{"author":null,"backreferences":[{"context_html":"<p>But why did God choose then to create the heavens and\r\nearth which up to that time He had not made?<a id=\"FNanchor_451_451\"></a><a class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_451_451\">[451]</a> If they\r\nwho put this question wish to make out that the world is\r\neternal and without beginning, and that consequently it has<span class=\"pagenum\"><a id=\"Page_440\">[Pg 440]</a></span>\r\nnot been made by God, they are strangely deceived, and rave\r\nin the incurable madness of impiety. For, though the voices of\r\nthe prophets were silent, the world itself, by its well-ordered\r\nchanges and movements, and by the fair appearance of all\r\nvisible things, bears a testimony of its own, both that it has\r\nbeen created, and also that it could not have been created save\r\nby God, whose greatness and beauty are unutterable and invisible.\r\nAs for those<a id=\"FNanchor_452_452\"></a><a class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_452_452\">[452]</a> who own, indeed, that it was made by\r\nGod, and yet ascribe to it not a temporal but only a creational\r\nbeginning, so that in some scarcely intelligible way the world\r\nshould always have existed a created world, they make an\r\nassertion which seems to them to defend God from the charge\r\nof arbitrary hastiness, or of suddenly conceiving the idea of\r\ncreating the world as a quite new idea, or of casually changing\r\nHis will, though He be unchangeable. But I do not see\r\nhow this supposition of theirs can stand in other respects, and\r\nchiefly in respect of the soul; for if they contend that it is\r\nco-eternal with God, they will be quite at a loss to explain\r\nwhence there has accrued to it new misery, which through a\r\nprevious eternity had not existed. For if they said that its\r\nhappiness and misery ceaselessly alternate, they must say,\r\nfurther, that this alternation will continue for ever; whence\r\nwill result this absurdity, that, though the soul is called\r\nblessed, it is not so in this, that it foresees its own misery and\r\ndisgrace. And yet, if it does not foresee it, and supposes that\r\nit will be neither disgraced nor wretched, but always blessed,\r\nthen it is blessed because it is deceived; and a more foolish\r\nstatement one cannot make. But if their idea is that the\r\nsoul's misery has alternated with its bliss during the ages of\r\nthe past eternity, but that now, when once the soul has been\r\nset free, it will return henceforth no more to misery, they are\r\nnevertheless of opinion that it has never been truly blessed\r\nbefore, but begins at last to enjoy a new and uncertain happiness;\r\nthat is to say, they must acknowledge that some new\r\nthing, and that an important and signal thing, happens to the\r\nsoul which never in a whole past eternity happened it before.\r\nAnd if they deny that God's eternal purpose included this\r\nnew experience of the soul, they deny that He is the Author<span class=\"pagenum\"><a id=\"Page_441\">[Pg 441]</a></span>\r\nof its blessedness, which is unspeakable impiety. If, on the\r\nother hand, they say that the future blessedness of the soul is\r\nthe result of a new decree of God, how will they show that\r\nGod is not chargeable with that mutability which displeases\r\nthem? Further, if they acknowledge that it was created in\r\ntime, but will never perish in time,—that it has, like number,<a id=\"FNanchor_453_453\"></a><a class=\"fnanchor pginternal\" href=\"#Footnote_453_453\">[453]</a>\r\na beginning but no end,—and that, therefore, having once made\r\ntrial of misery, and been delivered from it, it will never again\r\nreturn thereto, they will certainly admit that this takes place\r\nwithout any violation of the immutable counsel of God. Let\r\nthem, then, in like manner believe regarding the world that it\r\ntoo could be made in time, and yet that God, in making it,\r\ndid not alter His eternal design.</p>","headings":["THE WORKS OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINE,","BOOK ELEVENTH.","ARGUMENT."],"marker_anchor":null,"paragraph_id":"pg45304-paragraph-762"}],"canonical_references":[],"date_end":null,"date_start":null,"deduplication_fingerprint":"d9755604c55ae9ead6d333fa84e82c39fc33d9bda74dc77202f0e76a5d64fe03","edition_title":"The City of God, Volume I","edition_translators":["Marcus Dods","George Wilson (Book IV)","J. J. Smith (Books V-VIII)"],"edition_year":1871,"explicit_reference_candidates":[],"headings":[],"id":"pg45304-Footnote_451_451","license_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html","public_import_allowed":false,"record_kind":"original-editor-translator-note","review_required":["work and recension attribution","original-work chronology","Bible reference numbering and citation kind","English edition rights and attribution"],"review_status":"needs_review","rights_evidence":"Provider catalog reports public domain in the USA. Original transcription title leaves state T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1871; printed translator allocation retained. Gutenberg credits Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries without an exact scan identifier. Full provider license preserved with acquired original; republication and per-work metadata remain unreviewed.","source_anchor":"Footnote_451_451","source_ebook":45304,"source_html":"<div class=\"footnote\">\n<p><a id=\"Footnote_451_451\"></a><a class=\"pginternal\" href=\"#FNanchor_451_451\"><span class=\"label\">[451]</span></a> A common question among the Epicureans; urged by Velleius in Cic. <i>De\r\nNat. Deor.</i> i. 9; adopted by the Manichæans and spoken to by Augustine in\r\nthe <i>Conf.</i> xi. 10, 12, also in <i>De Gen. contra Man.</i> i. 3.</p></div>","source_sha256":"d89e9a2b80bb59f394f0fb1bf313b39fab162f06af6642166d62c5912c1195f1","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/45304/pg45304-images.html#Footnote_451_451","text_sha256":"c42e0c720e144d0f5bfc7a37eb7918aa654014a08da8e10e64e1b8903d0457d9","verified":false,"work_id":null}