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

2. The Question is not so much, How a Spirit endowed with Activity comes to act, as why it exerts such an Act, and not another; or why it acts with such a particular Determination? If Activity of Nature be the Cause why a Spirit (the Soul of Man for Instance) acts, and don't lie still; yet that alone is not the Cause why it's Action is thus and thus limited, directed and determined. Active Nature is a general Thing; 'tis an Ability or Tendency of Nature to Action, generally taken; which may be a Cause why the Soul acts as Occasion or Reason is given; but this alone can't be a sufficient Cause why the Soul exerts such a particular Act, at such a Time, rather than others. In order to this, there must be something besides a general Tendency to Action; there must also be a particular Tendency to that individual Action.— If it should be asked, why the Soul of Man uses it's Activity in such a Manner as it does; and it should be answered, that the Soul uses it's Activity thus, rather than otherwise, because it has Activity; would such an Answer satisfy a rational Man? Would it not rather be looked upon as a very impertinent one?

3. An active Being can bring no Effects to pass by his Activity, but what are consequent upon his acting: He produces Nothing by his Activity, any other Way than by the Exercise of his Activity, and so Nothing but the Fruits of it's Exercise: He brings Nothing to pass by a dormant Activity. But the Exercise of his Activity is Action; and so his Action, or Exercise of his Activity, must be prior to the ⟨p. 49⟩Effects of his Activity. If an active Being produces an Effect in another Being, about which his Activity is conversant, the Effect being the Fruit of his Activity, his Activity must be first exercised or exerted, and the Effect of it must follow. So it must be, with equal Reason, if the active Being is his own Object, and his Activity is conversant about Himself, to produce and determine some Effect in hi•••lf; still the Exercise of his Activity must go before the Effect, which he brings to pass and determines by it. And therefore his Activity can't be the Cause of the Determination of the first Action, or Exercise of Activity it self, whence the Effects of Activity arise; for that would imply a Contradiction; It would be to say, the first Exercise of Activity is before the first Exercise of Activity, and is the Cause of it.