74. Between two philosophers, both equally learned with Comte, one may be, like him, an atheist, the other, like Newton, a believer in God; and yet, as respects the whole range of positive science, would there be any clashing? They would attribute every thing to the same _laws_, whether these should be ascribed to a deity or not. The origin of the laws recognised by both would, by one, be ascribed to an inscrutable God; by the other, to inscrutability without a God. 75. Because the movements of the heavenly bodies are ascribed to the three elements above mentioned,—an unknown source of projectile force, vis inertiæ, by which that force is perpetuated, and gravitation, by which it is modified into elliptical, orbitual revolution, operating as laws governing planetary movement,—it does not make the astronomer who adopts this conception less of a theologian; it only makes him a more enlightened theologian. We ascribe _less_ to the _special_ interference of the Creator in proportion as our knowledge enables us to perceive results attained by general laws. This, Comte conceives, causes theists to be less theological, and to lessen what he seems to view as the domain which theology is allowed to have. But is it not more correct to assume that it is only the domain of ignorance which grows less, while that of theology becomes simpler and more correct, but not less extensive? It is not that less is ascribed to God, but that the aggregate is more intelligently ascribed as the laws through which his agency is recognised are fewer. 76. Newton assumed inertia, gravitation, and motion as the foundation of his philosophy; but attributed these fundamental properties, or states of matter, to the will of that governing mind of which he held the existence to be as evident as that of the matter governed. Comte does not consider that there is any positive proof of the existence of such a ruling mind, and does not, therefore, find it necessary to admit the existence of a Deity. Thus, the states or properties above mentioned are, with Newton, proximate, with Comte, ultimate, causes. Hence, when we arrive at the foundation of the Newtonian doctrine, we cannot go deeper without admitting the existence of a God. Without this admission, we involve ourselves in the irremediable darkness of atheism. 77. In this respect, I have always been a follower of Newton. Evidently, both the governing reason and the creation which it rules must have existed from eternity; since, if nothing ever existed exclusively, it must have forever endured, and there never could have been any thing. So, if there ever had been no mind, there never could have been any mind.