¹ This system originated with the Dominicans, and is found in their constitutions in a universal form, applying to the rule, the constitutions, the ordinations of all superiors and all their utterances, excepting only when a formal precept in a fixed form, which invokes the vow, is used (or where the matter is otherwise binding under sin owing to the three vows or to a law of God or of the Church). This is so even where words implying sin may be used (as occurs in some older formulae in the constitutions of the Preachers). There is not full agreement about the precise explanation of this provision. The theory of Cajetan is here given, elaborated at a time when the matter was under special discussion among the Dominicans (1513-18) and when he was Master General; it may therefore be presumed to be well in their tradition. For Cajetan laws and precepts binding only to a penalty are true laws obliging the virtue of obedience, and yet not binding under pain of a sin of disobedience; nor does an imposed penalty for transgression bind under sin. The application of this theory to other religious institutes may be more limited, and particular constitutions must be consulted. Among theologians there are three other chief theories. Some hold that the subject is bound under sin either to obey or to undergo the penalty if imposed; others that such laws bind under sin, but that the subject can dispense himself for a good cause; others that they are not true laws but counsels, (cf. J. B. Pasciak, O.P., De obedientia religiosa sec. D. Thomam et Thomistas. Romae, 1945. A doctorate thesis at the Angelicum, to which this article is much in debt.)