Übersetzung ausblenden
The City of God

Chapter 20.--Of the Impiety of Those Who Assert that the Souls Which Enjoy True and Perfect Blessedness, Must Yet Again and Again in These Periodic Revolutions Return to Labor and Misery.

What pious ears could bear to hear that after a life spent in so many and severe distresses (if, indeed, that should be called a life at all which is rather a death, so utter that the love of this present death makes us fear that death which delivers us from it,) that after evils so disastrous, and miseries of all kinds have at length been expiated and finished by the help of true religion and wisdom, and when we have thus attained to the vision of God, and have entered into bliss by the contemplation of spiritual light and participation in His unchangeable immortality, which we burn to attain,--that we must at some time lose all this, and that they who do lose it are cast down from that eternity, truth, and felicity to infernal mortality and shameful foolishness, and are involved in accursed woes, in which God is lost, truth held in detestation, and happiness sought in iniquitous impurities? and that this will happen endlessly again and again, recurring at fixed intervals, and in regularly returning periods? and that this everlasting and ceaseless revolution of definite cycles, which remove and restore true misery and deceitful bliss in turn, is contrived in order that God may be able to know His own works, since on the one hand He cannot rest from creating and on the other, cannot know the infinite number of His creatures, if He always makes creatures? Who, I say, can listen to such things? Who can accept or suffer them to be spoken? Were they true, it were not only more prudent to keep silence regarding them, but even (to express myself as best I can) it were the part of wisdom not to know them. For if in the future world we shall not remember these things, and by this oblivion be blessed, why should we now increase our misery, already burdensome enough, by the knowledge of them? If, on the other hand, the knowledge of them will be forced upon us hereafter, now at least let us remain in ignorance, that in the present expectation we may enjoy a blessedness which the future reality is not to bestow; since in this life we are expecting to obtain life everlasting, but in the world to come are to discover it to be blessed, but not everlasting.

And if they maintain that no one can attain to the blessedness of the world to come, unless in this life he has been indoctrinated in those cycles in which bliss and misery relieve one another, how do they avow that the more a man loves God, the more readily he attains to blessedness,--they who teach what paralyzes love itself? For who would not be more remiss and lukewarm in his love for a person whom he thinks he shall be forced to abandon, and whose truth and wisdom he shall come to hate; and this, too, after he has quite attained to the utmost and most blissful knowledge of Him that he is capable of? Can any one be faithful in his love, even to a human friend, if he knows that he is destined to become his enemy? ¹ God forbid that there be any truth in an opinion which threatens us with a real misery that is never to end, but is often and endlessly to be interrupted by intervals of fallacious happiness. For what happiness can be more fallacious and false than that in whose blaze of truth we yet remain ignorant that we shall be miserable, or in whose most secure citadel we yet fear that we shall be so? For if, on the one hand, we are to be ignorant of coming calamity, then our present misery is not so short-sighted for it is assured of coming bliss. If, on the other hand, the disaster that threatens is not concealed from us in the world to come, then the time of misery which is to be at last exchanged for a state of blessedness, is spent by the soul more happily than its time of happiness, which is to end in a return to misery. And thus our expectation of unhappiness is happy, but of happiness unhappy. And therefore, as we here suffer present ills, and hereafter fear ills that are imminent, it were truer to say that we shall always be miserable than that we can some time be happy.

