Is The Natural History of Religion an empirical hypothesis that seeks to account for the rise and diversity of historical religions? Or is it rather a second-order task, a philosophical reflection on the religious life of humanity, attempting to assess its ultimate significance for a human existence viewed within the framework of the whole of reality or Nature? Because this work is, so to speak, at the crossroads between philosophy and what we now call science, it seems to lend support to both possibilities of interpretation. Hume was writing at a time when neither discipline was sharply distinguished;¹ he is, perhaps, doing both things; and the question is, which of the two constitutes the substantive theoretical task of the Natural History.