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

III. To suppose the future Volitions of moral Agents not to be necessary Events; or, which is the same Thing, Events which it is not impossible but that they may not come to pass; and yet to suppose that God certainly foreknows them, and knows all Things; is to suppose. God's Knowledge to be inconsistent with it self. For to say, that God certainly, and without all Conjecture, knows that a Thing will infallibly be, which at the same Time he knows to be so contingent, that it may possibly not be, is to suppose his Knowledge inconsistent with it self; or that one Thing that he knows is utterly inconsistent with another Thing that he knows. 'Tis the same Thing as to say, He now knows a Proposition to be of certain infallible Truth, which he knows to be of contingent uncertain Truth. If a future Volition is so without all Necessity, that there is nothing hinders but that it may not be, then the Proposition which asserts it's future Existence, is so uncertain, that there is Nothing hinders but that the Truth of it may entirely fail. And if God knows all Things, He knows this Proposition to be thus uncertain. And that is inconsistent with his knowing that it is infallibly true; and so inconsistent with his infallibly knowing that it is true. If the Thing be indeed contingent, God views it so, and judges it to be contingent, if he views Things as they are. If the Event be not necessary, then it is possible it may never be: And if it be possible it may never be, God knows it may possibly never be; and that is to know that the Proposition which affirms it's Existence, may possibly not be true; and that is to know that the Truth of it is uncertain; which surely is inconsistent with his knowing it as a certain Truth. If Volitions are in Themselves contingent Events, without all Necessity, then 'tis no Argument of Perfection of Knowledge in any Being to determine peremptorily that they will be; but on the contrary, an Argument of Ignorance and Mistake: Because it would argue, that ⟨p. 122⟩he supposes that Proposition to be certain, which in it's own Nature, and all Things considered, is uncertain and contingent. To say in such a Case, that God may have Ways of knowing contingent Events which we can't conceive of, is ridiculous;

III. To suppose the future Volitions of moral Agents not to be necessary Events; or, which is the same Thing, Events which it is not impossible but that they may not come to pass; and yet to suppose that God certainly foreknows them, and knows all Things; is to suppose. God's Knowledge to be inconsistent with it self. For to say, that God certainly, and without all Conjecture, knows that a Thing will infallibly be, which at the same Time he knows to be so contingnt, that it may possibly not be, is to suppose his Knowledge inconsistent with it self; or that one Thing that he knows is utterly inconsistent with another Thing that he knows. 'Tis the same Thing as to say, He now knows a Proposition to be of certain infallible Truth, which he knows to be of contingent uncertain Truth. If a future Volition is so without all Necessity, that there is nothing hinders but that it may not be, then the Proposition which asserts it's future Existence, is so uncertain, that there is Nothing hinders but that the Truth of it may entirely fail. And if God knows all Things, He knows this Proposition to be thus uncertain. And that is inconsistent with his knowing that it is infallibly true; and so inconsistent with his infallibly knowing that it is true. If the Thing be indeed contingent, God views it so, and judges it to be contingent, if he views Things as they are. If the Event be not necessary, then it is possible it may never be: And if it be possible it may never be, God knows it may possibly never be; and that is to know that the Proposition which affirms it's Existence, may possibly not be true; and that is to know that the Truth of it is uncertain; which surely is inconsistent with his knowing it as a certain Truth. If Volitions are in Themselves contingent Events, without all Necessity, then 'tis no Argument of Perfection of Knowledge in any Being to determine peremptorily that they will be; but on the contrary, an Argument of Ignorance and Mistake: Because it would argue, that