But these things are declared to be false by the loud testimony of religion and truth; for religion truthfully promises a true blessedness, of which we shall be eternally assured, and which cannot be interrupted by any disaster. Let us therefore keep to the straight path, which is Christ, and, with Him as our Guide and Saviour, let us turn away in heart and mind from the unreal and futile cycles of the godless. Porphyry, Platonist though he was, abjured the opinion of his school, that in these cycles souls are ceaselessly passing away and returning, either being struck with the extravagance of the idea, or sobered by his knowledge of Christianity. As I mentioned in the tenth book, ² he preferred saying that the soul, as it had been sent into the world that it might know evil, and be purged and delivered from it, was never again exposed to such an experience after it had once returned to the Father. And if he abjured the tenets of his school, how much more ought we Christians to abominate and avoid an opinion so unfounded and hostile to our faith? But having disposed of these cycles and escaped out of them, no necessity compels us to suppose that the human race had no beginning in time, on the ground that there is nothing new in nature which, by I know not what cycles, has not at some previous period existed, and is not hereafter to exist again. For if the soul, once delivered, as it never was before, is never to return to misery, then there happens in its experience something which never happened before; and this, indeed, something of the greatest consequence, to wit, the secure entrance into eternal felicity. And if in an immortal nature there can occur a novelty, which never has been, nor ever shall be, reproduced by any cycle, why is it disputed that the same may occur in mortal natures? If they maintain that blessedness is no new experience to the soul, but only a return to that state in which it has been eternally, then at least its deliverance from misery is something new, since, by their own showing, the misery from which it is delivered is itself, too, a new experience. And if this new experience fell out by accident, and was not embraced in the order of things appointed by Divine Providence, then where are those determinate and measured cycles in which no new thing happens, but all things are reproduced as they were before? If, however, this new experience was embraced in that providential order of nature (whether the soul was exposed to the evil of this world for the sake of discipline, or fell into it by sin), then it is possible for new things to happen which never happened before, and which yet are not extraneous to the order of nature. And if the soul is able by its own imprudence to create for itself a new misery, which was not unforeseen by the Divine Providence, but was provided for in the order of nature along with the deliverance from it, how can we, even with all the rashness of human vanity, presume to deny that God can create new things--new to the world, but not to Him--which He never before created, but yet foresaw from all eternity? If they say that it is indeed true that ransomed souls return no more to misery, but that even so no new thing happens, since there always have been, now are, and ever shall be a succession of ransomed souls, they must at least grant that in this case there are new souls to whom the misery and the deliverance from it are new. For if they maintain that those souls out of which new men are daily being made (from whose bodies, if they have lived wisely, they are so delivered that they never return to misery) are not new, but have existed from eternity, they must logically admit that they are infinite. For however great a finite number of souls there were, that would not have sufficed to make perpetually new men from eternity,--men whose souls were to be eternally freed from this mortal state, and never afterwards to return to it. And our philosophers will find it hard to explain how there is an infinite number of souls in an order of nature which they require shall be finite, that it may be known by God.

And now that we have exploded these cycles which were supposed to bring back the soul at fixed periods to the same miseries, what can seem more in accordance with godly reason than to believe that it is possible for God both to create new things never before created, and in doing so, to preserve His will unaltered? But whether the number of eternally redeemed souls can be continually increased or not, let the philosophers themselves decide, who are so subtle in determining where infinity cannot be admitted. For our own part, our reasoning holds in either case. For if the number of souls can be indefinitely increased, what reason is there to deny that what had never before been created, could be created? since the number of ransomed souls never existed before, and has yet not only been once made, but will never cease to be anew coming into being. If, on the other hand, it be more suitable that the number of eternally ransomed souls be definite, and that this number will never be increased, yet this number, whatever it be, did assuredly never exist before, and it cannot increase, and reach the amount it signifies, without having some beginning; and this beginning never before existed. That this beginning, therefore, might be, the first man was created.

Edition ausblenden
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput XXI: De inpietate eorum, qui adserunt animas summae ueraeque beatitudinis participes iterum atque iterum per circuitus temporum ad easdem miserias laboresque redituras.

