master of their destiny? Is it not this divine being who chooses and
rejects? The anathemas fulminated by religion, the promises it holds
forth, are they not founded upon the idea of the effects they will
necessarily produce upon mankind? Is not man brought into existence
without his own knowledge? Is he not obliged to play a part against his
will? Does not either his happiness or his misery depend on the part he
plays?

All religion has been evidently founded upon _Fatalism_. Among the
Greeks they supposed men were punished for their necessary faults, as
may be seen in Orestes, in Oedipus, &c. who only committed crimes
predicted by the oracles. It is rather singular that the theological
defenders of the doctrine of _free-agency_, which they endeavour to
oppose to that of _predestination_,--which according to them is
irreconcileable with _Christianity_, inasmuch as it is a false and
dangerous system,--should not have been aware that the doctrines of _the
fall of angels, original sin, the small number of the elect, the system
of grace, &c._ were most incontestibly supporting, by the most cogent
arguments, a _true system of fatalism_.

_Education_, then, is only necessity shewn to children: _legislation_ is
necessity shewn to the members of the body politic: _morals_ is the
necessity of the relations subsisting between men, shewn to reasonable
beings: in short, man grants _necessity_ in every thing for which he
believes he has certain, unerring experience: that of which he does not
comprehend the necessary connection of causes with their effects he
styles _probability_: he would not act as he does, if he was not
convinced, or, at least, if he did not presume he was, that certain
effects will necessarily follow his actions. The _moralist_ preaches
reason, because he believes it necessary to man: the _philosopher_