Edition ausblenden
De civitate Dei (CCSL)

Caput VIII: Non esse contra naturam, cum in aliqua re, cuius natura innotuit, aliquid ab eo quod erat notum incipit esse diuersum.

Si autem respondent propterea se non credere quae de humanis semper arsuris nec umquam morituris corporibus dicimus, quia humanorum corporum naturam nouimus longe aliter institutam, unde nec illa ratio hinc reddi potest, quae de illis naturis mirabilibus reddebatur, ut dici possit: uis ista naturalis est, rei huius ista natura est, quoniam scimus humanae carnis istam non esse naturam, habemus quidem quod respondeamus de litteris sacris, hanc ipsam scilicet humanam carnem aliter institutam fuisse ante peccatum, id est, ut posset numquam perpeti mortem; aliter autem post peccatum, qualis in aerumna huius mortalitatis innotuit, ut perpetem uitam tenere non possit; sic ergo aliter, quam nobis nota est, instituetur in resurrectione mortuorum. sed quoniam istis non credunt litteris, ubi legitur qualis in paradiso uixerit homo quantumque fuerit a necessitate mortis alienus, quibus utique si crederent, non cum illis de poena damnatorum, quae futura est, operosius ageremus, de litteris eorum, qui doctissimi apud illos fuerunt, aliquid proferendum est, quo appareat posse fieri, ut aliter se habeat quaeque res, quam prius in rebus innotuerat suae determinatione naturae. est in Marci Varronis libris, quorum inscriptio est: de gente populi Romani, quod eisdem uerbis, quibus ibi legitur, et hic ponam: in caelo, inquit, mirabile exstitit portentum; nam stellam Veneris nobilissimam, quam Plautus Vesperuginem, Homerus Hesperon appellat, pulcherrimam dicens, Castor scribit tantum portentum exstitisse, ut mutaret colorem, magnitudinem figuram, cursum; quod factum ita neque antea nec postea sit. hoc factum Ogygo rege dicebant Adrastos Cyzicenos et Dion Neapolites, mathematici nobiles. hoc certe Varro tantus auctor portentum non appellaret, nisi esse contra naturam uideretur. omnia quippe portenta contra naturam dicimus esse; sed non sunt. quomodo est enim contra naturam, quod dei fit uoluntate, cum uoluntas tanti utique conditoris conditae rei cuiusque natura sit? portentum ergo fit non contra naturam, sed contra quam est nota natura. quis autem portentorum numerat multitudinem, quae historia gentium continetur? sed nunc in hoc uno adtendamus, quod ad rem, de qua agimus, pertinet. quid ita dispositum est ab auctore naturae caeli et terrae, quemadmodum cursus ordinatissimus siderum? quid tam ratis legibus fixisque firmatum? et tamen, quando ille uoluit, qui summo regit imperio ac potestate quod condidit, stella prae ceteris magnitudine ac splendore notissima colorem, magnitudinem, figuram et, quod est mirabilius, sui cursus ordinem legemque mutauit. turbauit profecto tunc, si ulli iam fuerunt, canones astrologorum, quos uelut inerrabili conputatione de praeteritis ac futuris astrorum motibus conscriptos habent, quos canones sequendo ausi sunt dicere, hoc, quod de Lucifero contigit, nec antea nec postea contigisse. nos autem in diuinis libris legimus etiam solem ipsum et stetisse, cum hoc a domino deo petiuisset uir sanctus Iesus Naue, donec coeptum proelium uictoria terminaret, et retrorsum redisse, ut regi Ezechiae quindecim anni ad uiuendum additi hoc etiam prodigio promissioni dei significarentur adiuncto. sed ista quoque miracula, quae meritis sunt concessa sanctorum, quando credunt isti facta, magicis artibus tribuunt. unde illud est, quod superius commemoraui dixisse Vergilium: sistere aquam fluuiis et uertere sidera retro. nam et fluuium stetisse superius inferiusque fluxisse, cum populus dei ductore supra memorato Iesu Naue uiam carperet, et Helia propheta transeunte ac postea discipulo eius Helisaeo id esse factum in sacris litteris legimus, et retro uersum fuisse maximum sidus regnante Ezechia modo commemorauimus. quod uero de Lucifero Varro scripsit, non est illic dictum alicui petenti homini id fuisse concessum. non ergo de notitia naturarum caliginem sibi faciant infideles, quasi non possit in aliqua re diuinitus fieri aliud, quam in eius natura per humanam suam experientiam cognouerunt; quamuis et ipsa, quae in rerum natura omnibus nota sunt, non minus mira sint, essentque stupenda considerantibus cunctis, si solerent homines mirari mira nisi rara. quis enim consulta ratione non uideat in hominum innumerabili numerositate et tanta naturae similitudine ualde mirabiliter sic habere singulos singulas facies, ut nisi inter se similes essent, non discerneretur species eorum ab animalibus ceteris; et rursus nisi inter se dissimiles essent, non discernerentur singuli ab hominibus ceteris? quos ergo similes confitemur, eosdem dissimiles inuenimus. sed mirabilior est consideratio dissimilitudinis, quoniam similitudinem iustius uidetur exposcere natura communis. et tamen quoniam quae sunt rara ipsa sunt mira, multo amplius admiramur quando duos ita similes reperimus, ut in eis discernendis aut semper aut frequenter erremus. sed quod dixi scriptum a Varrone, licet eorum sit historicus idemque doctissimus, fortasse uere factum esse non credunt; aut quia non diu mansit alius eiusdem sideris cursus, sed reditum est ad solitum, minus isto mouentur exemplo. habent ergo aliud, quod etiamnunc possit ostendi eisque puto debere sufficere, quo commoneantur, cum aliquid aduerterint in aliqua institutione naturae eamque sibi notissimam fecerint, non se inde deo debere praescribere, quasi eam non possit in longe aliud, quam eis cognita est, uertere atque mutare. terra Sodomorum non fuit utique ut nunc est, sed iacebat simili ceteris facie eademque uel etiam uberiore fecunditate pollebat; nam dei paradiso in diuinis eloquiis conparata est. haec posteaquam tacta de caelo est, sicut illorum quoque adtestatur historia et nunc ab eis qui ueniunt ad loca illa conspicitur, prodigiosa fuligine horrori est et poma eius interiorem fauillam mendaci superficie maturitatis includunt. ecce non erat talis, et talis est. ecce a conditore naturarum natura eius in hanc foedissimam diuersitatem mirabili mutatione conuersa est; et quod post tam longum accidit tempus, tam longo tempore perseuerat. sicut ergo non fuit inpossibile deo, quas uoluit instituere, sic ei non est inpossibile, in quidquid uoluerit, quas instituit, mutare naturas. unde illorum quoque miraculorum multitudo siluescit, quae monstra ostenta, portenta prodigia nuncupantur; quae recolere et commemorare si uelim, huius operis quis erit finis? monstra sane dicta perhibent a monstrando, quod aliquid significando demonstrent, et ostenta ab ostendendo et portenta a portendendo, id est praeostendendo, et prodigia, quod porro dicant, id est futura praedicant. sed uiderint eorum coniectores, quomodo ex eis siue fallantur siue instinctu spirituum, quibus cura est tali poena dignos animos hominum noxiae curiositatis retibus inplicare, etiam uera praedicant, siue multa dicendo aliquando in aliquid ueritatis incurrant. nobis tamen ista, quae uelut contra naturam fiunt et contra naturam fieri dicuntur - quo more hominum locutus est et apostolus dicendo contra naturam in olea insitum oleastrum factum esse participem pinguedinis oleae - et monstra ostenta, portenta prodigia nuncupantur, hoc monstrare debent, hoc ostendere uel praeostendere, hoc praedicere, quod facturus sit deus, quae de corporibus hominum se praenuntiauit esse facturum, nulla inpediente difficultate, nulla praescribente lege naturae. quomodo autem praenuntiauerit, satis in libro superiore docuisse me existimo, decerpendo de scripturis sanctis et nouis et ueteribus non quidem omnia ad hoc pertinentia, sed quae sufficere huic operi iudicaui.

