thing devised by men, but is observed a;nd noted by them
CHAP. XXXII.] OF LOGICAL RULES. 69 vain who had believed it. But all these false inferences followed legitimately from the opinion of those who said that there is no resurrection of the dead. These inferences, then, being repudiated as false, it follows that since they would be true if the dead rise not, there will be a resurrection of the dead. As, then, valid conclusions may be drawn not only from true but from false propositions, the laws of valid ^ reasoning may easily be learnt in the schools, outside the pale of the Church. But the truth of propositions must be inquired into in the sacred books of the Church.
Chap, xxxii.— Valid logical sequence is not devised hut only observed hy man.
50. And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a^ thing devised by men, but is observed a;nd noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it ; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God. For as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself create that order ; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements of man ; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained ;—in the same way, he who says, " When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false," says what is most true ; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so. And it is upon this rule that the reasoning I have quoted from the Apostle Paul proceeds. For the antecedent is, " There is no resurrection of the dead,"—the position taken up by those whose error the apostle wished to overthrow. Next, from this antecedent, the assertion, viz., that there is no resurrection of the dead, the necessary consequence is, " Then Christ is not risen." But this consequence is false, for Christ has risen ; therefore the antecedent is also false. But the antecedent is, that there is no resurrection of the dead. We conclude, therefore, that there is a resurrection of the dead. Now all this is briefly expressed thus : If there is no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen ; but Christ is risen, therefore there is a resurrection of the dead. This rule, then, that when the consequent is removed, the antecedent must also be