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

The whole of the seeming Force of this Evasion lies in this; that, in as much as certain Foreknowledge don't cause an Event to be necessary, as a Decree does; therefore it don't prove it to be necessary, as a Decree does. But there is no Force in this arguing: For it is built wholly on this Supposition, that Nothing can prove, or be an Evidence of a Thing's being necessary, but that which has a causal Influence to make it so. But this can never be maintained. If certain Foreknowledge of the future existing of an Event, be not the Thing which first makes it impossible that it should fail of Existence; yet it may, and certainly does demonstrate, that it is impossible it should fail of it, however that Impossibility comes. If Foreknowledge be not the Cause, but the Effect of this Impossibility, it may prove that there is such an Impossibility, as much as if it were the Cause. It is as strong arguing from the Effect to the Cause, as from the Cause to the Effect. 'Tis enough, that an Existence which is infallibly foreknown, cannot fail, whether that Impossibility arises from the Foreknowledge, or is prior to it. 'Tis as evident, as 'tis possible any Thing should be, that it is impossible a Thing which is infallibly known to be true, should prove not to be true: therefore there is a Necessity that it should be otherwise; whether the Knowledge be the Cause of this Necessity, or the Necessity the Cause of the Knowledge.

All certain Knowledge, whether it be Foreknowledge or After-Knowledge, or concomitant Knowledge, proves the ⟨p. 125⟩Thing known now to be necessary, by some Means or other; or proves that it is impossible it should now be otherwise than true.— I freely allow, that Foreknowledge don't prove a Thing to be necessary any more than After-Knowledge: But then After-knowledge which is certain & infallible, proves that 'tis now become impossible but that the Proposition known should be true. Certain After-Knowledge proves that it is now, in the Time of the Knowledge, by some Means or other, become impossible but that the Proposition which predicates past Existence on the Event, should be true. And so does certain Foreknowledge prove, that now, in the Time of the Knowledge, it is by some Means or other, become impossible but that the Proposition which predicates future Existence on the Event, should be true. The Necessity of the Truth of the Propositions, consisting in the present Impossibility of the Non-existence of the Event affirmed, in both Cases, is the immediate Ground of the certainty of the Knowledge; there can be no Certainty of Knowledge without it.