A careful and strict enquiry into the modern prevailing notions of that freedom of…

II. That no future Event can be certainly foreknown, whose Existence is contingent, and without all Necessity, may be proved thus; 'Tis impossible for a Thing to be certainly known to any Intellect without Evidence. To suppose otherwise, implies a Contradiction: Because for a Thing to be certainly known to any Understanding, is for it to be evident to that Understanding: And for a Thing to be evident to any Understanding, is the same Thing, as for that Understanding to see Evidence of it: But no Understanding, created or increated, can see Evidence where there is none: For that is the same Thing, as to see that to be, which is not. And therefore, if there be any Truth which is absolutely without Evidence, that Truth is absolutely unknowable, insomuch that it implies a Contradiction to suppose that it is known.

But if there be any future Event, whose Existence is contingent, without all Necessity, the future Existence of that Event is absolutely without Evidence. If there be any Evidence of it, it must be one of these two Sorts, either Self-Evidence, or Proof; for there can be no other Sort of Evidence but one of these two; an evident Thing must be either evident in it self, or evident in something else; that is, evident by Connection with something else. But a future Thing, whose Existence is without all Necessity, can have neither of these Sorts of Evidence. It can't be Self-evident: For if it be, it may be now known by what is now to be seen in the Thing it self; either it's present Existence, or the Necessity of it's Nature: But both these are contrary to the Supposition. It is supposed, both that the Thing has no present Existence to be seen; and also that it is not of such a Nature as to be necessarily existent for the future: So that it's future Existence is not Self-evident. And secondly, neither is there ⟨p. 120⟩any Proof, or Evidence in any Thing else, or Evidence of Connection with something else that is evident; For this also is contrary to the Supposition. 'Tis supposed, that there is now Nothing existent, with which the future Existence of the contingent Event is connected. For such a Connection destroys its Contingence, and supposes Necessity. Thus 'tis demonstrated, that there is in the Nature of Things absolutely no Evidence at all of the future Existence of that Event, which is contingent, without all Necessity (if any such Event there be) neither Self-Evidence nor Proof. And therefore the Thing in Reality is not evident; and so can't be seen to be evident, or, which is the same Thing, can't be known.