“I cannot suffer you, my young friend, to give up to the Presbyterians exclusively the most precious doctrines of the Bible. You are very much mistaken if you think that Presbyterians are the only people who believe in election and the final perseverance of the saints.” “Do you believe that other horrid doctrine of Predestination? No; surely not.” “You have asked me a direct question,” said Mr. Hillston, “and have presumed to answer for me. But your answer is incorrect: for as much as you may be surprised, I tell you that I do believe the ‘horrid doctrine’ of Predestination.” “Well, I am surprised to hear you say so. For I thought that even Presbyterians shrank from averring it openly.” “You may be surprised now; but when you investigate more closely, you may be a Predestinarian yourself, if you will lay aside prejudice.” “I do not see how I ever can be, with all deference to you, sir; for the doctrine is horrible to me.” “What is so horrible, my boy?” asked the old man kindly. “But let us go into the house. Now,” continued Mr. Hillston, as they both seated themselves, “tell me what is so horrible?” “Why, that God should condemn men to eternal torment even before they are born. What can be more cruel and unjust?” “That would be ‘horrible’ if God were blind, as men are. But let us look at this ‘horrible doctrine’ from other standpoints. You probably know that some people, in order to avoid the difficulties of Divine sovereignty, strip God of one of His attributes by saying that the Lord does not choose to foreknow human destiny, that is, individual destiny. Now if that were true, man would be a perfect free moral agent, would he?” “Undoubtedly, he would, sir.” “That is what a great many people say,” answered Mr. Hillston, “in the very face of Scriptures to the contrary. But never mind: for the present, we will assume that God does not choose to exercise His foreknowledge. Well, men follow the bent of their owns wills, and shape their own destinies. At last the world comes to an end. God opens the Books--that is, He looks back over the past, and discovers what men have done, and settles their doom according to their deeds, do you think that would be right?” “O, yes,” said Ernest, “that would certainly be just, according to my ideas.” “Very well. In looking back, the mere knowledge which God acquires does not affect men’s conduct, does it?” “What do you mean by ‘affect’?” “I mean His knowledge would not change their deeds, one way or the other?” “No: of course, His knowledge would have no effect upon their past conduct.” “Then, if you please, tell me what is the difference between God’s looking back over the past and looking forward over the future. How would His knowledge affect human destinies in the one case more than in the other?” Ernest thought for a moment, and then said: “Why, there is this difference: whatever God foreknows must take place.”