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

But those are a precarious Sort of Demonstrations, which Men build on the Meaning that they arbitrarily affix to a Word; especially when that Meaning is abstruse, inconsistent, and entirely diverse from the original Sense of the Word in common Speech.

That the Meaning of the Word Action, as Mr. Chubb and many others use it, is utterly unintelligible and inconsistent, is manifest, because it belongs to their Notion of an Action, that 'tis something wherein is no Passion or Passiveness; that is (according to their Sense of Passiveness) it is under the Power, Influence or Action of no Cause. And this implies, that Action has no Cause, and is no Effect: for to be an Effect implies Passiveness, or the being subject to the Power and Action of it's Cause. And yet they hold, that the Mind's Action is the Effect of it's own Determination, yea, the Mind's free and voluntary Determination; which is the same with free Choice. So that Action is the Effect of something preceding, even a preceding Act of Choice: And consequently, in this Effect the Mind is passive, subject to the Power and Action of the preceding Cause, which is the foregoing Choice, and therefore can't be active. So that here we have this Contradiction, that Action is always the Effect of foregoing Choice; and therefore can't be Action; because it is passive to the Power of that preceding causal Choice; and the Mind can't be active and passive in the same Thing, at the same Time. Again, they say, Necessity is utterly inconsistent with Action, and a necessary Action is a Contradiction; and so their Notion of Action implies Contingence, […] excludes all Necessity. And therefore their Notion of Action implies, that it has no necessary Dependence or Connection with any Thing foregoing; for such a Dependence or Connection excludes Contingence, and implies Necessity. And yet their Notion of Action implies Necessity, and supposes that it is necessary, and can't be ⟨p. 200⟩contingent. For they suppose, that whatever is properly called Action, must be determined by the Will and free Choice; and this is as much as to say, that it must be necessary, being dependent upon, and determined by something foregoing; namely, a foregoing Act of Choice. Again, it belongs to their Notion of Action, of that which is a proper and mere Act, that t is the Beginning of Motion, or of Exertion of Power; but yet it is implied in their Notion of Action, that it is not the Beginning of Motion or Exertion of Power, but is consequent and dependent on a preceding Exertion of Power, viz. the Power of Will and Choice: for they say there is no proper Action but what is freely chosen;