To Professor Powell.

My dear B. Powell,

Liverpool, Feb. 10th, 1838.

The first use I have made of my returning power of close attention has been to read your work, for a copy of which I wish you to accept my thanks. I have derived much pleasure and instruction from it. It is written in a most excellent spirit, and shows in every page a perfect acquaintance with natural philosophy, and the whole circle of science. The examples are luminous, and the style so clear that it requires only common attention in the unscientific reader to follow the argument through every division of the subject. You have very clearly shown the nature of the argument of Induction, upon which great uncertainty and obscurity prevails among many. Induction has generally been considered as something invented by Lord Bacon. I think it unfortunate that he used that word, taken from the then powerless Aristotelian language. I have examined most of the passages in which Aristotle speaks of the eπaywyn, especially comparing those in the Analytics with one in the 2nd or 3rd chapter of the Rhetoric, and it is clear to me that he uses that word vaguely. The prominent sense he gives it that in which the common logics use it, arises from the superficial view of its contrast with the syllogism, whence the conclusion follows from two Universals, one of

which is embraced by the other. The Induction διὰ πάντων, is mentioned merely as the counterpart of the logical universal, in which what is asserted of the whole is asserted of each individual contained in it. But Aristotle himself knew that the attempt to make out a universal from the examination of every individual is impossible. He uses the word waywyǹ in a loose sense, merely in opposition to syllogism, and when the argument cannot proceed by Media: in

a word, Induction, in the language of the Aristotelian logic, means, though imperfectly and without the slightest knowledge of the subject, experimental, practical proof. Lord Bacon, I believe, took it up in this sense, but by a wonderful effort of genius discovered the principal conditions which could give validity to experiment and observation, so that even one well-ascertained fact shall be the foundation, not of a logical universal, but of the belief in a universal law of Nature. You have explained and illustrated this subject most satisfactorily.

The enemies of science will be furious against you. It is in vain that we argue with them. The root of the evil lies very deep. It is my settled persuasion that most people who think they believe in God believe in an Idol. You give an excellent hint upon this at p. 156. Science opposes this idol-worship: it does not allow a belief in an extramundane God, who appears, like a clock-maker, setting now and then his own machinery to rights. But I am plunging into too deep a subject, when the paper is nearly full.

Tell Mrs. B. Powell that I wish her to consider this letter as a certificate that I am getting back into my old routine of health, if it deserves that name. I trust that if the weather continues tolerably mild, this severe attack will have left scarcely any trace of additional suffering in the course of ten days or a fortnight.

Believe me, with sincere esteem and friendship, my dear B. Powell,

Yours ever truly,

J. BLANCO WHITE.

Feb. 11th.

Much better. My legs continue swelled, but I have had some appetite. Reading, but without any

particular object, except in Suabadissen, to impress myself with his excellent views of Religion. Nobody to see me.

February 14th.

Having very lately read Professor Powell's Work On the Connection of Natural and Revealed Truth,* where various new English Writers on Subjects which involve this Question are quoted, I was struck with the confusion of Thought which all of them betray. Yet some of these Writers exhibit great Acuteness, and can urge a Fallacy with prodigious Power. Enthusiasm, I am convinced, is generally the source of this irregular, feverish Activity; but there is still another cause of these clever Aberrations. In this country, it may be safely affirmed, not ONE Mind applies itself to the Study of Religion with a due preparation by means of mental Philosophy. Even those who devote some Attention to Logic-that (as it is studied) rather barren Branch

* I take this opportunity of recording my great regard for Professor Powell as a friend, and my high estimate of his talents and knowledge as a man of Science and Literature. He has never given way to that most formidable party at Oxford, whose enmity against all enlightened views wreaked itself against Dr. Hampden, when he was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity. Professor Powell stood by his persecuted friend, with the greatest firmness. He never has disguised his opinions, or shrunk from declaring them, even when his vote had no one to support it against a numerous Convocation. I believe this happened upon the question of the admission of Dissenters to the University. But I fear my praise may be turned against him.-J. B. W. Aug. 24th, 1839.

of Science, turn away from it before what is unquestionably useful in the common Dialectics has incorporated itself with the other stores of their Mind.

But there is another study still more necessary than Logic, for the acquisition of sound religious Knowledge, of which there is scarcely a Notion among the British Divines-I mean the Study of the Sources, Limits, and Application of the mental Faculties, according to their primitive, essential Nature. The absence of such acquaintance with our Faculties, the total inattention to the Number, Nature, and Extent of the Capacities given to us for knowledge-not in a confused Mass, but naturally distributable into compartments, which have a reference to our various mental Powers-this ignorance of what should be the Foundation of all regular Instruction, shows itself in almost every page of the theological writings which daily multiply among us.

There is to me, a most striking Result of this Ignorance of our own spiritual self in the blind-man's buff Debate, which is carried on between those who contend that we must go to the Bible if we are to have any knowledge of God, and those who, certainly much more rationally, though not quite correctly, insist that Natural Theology must prove to us the Existence and Attributes of God, before we can derive Instruction from Revelation. I wish it to be clearly understood that I do not place these two Parties on the same intellectual or philosophical level. I am persuaded that the Study of Nature, by itself,

does not lead to the Acknowledgment of the Deity; but I am on the other hand convinced that this Study, assisted, however unconsciously to the Observer, by the light of that Rationality of which the simple, yet sublime Principles are most easily developed in Man, will certainly lead to God.-The Point of comparison between the two parties is this: that neither of them can see, that for the correction of the imperfect, and not unfrequently monstrous Notions of God, which their respective favourite Sources— especially the Bible-give them, they must have recourse to something which is neither external Nature, nor the Bible. Now it is practically obvious that both apply to some Principle within their own Minds. To me it is clear, that if they were well acquainted with their SPIRITUAL Self,-the invisible World within them-if they had begun their philosophical and theological Studies by examining What is in Man, they would not have involved themselves in this unmeaning controversy. Experience, and Common Sense, however, might teach them that the Principle, which enables both of them to perceive and to correct the Notions of God which they derive from what they call Nature and Revelation, should take the Lead of all other Guides.

"God has spoken to me," says some primitive Sage to his People, whom, on the hypothesis that Revelation alone can lead to the Deity, we must suppose totally ignorant of both the Word and Notion about to be introduced by the Prophet.-"What do you