This second part contains propositions that provide a doctrine and method for reducing Laws to the principles of T.  Now let us begin with the first and foremost of all principles. 

God A.
1. Since God is just, every Law is an act of Justice.
2. Whoever contradicts Law, contradicts God.
3. Every Law is subservient to God's Law.

Creature B.
1. It is up to God to create Law, and up to man to apply it.
2. The elevation of Law is always created by elevating the virtues.
3. Since every human being was created by divine Justice, all are under the obligation to honor the likeness of Justice.

Operation C.
1. Without Operating, Law cannot stand against injury.
2. Law is declared in specific Operations.
3. Law arises through affirmation and negation.

Difference D.
1. Judgments are diversified in the diversification of Formal and Material laws.
2. Diversity of purpose cannot stand under one and the same judgment.
3. Laws are different so they can be concordant.

Concordance E.
1. Since there is Law and concordance in God, Law is always greater in concordance than injury in contrariety.
2. The Law that is greatest in its concordance with its end is to be elected.
3. Because Justice is great, it can be magnified in the concordance of Law.

Contrariety F.
1. Any contrariety among Laws exists merely in the rational mind.
2. Without God, Law cannot contradict injury.
3. Law always contradicts injury more strongly with universal principles than with particular ones.

Beginning G.
1. The nobility of principles of Law resides in the nobility of their end.
2. In the principles of Law there are beacons for guiding judgments.
3. All Laws must be reduced to sure principles.

Middle H.
1. The middle of Law is a mirror for viewing the beginning and the end of Law.
2. The just and the unjust are the medium through which Justice and injury are opposed.
3. No medium can ever produce any concordance between Justice and injury.

End I.
1. Since the end is a nobler principle than the beginning and the middle, every legal judgment must be made with a view to the end.
2. The end of Law is Justice.
3. The end that is most resistant to injury must be elected.

Majority K.
1. Since substance agrees with majority, substantial Law supersedes accidental Law.
2. Greater Laws are signified by greater accidents.
3. Law opposes injury more strongly with the virtues that exist in God, than with virtues that do not exist in God.

Equality L.
1. Any equality between one Law and another casts a cloud over judgment.
2. Laws find their equal parity in the equal parity of their ends.
3. There can never be any equal parity between Law and injury.

Minority M.
1. Minority of Law exists in necessity and contingency.
2. A Law that exists through contingency is less than a Law that exists of necessity.
3. Minority of Law resides in any closeness between Justice and injury.

Affirmation N.
1. Any Law giving rise to the greatest good is to be affirmed above the other Laws.
2. No Law can be affirmed against God.
3. A Law cannot be affirmed before knowing its beginning, middle and end.

Doubt O.
1. Legal doubting and questioning must lead to legal affirmations and negations.
2. Doubt in legal matters can never be without a cause.
3. Doubt in legal matters arises from an equal parity between affirmation and negation.

Negation P.
1. As it is right to affirm Justice, all injury must be negated.
2. The denial of Law involves impossibility more than possibility.
3. No principle can build more than what the denial of Law can destroy.