54. Can, then, anything be
made, some one will say, without God’s will? We3775
3775
The ms. and first three edd., read
vobis—“you,” corrected nobis, as above,
by Ursinus. |
must consider
carefully, and
examine with no little pains, lest, while we think that
we are honouring
God3776
3776
So the ms.; but most edd., following the
Brussels transcript, read
dominum—“Lord.” |
by such a
question, we fall into the
opposite
sin, doing despite to His
supreme majesty. In what way,
you ask, on what ground? Because, if all things are
brought about by His will, and nothing in the
world can either succeed
or
fail contrary to His
pleasure, it follows of necessity that it
should be understood that
3777
3777
Utis omitted in the ms., first
four edd., and Hild. |
all evils, too, arise by His
will. But if, on the contrary, we chose to say that He is privy
to and produces no
evil, not referring to Him the causes of very
wicked
deeds, the worst things will begin to seem to be done either against
His will, or, a monstrous thing to say, while He knows it not,
but is ignorant and unaware of them. But, again, if we
choose to say that there are no evils, as we find some have believed
and held, all races will
cry out against
us and all
nations
together, showing us their sufferings, and the various kinds of
dangers
with which the human race is every moment
3778
3778
So LB., reading p-uncta for the ms. c-uncta. |
distressed and
afflicted.
Then they will ask of us, Why, if there are no evils, do you refrain
from certain
deeds and actions? Why do you not do all that eager
lust has required or demanded? Why, finally, do you establish
punishments by
terrible laws for the
guilty? For what more
monstrous
3779
3779
So the ms., Hild., and Oehler,
reading imman-ior; LB., from the margin of Ursinus,
major—“greater;” the rest,
inanior—“more foolish.” |
act of
folly
can be found than to assert that there are no evils, and
at the same
time to
kill and
condemn the erring as though they were
evil?
3780
3780
The difficulty felt by Arnobius as to the origin of evil
perplexed others also; and, as Elmenhorst has observed, some of the
Fathers attempted to get rid of it by a distinction between the evil of
guilt and of punishment,—God being author of the latter, the
devil of the former (Tertullian, adv. Marcionem, ii. 14).
It would have been simpler and truer to have distinguished deeds, which
can be done only if God will, from wickedness, which is in the sinful
purpose of man’s heart. |
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH