The first consists of acts of a single, unvarying type, such as knowledge and truthfulness, both of which conform to existing reality. Others belong to a general category whose particular forms vary, such as justice, fulfilling trusts, prayer, fasting, ritual worship, renunciation, restraint, and the like. What constitutes justice in one religious tradition and system of governance may differ from what constitutes justice among others—as, for example, in the division of inheritances. These matters depend on what is right as an intended end.

Yet it may be objected: Although people agree that knowledge must correspond to its object and that a report must correspond to what it reports, they differ very greatly over this correspondence. One person considers something to correspond to reality, regarding it as knowledge and truthfulness, while another considers it contrary to reality, regarding it as ignorance and falsehood—especially in divine matters. Likewise, regarding justice, they agree that equal cases must be treated equally, but disagree over what constitutes equality, correspondence, and similarity. Knowledge, truthfulness, and justice all necessarily involve correspondence, similarity, assessment, and comparison, yet people disagree over these.

The answer is: This is correct. However, correspondence in knowledge and truthfulness is determined by a thing’s actual existence as it is in itself—that is, existing reality—and therefore does not depend on a command or an act of will. Correspondence in justice, by contrast, is determined by what ought to be intended and done. This depends on the intention and command, which may vary according to circumstances. Hence, revealed laws have not differed concerning knowledge and truthfulness as they have concerning justice. As for acts of worship in general, such as prayer, fasting, ritual worship, and refraining from