I don't know, I'd have to go and look. It is in Thomas, so I would assume it is in Augustine, since we both know where Thomas theology comes from.
"The universe, the present creation being supposed, cannot be better, on account of the most beautiful order given to things by God; in which the good of the universe consists. For if any one thing were bettered, the proportion of order would be destroyed; as if one string were stretched more than it ought to be, the melody of the harp would be destroyed." (ST, Pt I, Q 26, Art 5, Ad 3)
It seems to me to flow logically from Providence and the interconnection of things in their government. As Jesus noted in St. Matthew 11, if the miracles he did in Palestine had been done in Lebanon, the Syro-Phoenecians would have converted. Logically, we might ask, what then of the Jews in Palestine, who would then see no miracles, and I think the answer obvious. God chooses to do certain things and have certain things occur because He wills the forseen outcome therefrom. On the other hand, if He chose other things, another outcome would become apparent.
Example, God chose a St. Monica to produce a St. Augustine to enlighten the world. On the other hand, God could have chosen some other Catholic mother with some other wayward son to enlighten her son instead, and not chosen St. Augustine. And that other son very likely would not have been a theological genius like St. Augustine, and great errors might have then abounded much more in the world absent his teaching, and many more might perish eternally for lack of truth.
certainly not his later works wherein he renounced many of his former errors concerning grace and free will
While St. Augustine made many corrections, it seems to me that in his mind, his system was already complete at the commencement of his Episcopate when he wrote the "Diverse Questions to Simplician", to which he late in life referred the Semipelagians to, such as the monks of Adrumetum. Any later work was a clarification of his thoughts, not a correction of errors.
That's an incredible assumption. "We both know where Thomas comes from", but it's hardly a direct descent. Why don't you see if you can find such an idea in Augustine? I'm willing to be corrected (you know I have accepted correction in the past), but I know Augustine fairly well and I doubt you will find any such thing.
Neh, I am fairly certain thereof.
It seems to me to flow logically from Providence and the interconnection of things in their government. As Jesus noted in St. Matthew 11, if the miracles he did in Palestine had been done in Lebanon, the Syro-Phoenecians would have converted. Logically, we might ask, what then of the Jews in Palestine, who would then see no miracles, and I think the answer obvious.
It seems to you? It seems to you?? Hermann, this is neither Augustine nor Aquinas at work... it's just Hermann.
There is absolutely nothing in either Augustine nor Aquinas which suggests any such constraint upon God's Omnipotence, supposing if God had seen fit to perform Salvific Miracles in Tyre and Sidon that He would have then been somehow constrained from performing the Miracles the Miracles in Chorazin and Bethsaida. Without meaning offense -- you just made that up!! Such an idea is neither Augustinian, nor Thomasine, and is indeed offensive to the doctrine of Omnipotence.
Augustine is adamant and explicit that God's Choice to NOT perform the Salvific Miracles in Tyre and Sidon was a matter of His pure prerogative, not limited by any imagined divine "Miracle Bank" from which only a certain number of mighty works might be drawn; and even in the Aquinas citation which you have pressed into service (irrespective of the fact that it does not even say anything like "the Jews in Palestine, who would then see no miracles") you have left off the remainder of the citation:
From this we clearly understand that God could "add something to the present creation"; that is, He could perform Salvific Miracles in Tyre and Sidon and also perform equivalent Miracles in Chorazin and Bethsaida, if He -- of His own pure prerogative -- had so chosen.
And this also attends to your second example, that "God could have chosen some other Catholic mother with some other wayward son to enlighten her son instead, and not chosen St. Augustine", who would not have been so great a theologian as Augustine. This is entirely true; but it is equally true that God could have chosen to enlighten both, Augustine himself and your other anonymous "wayward son" -- of His own pure prerogative.
For as Aquinas says, Yet God could make other things, or add something to the present creation.
Look at the idea which you have posted. really look at it.
They are not "elect" because God has not created a world in which they are saved, although He could have done so, but perhaps only at the expense of the salvation of others.
In itself, this idea is a direct assault upon the Aseity and Omnipotence of God Himself. It is to bind All-Powerful God with the chains of necessitarian trade-offs -- as the Greek "gods" were bound by the Loom of the Fates, binding the Creator under the creature.
It is more heretical than any possible error which can conceivably be alleged against either Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism. It is to make of God, a mere god. A god suitable for paganism and mormonism -- but not the God of the Bible, nor of Protestantism, nor of Orthodoxy. If Roman Catholicism can contemplate such a "god" -- you can have it!!
Think it through. A little more carefully, this time.
best, OP