The _Spinozistic_ system, on the contrary, supposes one and the same substance as immediate cause of all various effects, which must be regarded as predicates of one and the same subject. _Matter_ and _mind_ are, with Spinoza, one and the same substance, which appears, now under the former, now under the latter attribute. This single substance is, according to him, not only the sole being that can be _self-dependent_, that is, independent of any external cause, but also the sole _self-subsistent_ being, all so-called beings besides it being merely its _modes_, that is, particular limitations of its attributes. Every particular effect in nature is referred by him, not to its proximate cause (which is merely a _mode_), but immediately to this first cause, which is the common substance of all beings. In this system _unity is real_, but _multiplicity_ is merely _ideal_. In the atheistic system it is the opposite. _Multiplicity_ is _real_, being founded on the _nature of things themselves_. On the other hand, the _unity_, which is observed in the order and regularity of nature, is merely an _accident_, by which we are accustomed to determine our _arbitrary_ system _for the sake of knowledge_. It is inconceivable therefore how any one can make out the Spinozistic system to be atheistic, since the two systems are diametrically opposed to one another. In the latter the existence of _God_ is denied, but in the former the existence of the _world_. Spinoza's ought therefore to be called rather the _acosmic_ system. The _Leibnitzian_ system holds the mean between the two preceding. In it all _particular effects_ are referred immediately to _particular causes_; but these various effects are thought as _connected_ in a single system, and the cause of this connection is sought in a being beyond itself. _Positive_ religion is distinguished from _natural_ in the very same way as the positive laws of a state from natural laws. The latter are those which rest on a self-acquired, indistinct knowledge, and are not duly defined in regard to their application, while the former rest on a distinct knowledge received from others, and are completely defined in regard to their application.