In the philosophy of Solomon, as recorded in Ecclesiastes, we read: “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.... To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.” With Christianity came the dogma of “predestination” and “election.” This was promulgated, on the very threshold, by Paul, a man of the sublimest genius; adorable, venerable and heroic. Thus he addressed the church at Rome: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God,--to them who are the called according to His purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be first born among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?” This idea is necessarily involved in the theology of St. Augustine, who maintained that “grace is effectual from its nature, absolutely and morally, not relatively and gradually.” It remained for John Calvin to erect the assertions of Paul into a cognate and masterly system. He insisted upon the purpose of God from eternity, respecting all events. Briefly, of the religion of the world, to-day, ninety per cent are predestinarian in theory or practice, consciously or unconsciously. Of Christendom, those who agree with Arminius are in a small minority, relatively:--a minority whose creed involves not only the limitation of divine knowledge, but a paralysis of divine power and the moral chaos of a universe. That religion is necessarily puerile and unphilosophic which attempts to reconcile the omnipotence of God with the freedom of man. Either Nature is ordered for the best--so as to produce the highest good; or else, everything is purposeless and for the worst. In a word, either optimism or pessimism must wholly prevail: logically, a middle ground is impossible. We must choose between Leibnitz or Schopenhauer.