I. The phenomenon of religion had its origin in SUPERSTITION, that is, in a _fear_ of invisible and supernatural powers, generated by ignorance of nature. II. The phenomenon of religion is part of that PROCESS or EVOLUTION OF THE ABSOLUTE (i.e., the Deity), which gradually unfolding itself in nature, mind, history, and _religion_, attains to perfect self-consciousness in philosophy. III. The phenomenon of religion has its foundation in FEELING--_the feeling of dependence and of obligation_; and that to which the mind, by spontaneous intuition or instinctive faith, traces this dependence and obligation we call God. IV. The phenomenon of religion had its outbirth in the spontaneous apperceptions of REASON, that is, the necessary _à priori ideas of the Infinite, the Perfect, the Unconditioned Cause, the Eternal Being_, which are evoked into consciousness in presence of the changeful and contingent phenomena of the world. V. The phenomenon of religion had its origin in EXTERNAL REVELATION, to which _reason_ is related as a purely passive organ, and _heathenism_ as a feeble relic. As a philosophy of religion--an attempt to supply the rationale of the religious phenomena of the world, the first hypothesis is a skeptical philosophy, which necessarily leads to _Atheism_. The second is an idealistic philosophy (absolute idealism), which inevitably lands in _Pantheism_. The third is an intuitional or "faith-philosophy," which finally ends in _Mysticism_. The fourth is a rationalistic or "spiritualistic" philosophy, which yields pure _Theism_. The last is an empirical philosophy, which derives all religion from instruction, and culminates in _Dogmatic Theology_. In view of these diverse and conflicting theories, the question which now presents itself for our consideration is,--does any one of these hypotheses meet and satisfy the demands of the problem? does it fully account for and adequately explain all the facts of religious history? The answer to this question must not be hastily or dogmatically given. The arbitrary rejection of any theory that may be offered, without a fair and candid examination, will leave our minds in uncertainty and doubt as to the validity of our own position. A blind faith is only one remove from a pusillanimous skepticism. We can not render our own position secure except by comprehending, assaulting, and capturing the position of our foe. It is, therefore, due to ourselves and to the cause of truth, that we shall examine the evidence upon which each separate theory is based, and the arguments which are marshalled in its support, before we pronounce it inadequate and unphilosophical. Such a criticism of opposite theories will prepare the way for the presentation of a philosophy of religion which we flatter ourselves will be found most in harmony with all the facts of the case.