interfering with them, or even more than this--a second hand taking them up and arranging them arbitrarily in certain figures. Science places the positive school on the horns of a dilemma. The mind or spirit is either arranged entirely by the molecules it is connected with, and these molecules move with the same automatic necessity that the earth moves with; or else these molecules are, partially at least, arranged by the mind or spirit. If we do not accept the former theory we must accept the latter: there is no third course open to us. If man is not an automaton, his consciousness is no mere function of any physical organ. It is an alien and disturbing element. Its impress on physical facts, its disturbance of physical laws, may be doubtless the only things through which we can perceive its existence; but it is as distinct from the things by which we can alone at present perceive it, as a hand unseen in the dark, that should arrest or change the course of a phosphorescent billiard-ball. Once let us deny even in the most qualified way that the mind in the most absolute way is a material machine, an automaton, and in that denial we are affirming a second and immaterial universe, independent of the material, and obeying different laws. But of this universe, if it exists, no natural proof can be given, because _ex hypothesi_ it lies quite beyond the region of nature. One theory then of man's life is that it is a union of two orders of things; another, that it is single, and belongs to only one. And of these theories--opposite, and mutually exclusive, Dr. Tyndall, and modern positivism with him, says '_I reject neither_.'[35] Now this statement of their position, if taken as they state it, is of course nonsense. It is impossible to consider matter as '_that mysterious something by which all that is is accomplished;_' and then to solve the one chief riddle of things by a second mysterious something that is not material. Nor can we '_reject_,' as the positivists say they do, an '_outside builder_' of the world, and then claim the assistance of an _outside_ orderer of the brain. The positivists would probably tell us that they do not do so, or that they do not mean to do so. And we may well believe them. Their fault is that they do not know what they mean. I will try to show them.