on which it did not settle. This image, or faint motion, we
persuade ourselves, could, at that time, have been compleated
into the thing itself; because, should that be denied, we find,
upon a second trial, that, at present, it can. We consider not,
that the fantastical desire of shewing liberty, is here the
motive of our actions. And it seems certain, that, however we
may imagine we feel a liberty within ourselves, a spectator can
commonly infer our actions from our motives and character; and
even where he cannot, he concludes in general, that he might,
were he perfectly acquainted with every circumstance of our
situation and temper, and the most secret springs of our
complexion and disposition. Now this is the very essence of
necessity, according to the foregoing doctrine.

73. But to proceed in this reconciling project with regard to the
question of liberty and necessity; the most contentious question of
metaphysics, the most contentious science; it will not require many
words to prove, that all mankind have ever agreed in the doctrine of
liberty as well as in that of necessity, and that the whole dispute, in
this respect also, has been hitherto merely verbal. For what is meant by
liberty, when applied to voluntary actions? We cannot surely mean that
actions have so little connexion with motives, inclinations, and
circumstances, that one does not follow with a certain degree of
uniformity from the other, and that one affords no inference by which we
can conclude the existence of the other. For these are plain and
acknowledged matters of fact. By liberty, then, we can only mean _a
power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the
will;_ that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to
move, we also may. Now this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed
to belong to every one who is not a prisoner and in chains. Here, then,