To render intelligible that part of the story of my life, which refers to my sentiments regarding religion, I must first give in advance a short practical _history of the Jewish religion_, and at the outset say something of the idea of _religion in general_, as well as of the difference between _natural_ and _positive_ religion. _Religion in general_ is the expression of gratitude, reverence and the other feelings, which arise from the dependence of our weal and woe on one or more powers to us unknown. If we look to the _expression of these feelings in general_, without regard to the _particular mode of the expression_, religion is certainly natural to man. He observes many effects which are of interest to him, but whose causes are to him unknown; and he finds himself compelled, by the universally recognised _Principle of Sufficient Reason_, to suppose these causes, and to express towards them the feelings mentioned. This expression may be of two kinds, in conformity either with the _imagination_ or with _reason_. For either man imagines the causes to be analogous to the effects, and ascribes to them in themselves such attributes as are revealed through the effects, or he thinks them merely as causes of certain effects, without seeking thereby to determine their attributes in themselves. These two modes are both natural to man, the former being in accordance with his earlier condition, the latter with that of his perfection. The difference between these two modes of representation has as its consequence another difference of religions. The first mode of representation, in accordance with which the causes are supposed to be _similar_ to the effects, is the mother of _polytheism_ or _heathenism_. But the second is the basis of _true_ religion. For as the kinds of effects are different, the causes also, if held to be like them, must be represented as different from one another. On the other hand, if, in accordance with truth, we conceive the idea of _cause in general_ for these effects, without seeking to determine this cause, either _in itself_ (since it is wholly unknown), or _analogically_ by help of the imagination, then we have no ground for supposing several causes, but require to assume merely a single subject, wholly unknown, as cause of all these effects. The different philosophical systems of theology are nothing but _detailed developments_ of these different modes of representation. The _atheistic_ system of theology, if so it may be called, rejects altogether this idea of a _first cause_, (as, according to the _critical_ system at least, it is merely of _regulative use_ as a necessary _idea of reason_). All effects are referred to particular known or unknown causes. In this there cannot be assumed even a _connection_ between the various effects, else the _reason_ of this connection would require to be sought beyond the connection itself.