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

Mr. Chubb supposes, that the Will can't stir at all without some Motive; and also supposes, that if there be a Motive to one Thing, and none to the Contrary, Volition will infallibly follow that Motive. This is virtually to suppose an entire Dependence of the Will on Motives: If it were not wholly dependent on them, it could surely help it self a little without them, or help it self a little against a Motive, without help from the Strength and Weight of a contrary Motive. And yet his supposing that the Will, when it has before it various opposite Motives, can use them as it pleases, and choose it's own Influence from them, and neglect the strongest, and follow the weakest, supposes it to be wholly independent on Motives.

Mr. Chubb supposes, that the Will can't stir at all without some Motive; and also supposes, that if there be a Motive to one Thing, and none to the Contrary, Volition will infallibly follow that Motive. This is vertually to suppose an entire Dependence of the Will on Motives: If it were not wholly dependent on them, it could surely help it self a little without them, or help it self a little against a Motive, without help from the Strength and Weight of a contrary Motive. And yet his supposing that the Will, when it has before it various opposite Motives, can use them as it pleases, and chuse it's own Influence from them, and neglect the strongest, and follow the weakest, supposes it to be wholly independent on Motives.

It further appears, on Mr. Chubb's Supposition, that Volition must be without any previous Ground in any Motive, thus: If it be as he supposes, that the Will is not determined by any previous superior Strength of the Motive, but determines and chooses it's own Motive, then, when the rival Motives are exactly equal in Strength and Tendency to induce, in all Respects, it may follow either; and may in such a Case, sometimes follow one, sometimes the other. And if so, this Diversity which appears between the Acts of the Will, is plainly without previous Ground in either of the Motives; for all that is previously in the Motives, is supposed precisely and perfectly the same, without any Diversity whatsoever. Now perfect Identity, as to all that is previous in the Antecedent, can't be the Ground and Reason of Diversity in the Consequent. Perfect Identity in the Ground can't be a Reason why it is not followed with the same Consequence. And therefore the Source of this Diversity of Consequence must be sought for elsewhere.