and magnitude and what this entails, no one has claimed that it is known necessarily or self-evidently. At most, it is said to be established by rational inference. Yet you yourself have stated that this is necessarily known to follow if the first proposition holds. If that is so, you cannot challenge the position they say is known necessarily on the basis of the position they say is known through reasoning. For challenging necessary knowledge by means of reasoning is invalid, as explained earlier.

Indeed, if what you insist follows from their position is a necessary consequence, and they claim that the proposition from which it follows is known necessarily, then both would be known necessarily. Inferential knowledge could therefore in no way undermine this, since necessary knowledge is the foundation of inferential knowledge. Challenging necessary knowledge by means of inferential knowledge thus entails challenging both.

The fourth response is that, if they have contravened what reason requires in this instance, that would not excuse them for contravening it elsewhere. Rather, it would only add to their error. Neither reason nor religion permits a person to move from lesser error to greater error. Remaining in lesser error is better than moving to greater error.

This is merely like someone arguing against another on an issue on the basis of a scriptural text or consensus, only to be told: “You and I have already contravened the text and consensus in an analogous issue, so let us contravene them in this one.” Such reasoning is plainly invalid. Or it is like a man asking someone to bear false witness on his behalf in another case because he has already borne false witness for him in one case, or to commit a forbidden act