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

III. Tho' Mr. Chubb asserts, as above, that every Volition has some Motive, and that, in the Nature of the Thing, no Volition can take Place without some Motive to induce it; yet he asserts, that Volition does not always follow the strongest Motive; or in other Words, is not governed by any superior Strength of the Motive that is followed, beyond Motives to the contrary, previous to the Volition it self. His own ⟨p. 89⟩Words, P. 258, are as follows: Tho' with regard to physical Causes, that which is strongest always prevails, yet it is otherwise with regard to moral Causes. Of these, sometimes the stronger, sometimes the weaker, prevails. And the Ground of this Difference is evident, namely, that what we call moral Causes, strictly speaking, are no Causes at all, but barely passive Reasons of, or Excitements to the Action, or to the refraining from acting: which Excitements we have Power, or are at Liberty to comply with or reject, as I have showed above. And so throughout the Paragraph, he, in a variety of Phrases, insists, that the Will is not always determined by the strongest Motive, unless by strongest we preposterously mean actually prevailing in the Event; which is not in the Motive, but in the Will; but that the Will is not always determined by the Motive which is strongest, by any Strength previous to the Volition it self. And he elsewhere does abundantly assert, that the Will is determined by no superior Strength or Advantage that Motives have, from any Constitution or State of Things, or any Circumstances whatsoever, previous to the actual Determination of the Will. And indeed his whole Discourse on human Liberty implies it, his whole Scheme is founded upon it.

III. Tho' Mr. Chubb asserts, as above, that every Volition has some Motive, and that, in the Nature of the Thing, no Volition can take Place without some Motive to induce it; yet he asserts, that Volition does not always follow the strongest Motive; or in other Words, is not governed by any superiour Strength of the Motive that is followed, beyond Motives to the contrary, previous to the Volition it self. His own ⟨p. 89⟩Words, P. 258, are as follows: Tho' with regard to physical Causes, that which is strongest always prevails, yet it is otherwise with regard to moral Causes. Of these, sometimes the stronger, sometimes the weaker, prevails. And the Ground of this Difference is evident, namely, that what we call moral Causes, strictly speaking, are no Causes at all, but barely passive Reasons of, or Excitements to the Action, or to the refraining from acting: which Excitements we have Power, or are at Liberty to comply with or reject, as I have shewed above. And so throughout the Paragraph, he, in a variety of Phrases, insists, that the Will is not always determined by the strongest Motive, unless by strongest we preposterously mean actually prevailing in the Event; which is not in the Motive, but in the Will; but that the Will is not always determined by the Motive which is strongest, by any Strength previous to the Volition it self. And he elsewhere does abundantly assert, that the Will is determined by no superiour Strength or Advantage that Motives have, from any Constitution or State of Things, or any Circumstances whatsoever, previous to the actual Determination of the Will. And indeed his whole Discourse on human Liberty implies it, his whole Scheme is founded upon it.