E1P17S
Scholium — Part I
Latin
Alii putant Deum esse causam liberam propterea quod potest ut putant efficere ut ea quæ ex ejus natura sequi diximus hoc est quæ in ejus potestate sunt, non fiant sive ut ab ipso non producantur. Sed hoc idem est ac si dicerent quod Deus potest efficere ut ex natura trianguli non sequatur ejus tres angulos æquales esse duobus rectis sive ut ex data causa non sequatur effectus, quod est absurdum. Porro infra absque ope hujus propositionis ostendam ad Dei naturam neque intellectum neque voluntatem pertinere. Scio equidem plures esse qui putant se posse demonstrare ad Dei naturam summum intellectum et liberam voluntatem pertinere; nihil enim perfectius cognoscere sese aiunt quod Deo tribuere possunt quam id quod in nobis summa est perfectio. Porro tametsi Deum actu summe intelligentem concipiant, non tamen credunt eum posse omnia quæ actu intelligit, efficere ut existant nam se eo modo Dei potentiam destruere putant. Si omnia inquiunt quæ in ejus intellectu sunt, creavisset, nihil tum amplius creare potuisset, quod credunt Dei omnipotentiæ repugnare ideoque maluerunt Deum ad omnia indifferentem statuere nec aliud creantem præter id quod absoluta quadam voluntate decrevit creare. Verum ego me satis clare ostendisse puto (vide propositionem 16) a summa Dei potentia sive infinita natura infinita infinitis modis hoc est omnia necessario effluxisse vel semper eadem necessitate sequi eodem modo ac ex natura trianguli ab æterno et in æternum sequitur ejus tres angulos æquari duobus rectis. Quare Dei omnipotentia actu ab æterno fuit et in æternum in eadem actualitate manebit. Et hoc modo Dei omnipotentia longe meo quidem judicio perfectior statuitur. Imo adversarii Dei omnipotentiam (liceat aperte loqui) negare videntur. Coguntur enim fateri Deum infinita creabilia intelligere quæ tamen nunquam creare poterit. Nam alias si scilicet omnia quæ intelligit crearet, suam juxta ipsos exhauriret omnipotentiam et se imperfectum redderet. Ut igitur Deum perfectum statuant, eo rediguntur ut simul statuere debeant ipsum non posse omnia efficere ad quæ ejus potentia se extendit, quo absurdius aut Dei omnipotentiæ magis repugnans non video quid fingi possit. Porro ut de intellectu et voluntate quos Deo communiter tribuimus, hic etiam aliquid dicam, si ad æternam Dei essentiam intellectus scilicet et voluntas pertinent, aliud sane per utrumque hoc attributum intelligendum est quam quod vulgo solent homines. Nam intellectus et voluntas qui Dei essentiam constituerent, a nostro intellectu et voluntate toto cælo differre deberent nec in ulla re præterquam in nomine convenire possent; non aliter scilicet quam inter se conveniunt canis, signum cæleste et canis, animal latrans. Quod sic demonstrabo. Si intellectus ad divinam naturam pertinet, non poterit uti noster intellectus posterior (ut plerisque placet) vel simul natura esse cum rebus intellectis quandoquidem Deus omnibus rebus prior est causalitate (per corollarium I propositionis 16) sed contra veritas et formalis rerum essentia ideo talis est quia talis in Dei intellectu existit objective. Quare Dei intellectus quatenus Dei essentiam constituere concipitur, est revera causa rerum tam earum essentiæ quam earum existentiæ, quod ab iis videtur etiam fuisse animadversum qui Dei intellectum, voluntatem et potentiam unum et idem esse asseruerunt. Cum itaque Dei intellectus sit unica rerum causa videlicet (ut ostendimus) tam earum essentiæ quam earum existentiæ, debet ipse necessario ab iisdem differre tam ratione essentiæ quam ratione existentiæ. Nam causatum differt a sua causa præcise in eo quod a causa habet. Exempli gratia homo est causa existentiæ, non vero essentiæ alterius hominis; est enim hæc æterna veritas et ideo secundum essentiam prorsus convenire possunt; in existendo autem differre debent et propterea si unius existentia pereat, non ideo alterius peribit sed si unius essentia destrui posset et fieri falsa, destrueretur etiam alterius essentia. Quapropter res quæ et essentiæ et existentiæ alicujus effectus est causa, a tali effectu differre debet tam ratione essentiæ quam ratione existentiæ. Atqui Dei intellectus est et essentiæ et existentiæ nostri intellectus causa; ergo Dei intellectus quatenus divinam essentiam constituere concipitur, a nostro intellectu tam ratione essentiæ quam ratione existentiæ differt nec in ulla re præterquam in nomine cum eo convenire potest, ut volebamus. Circa voluntatem eodem modo proceditur, ut facile unusquisque videre potest.
