sed antiquiores codd. cum ed. 1 omittunt quamlibet particulam. Paulo ante in cod. S post habet additur a parte, in qua additione decidit certe sua.
    The Vatican edition adds id est, codex cc [adds] et, but the older codices with edition 1 omit any particle whatever. A little before, in codex S, after habet is added a parte, in which addition his [position] certainly falls away.
  25. Fide mss. et ed. 1 expunximus hic a Vat. additum caritatis.
    On the testimony of the manuscripts and edition 1 we have expunged caritatis added here by the Vatican edition.
  26. Cod. T nec ad illud mensuratur nec; aliqui codd. ut A S V X cum ed. 1 perperam post mensuram adiiciunt nec.
    Codex T [reads] nec ad illud mensuratur nec; some codices such as A, S, V, X with edition 1 wrongly add nec after mensuram.
← Dist. 17, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 17, Part 1, Dubia→