The arte of logick Plainely taught in the English tongue, according to the best approued authors. Very necessary for all students in any profession, how to defend any argument against all subtill sophisters, and cauelling schismatikes, and how to confute their false syllogismes, and captious arguments. By M. Blundevile.

What rules doe the Schoole-men set downe to know a good Conse∣quent?

They set downe some more, some lesse, but Caesarius only re∣citeth two, which are these: The first is, if a Consequent doth necessarily follow of his Antecedent, then the contrary of the Antecedent must needs necessarily follow the contrary of the Consequent: As for example, because this is a good Cōsequent to say, it is a man: Ergo, it is a sensible body: it is a good Con∣quent to say, it is no sensible body: Ergo, it is no man: the rea∣son thereof is, because the contrary of the Consequent and the Antecedent cannot bee both true together, but one of them must needs be false. The second rule is, that whatsoeuer follow∣eth vpon a good Consequent, must needs also follow vpon the Antecedent therof: As for example, if it be a good Consequent to say, it is a man: Ergo, it is a sensible body: ye may aswel say, if it be a sensible body: Ergo, it is a substance: and sith that a sensi∣ble body is a substance, you may therefore aswel conclude that a man is a substāce. To these rules you may adde also the third, which is, that of true things, nothing can follow but truth: but of false things, sometime that which is false, and sometime that which is true, as hath bin said before: and yet such truth fol∣loweth not by vertue of the false premises, but because the cō∣clusion or Consequent is a true Proposition of it selfe: As in this example. Euery sensible body is a tree, but euery Peare∣tree is a sensible body: Ergo, euery Peare-tree is a tree.