344 THE REIGN OF LAW 



of the same work, in which Mr Mill says that 

 " the Theological mode of explaining phenomena 

 was once universal, with the exception, donbtlcss, of 

 the familiar facts which being eve7i then seen to be 

 controllable by human Will belonged already to the 

 Positive Mode of Thought."* 



These two sentences involve, on the face of 

 them, contradictory positions. The one affirms 

 that no volitions can interfere with the laws 

 which govern phenomena, and that the recogni- 

 tion of this is the very essence of the Positive 

 Philosophy. The other affirms that the Positive 

 Mode of Thought is involved in the very idea of 

 facts being controllable by human Will. 



It is not, perhaps, very important to ask 

 which of these two sentences gives the most 

 accurate description of the Positive Philosophy ; 

 but it is of much importance to ask which of 

 these two positions is nearest to the truth ? Be- 

 yond all doubt, it is the last. If the Positive Phi- 

 losophy were content with the assertion that the 

 power of Will over facts depends on the invaria- 

 bility of Laws — that is, on the constancy of Na- 



* Aug. Comte and Positivism, pp. 31, 32. 