English (Elwes 1883)
Others think that God is a free cause, because he can, as they think, bring it about, that those things which we have said follow from his nature--that is, which are in his power, should not come to pass, or should not be produced by him. But this is the same as if they said, that God could bring it about, that it should follow from the nature of a triangle that its three interior angles should not be equal to two right angles; or that from a given cause no effect should follow, which is absurd.
Moreover, I will show below, without the aid of this proposition, that neither intellect nor will appertain to God's nature. I know that there are many who think that they can show, that supreme intellect and free will do appertain to God's nature; for they say they know of nothing more perfect, which they can attribute to God, than that which is the highest perfection in ourselves. Further, although they conceive God as actually supremely intelligent, they yet do not believe that he can bring into existence everything which he actually understands, for they think that they would thus destroy God's power. If, they contend, God had created everything which is in his intellect, he would not be able to create anything more, and this, they think, would clash with God's omnipotence; therefore, they prefer to asset that God is indifferent to all things, and that he creates nothing except that which he has decided, by some absolute exercise of will, to create. However, I think I have shown sufficiently clearly (by Prop. xvi.), that from God's supreme power, or infinite nature, an infinite number of things--that is, all things have necessarily flowed forth in an infinite number of ways, or always flow from the same necessity; in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows from eternity and for eternity, that its three interior angles are equal to two right angles. Wherefore the omnipotence of God has been displayed from all eternity, and will for all eternity remain in the same state of activity. This manner of treating the question attributes to God an omnipotence, in my opinion, far more perfect. For, otherwise, we are compelled to confess that God understands an infinite number of creatable things, which he will never be able to create, for, if he created all that he understands, he would, according to this showing, exhaust his omnipotence, and render himself imperfect. Wherefore, in order to establish that God is perfect, we should be reduced to establishing at the same time, that he cannot bring to pass everything over which his power extends; this seems to be a hypothesis most absurd, and most repugnant to God's omnipotence.
Further (to say a word here concerning the intellect and the will which we attribute to God), if intellect and will appertain to the eternal essence of God, we must take these words in some significance quite different from those they usually bear. For intellect and will, which should constitute the essence of God, would perforce be as far apart as the poles from the human intellect and will, in fact, would have nothing in common with them but the name; there would be about as much correspondence between the two as there is between the Dog, the heavenly constellation, and a dog, an animal that barks. This I will prove as follows. If intellect belongs to the divine nature, it cannot be in nature, as ours is generally thought to be, posterior to, or simultaneous with the things understood, inasmuch as God is prior to all things by reason of his causality (Prop. xvi., Coroll. i.). On the contrary, the truth and formal essence of things is as it is, because it exists by representation as such in the intellect of God. Wherefore the intellect of God, in so far as it is conceived to constitute God's essence, is, in reality, the cause of things, both of their essence and of their existence. This seems to have been recognized by those who have asserted, that God's intellect, God's will, and God's power, are one and the same. As, therefore, God's intellect is the sole cause of things, namely, both of their essence and existence, it must necessarily differ from them in respect to its essence, and in respect to its existence. For a cause differs from a thing it causes, precisely in the quality which the latter gains from the former.
