De causa Dei: Book III, Chapter 20
Thomas Bradwardine, De causa Dei contra Pelagium (1344). English translation: Wroot Press, CC BY-NC 4.0; machine-learning use permitted with attribution (https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/rights/).
Source: Henry Savile's edition, London 1618, 696A–696B; Latin from EEBO-TCP A16626 (public domain).
Canonical: https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/3/20/
Status: draft translation, not yet reviewed.

[696A]
CHAPTER 20. It corrects the tenth opinion, that God has no willing with respect to any effect of the lower world, and the eleventh, that he does not will any voluntary or free effect. [n1]

[696A–696B]
The tenth says that none of the things of the lower world are willed by God; and the eleventh asserts that no voluntary or free things are willed by him. [n2] And the common reasoning of both is this: that the divine will is necessary and the cause of necessity in the things willed; that there is no other cause that is necessary, or that imposes necessity on what it causes; and that if these are taken away, there will be no necessity, but liberty. But both of these are easily refuted. For if these things are not willed by God, they are not foreseen by him either, as is clear from the twenty-seventh of the first; but this was just now refuted. [n3] The eighth and the ninth, the twenty-second and the forty-fifth of the first, and the twentieth of the second also refute the second of these in particular; [n4] and it can be refuted by the same arguments by which the ninth opinion is refuted.

NOTES

1. volutionem is Bradwardine's own noun, "willing" (conventions §3). Throughout this passage voluta (neuter plural, with volutis) means "things willed", the objects of God's willing. It is not "voluntary things"; voluntaria is the separate word for what is done voluntarily.
2. The sense of voluta here is "things willed". The tenth opinion denies that God wills anything in the lower world at all. The eleventh denies only that he wills voluntary or free things.
3. sicut per vicesimum septimum primi patet: Savile gives only an ordinal and "of the first". I keep the references as Bradwardine wrote them (conventions §5.4) and do not expand them. proximo ("just now") refers to the preceding chapter, which refuted the ninth opinion, on whose rejection the next sentence also relies.
4. The series octauum, et nonum, vicesimum secundum, ac quadragesimum quintum primi, vicesimumque secundi could be punctuated differently. I take "twenty-second" as one ordinal (vicesimum secundum), and the final vicesimum…secundi as "the twentieth of the second", with -que attached to vicesimum. "The second of these" means the eleventh opinion.