Quorum enim aures piorum ferant post emensam tot tantisque calamitatibus uitam - si tamen uita ista dicenda est, quae potius mors est, ita grauis, ut mors, quae ab hac liberat, mortis huius amore timeatur - , post tam magna mala tamque multa et horrenda tandem aliquando per ueram religionem atque sapientiam expiata atque finita ita peruenire ad conspectum dei atque ita fieri beatum contemplatione incorporeae lucis per participationem inmutabilis inmortalitatis eius, cuius adipiscendae amore flagramus, ut eam quandoque necesse sit deseri et eos, qui deserunt, ab illa aeternitate ueritate felicitate deiectos tartareae mortalitati, turpi stultitiae, miseriis exsecrabilius inplicari, ubi deus amittatur, ubi odio ueritas habeatur, ubi per inmundas nequitias beatitudo quaeratur, et hoc itidem atque itidem sine ullo fine priorum et posteriorum certis interuallis et dimensionibus saeculorum factum et futurum; et hoc propterea, ut possint deo circuitibus definitis euntibus semper atque redeuntibus per nostras falsas beatitudines et ueras miserias alternatim quidem, sed reuolutione incessabili sempiternas nota esse opera sua, quoniam neque a faciendo quiescere neque sciendo potest ea, quae infinita sunt, indagare? quis haec audiat? quis credat? quis ferat? quae si uera essent, non solum tacerentur prudentius, uerum etiam - ut quomodo ualeo dicam quod uolo - doctius nescirentur. nam si haec illic in memoria non habebimus et ideo beati erimus, cur hic per eorum scientiam grauatur amplius nostra miseria? si autem ibi ea necessario scituri sumus, hic saltem nesciamus, ut hic felicior sit expectatio quam illic adeptio summi boni, quando hic aeterna uita consequenda expectatur, ibi autem beata, sed non aeterna, quandoque amittenda cognoscitur. si autem dicunt neminem posse ad illam beatitudinem peruenire, nisi hos circuitus, ubi beatitudo et miseria uicissim alternant, in huius uitae eruditione cognouerit, quomodo ergo fatentur, quanto plus quisque amauerit deum, tanto eum facilius ad beatitudinem peruenturum, qui ea docent, quibus amor ipse torpescat? nam quis non remissius et tepidius amet eum, quem se cogitat necessario deserturum et contra eius ueritatem sapientiamque sensurum, et hoc cum ad eius plenam pro sua capacitate notitiam beatitudinis perfectione peruenerit? quando nec hominem amicum possit quisque amare fideliter, cui se futurum nouit inimicum. sed absit ut uera sint, quae nobis minantur ueram miseriam numquam finiendam, sed interpositionibus falsae beatitudinis saepe ac sine fine rumpendam. quid enim illa beatitudine falsius atque fallacius, ubi nos futuros miseros aut in tanta ueritatis luce nesciamus aut in summa felicitatis arce timeamus? si enim uenturam calamitatem ignoraturi sumus, peritior est hic nostra miseria, ubi uenturam beatitudinem nouimus; si autem nos illic clades inminens non latebit, beatius tempora transigit anima misera, quibus transactis ad beatitudinem subleuetur, quam beata, quibus transactis in miseriam reuoluatur. atque ita spes nostrae infelicitatis est felix et felicitatis infelix. unde fit, ut, quia hic mala praesentia patimur, ibi metuimus inminentia, uerius semper miseri quam beati aliquando esse possimus. sed quoniam haec falsa sunt clamante pietate, conuincente ueritate - illa enim nobis ueraciter promittitur uera felicitas, cuius erit semper retinenda et nulla infelicitate rumpenda certa securitas - , uiam rectam sequentes, quod nobis est Christus, eo duce ac saluatore a uano et inepto inpiorum circuitu iter fidei mentemque auertamus. si enim de istis circuitibus et sine cessatione alternantibus itionibus et reditionibus animarum Porphyrius Platonicus suorum opinionem sequi noluit, siue ipsius rei uanitate permotus siue iam tempora Christiana reueritus, et, quod in libro decimo commemoraui, dicere maluit animam propter cognoscenda mala traditam