Concordance Combined With the Sequence of Rules

104. With rule B, we ask if concordance is substantial. We answer that it is, so that the entirety of substance can be composed of its substantial parts, otherwise, the entire essence of form would not be concordant with the entire essence of matter in constituting a third substantial entity, so that this third substantial entity would be completely emptied of mixture and composition, which is impossible. We therefore find that concordance is a substantial part of the subjects in which it exists. Moreover, this is obvious by rule B.

105. With the first species of rule C we ask what concordance is. We answer that it is the essence whose proper function is to concord, for without it, no being can be concorded or concordable. With the second species of rule C we ask what concordance naturally and

essentially has in itself. We say that it has its correlatives, namely the concorder, the concorded and concording. Further, with the third species of this rule, we ask what concordance is in other things. We answer that it is concordant in contrariety, as when fire heats water, which is its opposite element. Concordance is distinct by reason of difference, it is simply sustained in its own correlatives and even in contrariety. Moreover, concordance is present materially in rule D, formally in rule E, quantitatively in rule F, qualitatively in rule G, chronologically in rule H, locally in rule I, and it is modally and instrumentally present in rule K. With the fourth species, we ask what concordance has in other things. We say that it has existence, action and nature in its correlatives. Concordance has what it has materially in rule D, formally in rule E, and so on with the remaining rules in their own way as we said above under the third species or rule C. In addition, this can be demonstrated by rule B.

106. With the first species of rule D we ask what concordance arises from. We answer that it exists on its own as a primordial entity, otherwise, it would me made of something else that preceded it, not of its own genus and nature, which is impossible. With the second species, we ask what things concordance consists of. We say that it consists of its own correlatives, in which it can exist substantially. With the third species of the same rule, we ask what concordance belongs to. We answer that habitual concordance belongs to substantial concordance, as a coat belongs to the man wearing it. And rule B clearly shows this.

107. With the first species of rule E we ask why concordance formally exists. We say that it exists by reason of its correlatives. Here, we see that substance is its own substantial raison d'être. Now let us ask again, why does concordance formally exist? We say that habitual concordance exists because substantial concordance clothes itself with it, like a man wearing a coat. Here, the intellect knows why concordance is what it is, why it has quiddity, and it makes a science of this. With the second species of rule E we ask about the purpose of concordance. We answer that concordance exists so that the other principles can repose in it. Rule B also shows this.

108. With the first species of rule F we ask about the quantity of concordance. We answer that it has quantity in two ways: first, it has the quantity of its substance and secondly, it has the quantity of its habit, just as a man wearing a coat has the quantity of his substance as well as the quantity of his garment. Further, with the second species we ask about the discrete quantity of concordance. We answer that it has the quantity of its correlatives, and rule B also shows this.

109. With the first species of rule G we ask about the quality of concordance. We say that it has the quality of a proper passion in the subject in which it exists. Here, the intellect recognizes the great and necessary connectedness between subject and predicate. With the

second species, we ask about the appropriated qualities of concordance. We say that

concordance has the qualities of its passions by reason of goodness, greatness etc. And this is clear and self-evident.

110. With all the species of rule H we ask when concordance exists. We answer that it exists when it is combined with all the species of rule H. Moreover, just as concordance exists in time, so is time sustained in concordance and sequentially combined with it through concording. This is self-evident to artists well versed in this art.

111. With all the species of rule I we ask where concordance exists. We answer that it is present in all the species of I. Concordance is present wherever it can be defined, it is present in its correlatives and it is present wherever it contradicts contrariety. It exists wherever it has its act, wherever it is primordial, wherever it is constituted and wherever it is subjective, modal or instrumental.

112. With all the species of the rule of modality, we ask how concordance exists. We say that it is in the way it has of combining with the subjects in which it is present, and that concordance is present in every species. As a crystal looks green when it is placed on a green

object and red when placed on a red object, likewise, concordance receives goodness in one way when it is combined with goodness, and it receives greatness in another way when combined with greatness, and so forth. The same applies to the species of the rules. This is plainly self-evident.

113. With the rule of instrumentality, we ask what means concordance exists with. We say that it exists with its own constituting correlatives; it exists with all the species of the rules, and it is good with goodness, great with greatness etc. This is self-evident.

114. We have combined concordance with the rules. By following what was said here, we can contradict the contrariety of vice by means of concordance. This very general rule has great moral power against sin.