150 
Deduction lias been fairly enough termed (by Mr. Mill) the 
deciphering of our manuscript notes. As far as mere positive 
science is concerned, this description (for description it is) of 
Deduction is correct. It is when we come to Geometry, Psy- 
chology, and Theology, that we find the difficulty of acquiescing 
in the application of the name “manuscript notes ” to the 
intimations of a Creators Will and Being, and the necessities 
of thinking to which He has subjected our intellect. But let 
the term be accepted. It is plain that the “ law of Universal 
Truth requires, for a correct passage of thought, that the 
relation inferred should really be contained in short-hand in 
the manuscript notes : that the individual case to which the 
general is applied really does come under it. 
The fallacy then will be either to introduce a false or unsuit- 
able relation ; or else to apply a suitable enough relation to a 
case which seems to come under it, but does not actually. 
Of the first form of fallacy none is commoner, none more 
in use among sceptics, than that which is called the argumentum 
ad verecundiam. We are told, You must allow this, you must 
deny that ; and when we ask why, we receive the reply, 
“ Because Professor A. or Mr. B. has said so. If you do not 
acquiesce you are guilty of the presumption of doubting 
them. - ” The argument is transferred from the truth of fact 
a or fact j3 to the credibility of A or B. 
I should not have alluded to this form of fallacy were it not 
for the fact that the sceptical school resolutely deny to be- 
lievers the argument from authority, while they themselves 
use it. If we urge the acceptance of Scripture because it has 
been accepted by so many, by thinkers and by workers of so 
many ages, and such varied modes of life, we are told imme- 
diately that the question is one, not of opinion, but of truth ; 
that it shows a blind deference to the unreasoning credulity 
of ignorant ages to plead for the acceptance of a book because 
it has been accepted for two thousand years. On the other 
hand, if we venture to prefer our Scripture to the somewhat 
vague and uncertain generalizations of geologists, and the 
like, we are met forthwith with the authority of learned names 
and ordered “ favere Unguis 
I call this pushing the “ argumentum ad verecundiam ” too 
far, an instance of the fallacy of false or unsuitable relation, 
because, instead of having the relation between class and class 
(or between individual and class) clearly pointed out, we have 
merely given us the dictum of an individual concerning that 
relation. 
But, supposing the relation clearly and adequately stated, 
we come to another form of fallacy; that of proceeding to 