mundo, ut ab eis liberata atque purgata, cum ad patrem redierit, nihil ulterius tale patiatur: quanto magis nos istam inimicam Christianae fidei falsitatem detestari ac deuitare debemus. his autem circuitibus euacuatis atque frustratis nulla necessitas nos conpellit ideo putare non habere initium temporis ex quo esse coeperit genus humanum, quia per nescio quos circuitus nihil sit in rebus noui, quod non et antea certis interuallis temporum fuerit et postea sit futurum. si enim liberatur anima non reditura ad miserias, sicut numquam antea liberata est, fit in illa aliquid, quod antea numquam factum est, et hoc quidem ualde magnum, id est quae numquam desinat aeterna felicitas. si autem in natura inmortali fit tanta nouitas nullo repetita, nullo repetenda circuitu, cur in rebus mortalibus fieri non posse contenditur? si dicunt non fieri in anima beatitudinis nouitatem, quoniam ad eam reuertitur, in qua semper fuit, ipsa certe liberatio noua fit, cum de miseria liberatur in qua numquam fuit, et ipsa miseriae nouitas in ea facta est quae numquam fuit. haec autem nouitas si non in rerum, quae diuina prouidentia gubernantur, ordinem uenit, sed casu potius euenit, ubi sunt illi determinati dimensique circuitus, in quibus nulla noua fiunt, sed repetuntur eadem quae fuerunt? si autem et haec nouitas ab ordinatione prouidentiae non excluditur, siue data sit anima siue lapsa sit, possunt fieri noua, quae neque antea facta sint nec tamen a rerum ordine aliena sint. et si potuit anima per inprudentiam facere sibi nouam miseriam, quae non esset improuisa diuinae prouidentiae, ut hanc quoque in rerum ordine includeret et ab hac eam non inprouide liberaret, qua tandem temeritate humanae uanitatis audemus negare diuinitatem facere posse res, non sibi, sed mundo nouas, quas neque antea fecerit nec umquam habuerit inprouisas? si autem dicunt liberatas quidem animas ad miseriam non reuersuras, sed cum hoc fit in rebus nihil noui fieri, quoniam semper aliae atque aliae liberatae sunt et liberantur et liberabuntur, hoc certe concedunt, si ita est, nouas animas fieri, quibus sit et noua miseria et noua liberatio. nam si antiquas eas esse dicunt et retrorsum sempiternas, ex quibus cottidie noui fiant homines, de quorum corporibus, si sapienter uixerint, ita liberentur, ut numquam ad miserias reuoluantur, consequenter dicturi sunt infinitas. quantuslibet namque finitus numerus fuisset animarum, infinitis retro saeculis sufficere non ualeret, ut ex illo semper homines fierent, quorum essent animae ab ista semper mortalitate liberandae, numquam ad eam deinceps rediturae. nec ullo modo explicabunt, quomodo in rebus, quas, ut deo notae esse possint, finitas uolunt, infinitus sit numerus animarum. quapropter quoniam circuitus illi iam explosi sunt, quibus ad easdem miserias necessario putabatur anima reditura, quid restat conuenientius pietati quam credere non esse inpossibile deo et ea, quae numquam fecerit, noua facere et ineffabili praescientia uoluntatem mutabilem non habere? porro autem utrum animarum liberatarum nec ulterius ad miserias rediturarum numerus possit semper augeri, ipsi uiderint, qui de rerum infinitate cohibenda tam subtiliter disputant; nos uero ratiocinationem nostram ex utroque latere terminamus. si enim potest, quid causae est, ut negetur creari potuisse quod numquam antea creatum esset, si liberatarum animarum numerus, qui numquam antea fuit, non solum factus est semel, sed fieri numquam desinet? si autem oportet ut certus sit liberatarum aliquis numerus animarum, quae ad miseriam numquam redeant, neque iste numerus ulterius augeatur, etiam ipse sine dubio, quicumque erit, ante utique numquam fuit; qui profecto crescere et ad suae quantitatis terminum peruenire sine aliquo non posset initio, quod initium eo modo antea numquam fuit. hoc ergo ut esset, creatus est homo, ante quem nullus fuit.