ism it
has no concern. And it is worthy of remark, that if one class of
doctrinalists more than another symbolizes in any instance with
Socinians, the followers of Calvin form that class; since it is not
easy to discover where lies the essential difference between the
doctrine of _philosophical necessity_, as held by the greater number
of Socinians, and that of _predestination_, as maintained by
Calvinists.

Both parties rest their dogmas on the same metaphysical grounds. At
the same time, as moral reasoners, the palm of superiority must be
awarded to Socinians, who reject most consistently the doctrine of
human corruption, and the atonement of Christ, together with the
correspondent doctrines of the Gospel, as altogether out of place in
a scheme which denies the freedom of human actions and reduces all
independent agency to that of the Deity alone; while the Calvinist
subjects the human race to an inevitable necessity of sinning,
denies to them individually, even the semblance of a probationary
course--makes them accountable, yet withholds the powers necessary
to a moral agent, and then most unrighteously dooms to perdition all
but the elect! In rejecting such a theory of religion, we reject not
the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; we only vindicate them
from objections, which, if unanswerable, are fatal; and we hold to
the Gospel with a firmer conviction and a livelier faith, when we
behold its accordance with the righteousness of the Divine
administration and with the moral constitution of man.

On a subject, which has been so long and so laboriously
investigated, and to the illustration of which the most vigorous and
profound of human intellects have directed their energies, it would
be vain to expect any novelty of argument. On either side, it may be
presumed, the question has been exhausted, or, that the human mind
has done all that its powers can accomplish, however unsatisfactory
or inconclusive, in some respects, the result.

It appears to the writer of these pages, on a calm and summary
review of the arguments by which the doctrines of _freedom_ and
_necessity_ have been respectively supported, that those reasonings
which are purely _philosophical_ or _metaphysical_ decidedly
preponderate on the side of Necessity. The prescience of the Deity
cannot, _on any known principle_, be reconciled with the contingency
which attaches to the actions or determinations of man, on the
hypothesis of freedom[2]. An