But it has been asked again and again, in reference to these two solutions, can a man overstep the limits of himself—­of his own consciousness?  If he can, then says the querist, the reality of the external world is indeed guaranteed; but what an insoluble, inextricable contradiction is here:  that a man should overstep the limits of the very nature which is his, just because he cannot overstep it!  And if he cannot, then says the same querist, then is the external universe an empty name—­a mere unmeaning sound; and our most inveterate convictions are all dissipated like dreams.

Astute reasoner! the dilemma is very just, and is very formidable; and upon the one or other of its horns, has been transfixed every adventurer that has hitherto gone forth on the knight-errantry of speculation.  Every man who lays claim to a direct knowledge of something different from himself, perishes impaled on the contradiction involved in the assumption, that consciousness can transcend itself:  and every man who disclaims such knowledge, expires in the vacuum of idealism, where nothing grows but the dependent and transitory productions of a delusive and constantly shifting consciousness.

But is there no other way in which the question can be resolved?  We think that there is.  In the following demonstration, we think that we can vindicate the objective reality of things—­(a vindication which, we would remark by the way is of no value whatever, in so far as that objective reality is concerned, but only as being instrumental to the ascertainment of the laws which regulate the whole process of sensation;)—­we think that we can accomplish this, without, on the one hand, forcing consciousness to overstep itself, and on the other hand, without reducing that reality to the delusive impressions of an understanding born but to deceive.  Whatever the defects of our proposed demonstration may be, we flatter ourselves that the dilemma just noticed as so fatal to every other solution, will be utterly powerless when brought to bear against it:  and we conceive, that the point of a third alternative must be sharpened by the controversialist who would bring us to the dust.  It is a new argument, and will require a new answer.  We moreover pledge ourselves, that abstruse as the subject is, both the question, and our attempted solution of it, shall be presented to the reader in such a shape as shall compel him to understand them.

Our pioneer shall be a very plain and palpable illustration.  Let A be a circle, containing within it X Y Z.

[Illustration]

X Y and Z lie within the circle; and the question is, by what art or artifice—­we might almost say by what sorcery—­can they be transplanted out of it, without at the same time being made to overpass the limits of the sphere?  There are just four conceivable answers to this question—­answers illustrative of three great schools of philosophy, and of a fourth which is now fighting for existence.