For example, a man is the cause of another man's existence, but not of his essence (for the latter is an eternal truth), and, therefore, the two men may be entirely similar in essence, but must be different in existence; and hence if the existence of one of them cease, the existence of the other will not necessarily cease also; but if the essence of one could be destroyed, and be made false, the essence of the other would be destroyed also. Wherefore, a thing which is the cause both of the essence and of the existence of a given effect, must differ from such effect both in respect to its essence, and also in respect to its existence. Now the intellect of God is the cause both of the essence and the existence of our intellect; therefore, the intellect of God in so far as it is conceived to constitute the divine essence, differs from our intellect both in respect to essence and in respect to existence, nor can it in anywise agree therewith save in name, as we said before. The reasoning would be identical in the case of the will, as anyone can easily see.
Modern English
Others hold that God is a free cause because (as they suppose) he can bring it about that the things we said follow from his nature, that is, the things in his power, do not come to pass, or are not produced by him. But this is the same as saying that God can bring it about that the three angles of a triangle do not equal two right angles, or that no effect follows from a given cause. Which is absurd.
Later on, without drawing on this proposition, I will show that neither intellect nor will belongs to God's nature. I know there are many who think they can demonstrate the opposite, that supreme intellect and free will belong to God's nature, since they say they know of nothing more perfect that they can attribute to God than what is the highest perfection in us.
Yet even when they conceive God as actually supremely intelligent, they do not believe he can bring everything he actually understands into existence, since they think this would destroy God's power. If God had created everything in his intellect, they argue, he could have created nothing further; and this they take to conflict with God's omnipotence. So they prefer to hold that God is indifferent to all things, and creates nothing besides what he has decreed to create by some absolute act of will.
But I take myself to have shown clearly enough (E1P16) that from God's supreme power, or infinite nature, infinite things in infinite ways, that is, all things, have flowed necessarily, and follow always by the same necessity, in the same way that from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and for eternity, that its three angles equal two right angles. So God's omnipotence has been actual from eternity and will remain for eternity in the same actuality. On my view, this account of God's omnipotence is far more perfect.
Indeed, the adversaries seem (let me speak openly) to deny God's omnipotence. For they are forced to grant that God understands infinite creatable things that he will nevertheless never be able to create. Otherwise, if he created everything he understands, he would, on their account, exhaust his omnipotence and render himself imperfect. So to call God perfect, they are reduced to maintaining at the same time that he cannot do everything to which his power extends. I cannot conceive anything more absurd, or more at odds with God's omnipotence, than this.
Now a word about the intellect and the will that people commonly attribute to God. If intellect and will do belong to God's eternal essence, then by each of these two attributes something must be understood quite different from what people usually mean. For an intellect and a will that constituted God's essence would have to differ utterly from our intellect and will, and could share nothing with them but the name — no more than the constellation Dog has in common with the barking animal called dog.
I demonstrate this as follows. If intellect belongs to the divine nature, it cannot, like ours, be later in nature than the things understood (as most hold), or simultaneous in nature with them, since God is prior in causality to all things (E1P16C1). On the contrary, the truth and formal essence of things is what it is because it exists *objectively* in God's intellect. So God's intellect, considered as constituting God's essence, is really the cause of things, of their essence and of their existence. This seems to have been noticed even by those who held that God's intellect, will, and power are one and the same.
Since God's intellect is the sole cause of things, both of their essence and of their existence, it must necessarily differ from them in essence and in existence. For what is caused differs from its cause precisely in what it gets from the cause. For example, one human is the cause of another's existence, but not of his essence, since that is an eternal truth, and so the two can agree fully in essence; yet they must differ in existence. Accordingly, if one's existence perishes, the other's will not on that account perish; but if one's essence could be destroyed and made false, the other's essence would be destroyed too. So anything that is the cause of both the essence and the existence of some effect must differ from that effect both in essence and in existence.
Now God's intellect is the cause of both the essence and the existence of our intellect. Therefore God's intellect, considered as constituting the divine essence, differs from our intellect both in essence and in existence, and can agree with it in nothing but the name. Which is what we wanted. The same reasoning applies to the will, as anyone can easily see.