over the other. In any case, no universal rational proposition, whether self-evident or otherwise, arises in his mind except through analogical reasoning and comparison. Even his knowledge that one is half of two, that a body cannot be in two places at once, and that two contraries cannot coexist rests on his having perceived these things through his senses in certain bodies, corporeal forms, and contrasting colors. He then understands that what he has not perceived resembles what he has perceived in this respect, and that the judgment does not differ between one unit and another, one body and another, one color and another, or one contrary and another. He thus makes a general, universal judgment.

That being so, he can have no rational argument in theology that does not require a universal proposition; and a universal proposition necessarily involves reasoning by analogy from the observed to the unobserved. If this is invalid, all their discourse based on rational proofs in theology is invalidated. What they have said about the body itself and other things would then be invalidated, leaving them with no answer to their opponent’s argument. But if it is not invalid, he cannot refute this argument on the grounds he has given, namely that it involves reasoning by analogy from the observed to the unobserved.

In short, if