This question reveals a common misperception about mathematics: that mathematical statements are proved out of nothing, because they are simply "true". Nothing up my sleeves, then poof a theorem appears.
On the contrary, all theorems in mathematics must have a starting point. For some theorems, the starting point is naive "common knowledge" type stuff -- this makes it appear to be out of nothing, but it really isn't.
Natural log, exponent base e, these functions don't just exist on their own with all their properties. You define one of them, using one of the properties, and then use that definition to prove all of the other properties. You will never be able to prove all the properties, because you must have (at least) one to get started. You cannot build them out of "common knowledge" because their properties are too sophisticated for basic arithmetic, they depend on infinite limits and integrals and derivatives.
One starting point is to define $\ln x$ as $\int_1^x\frac{1}{t} dt$. If this is the definition of $\ln x$, then the OP is true by the fundamental theorem of calculus.
Another starting point is to define $e=\lim_{n\to\infty} (1+\frac{1}{n})^n$. Then, you define $e^x$ as an exponential, then prove properties about that function, then define $\ln x$ as its inverse.
A third starting point is to define $e^x=1+\frac{x^1}{1!}+\frac{x^2}{2!}+\frac{x^3}{3!}+\cdots$, an infinite sum. Then, you define $e$ as the evaluation of this series at $x=1$, and proceed as in the previous version.
The reason all the commenters are asking what the definition is, is that in addition to these three there are probably half a dozen more ways your book could have begun the definitions. It would be a waste of time to guess and provide you a nice proof, that doesn't match the treatment given in your book.