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

But I desire, that this Matter may be fully considered; and that it may be examined with a thorough Strictness, whether it will follow that Endeavours and Means, in order to avoid or obtain any future Thing, must be more in vain, on the Supposition of such a Connection of Antecedents and Consequents, than if the contrary be supposed.

For Endeavours to be in vain, is for 'em not to be successful; that is to say, for 'em not eventually to be the Means of the Thing aimed at, which can't be, but in one of these two Ways; either, First, That altho' the Means are used, yet the Event aimed at don't follow: Or, Secondly, If the Event does follow, it is not because of the Means, or from any Connection or Dependence of the Event on the Means, the Event would have come to pass, as well without the Means, as with them. If either of these two Things are the Case, then the Means are not properly successful, and are truly in vain. The Successfulness or Unsuccessfulness of Means, in order to an Effect, or their being in vain or not in vain, consists in those Means being connected, or not connected, with the Effect, in ⟨p. 221⟩such a Manner as this, viz. That the Effect is with the Means, and not without them; or, that the Being of the Effect is, on the one Hand, connected with the Means, and the Want of the Effect, on the other Hand, is connected with the Want of the Means. If there be such a Connection as this between Means and End, the Means are not in vain: The more there is of such a Connection, the further they are from being in vain; and the less of such a Connection, the more are they in vain.

Now therefore the Question to be answered, (in order to determine, whether it follows from this Doctrine of the necessary Connection between foregoing Things and consequent ones, that Means used in order to any Effect, are more in vain than they would be otherwise) is, Whether it follows from it, that there is less of the forementioned Connection between Means and Effect; that is, Whether on the Supposition of there being a real and true Connection between antecedent Things and consequent ones, there must be less of a Connection between Means and Effect, than on the Supposition of there being no fixed Connection between antecedent Things and consequent ones: And the very stating of this Question is sufficient to answer it. It must appear to every one that will open his Eyes, that this Question can't be affirmed, without the grossest Absurdity and Inconsistence. Means are foregoing Things, and Effects are following Things: And if there were no Connection between foregoing Things, and following ones, there could be no Connection between Means and End; and so all Means would be wholly vain and fruitless. For 'tis by Virtue of some Connection only, that they become successful: 'Tis some Connection observed, or revealed, or otherwise known, between antecedent Things and following ones, that is what directs in the Choice of Means. And if there were no such Thing as an established Connection, there could be no Choice, as to Means; one Thing would have no more Tendency to an Effect, than another; there would be no such Thing as Tendency in the Case. All those Things which are successful Means of other Things, do therein prove connected Antecedents of them: And therefore to assert, that a fixed Connection between Antecedents and Consequents makes Means vain and useless, or stands in the Way to hinder the Connection between Means and End, is just so ridiculous, as to say, that a Connection between Antecedents and Consequents stands in the Way to hinder a Connection between Antecedents and Consequents.