Übersetzung ausblenden
The City of God

Chapter 8.--That It is Not Contrary to Nature That, in an Object Whose Nature is Known, There Should Be Discovered an Alteration of the Properties Which Have Been Known as Its Natural Properties.

But if they reply that their reason for not believing us when we say that human bodies will always burn and yet never die, is that the nature of human bodies is known to be quite otherwise constituted; if they say that for this miracle we cannot give the reason which was valid in the case of those natural miracles, viz., that this is the natural property, the nature of the thing,--for we know that this is not the nature of human flesh,--we find our answer in the sacred writings, that even this human flesh was constituted in one fashion before there was sin,--was constituted, in fact, so that it could not die,--and in another fashion after sin, being made such as we see it in this miserable state of mortality, unable to retain enduring life. And so in the resurrection of the dead shall it be constituted differently from its present well-known condition. But as they do not believe these writings of ours, in which we read what nature man had in paradise, and how remote he was from the necessity of death,--and indeed, if they did believe them, we should of course have little trouble in debating with them the future punishment of the damned,--we must produce from the writings of their own most learned authorities some instances to show that it is possible for a thing to become different from what it was formerly known characteristically to be.

From the book of Marcus Varro, entitled, Of the Race of the Roman People, I cite word for word the following instance: "There occurred a remarkable celestial portent; for Castor records that, in the brilliant star Venus, called Vesperugo by Plautus, and the lovely Hesperus by Homer, there occurred so strange a prodigy, that it changed its color, size, form, course, which never happened before nor since. Adrastus of Cyzicus, and Dion of Naples, famous mathematicians, said that this occurred in the reign of Ogyges." So great an author as Varro would certainly not have called this a portent had it not seemed to be contrary to nature. For we say that all portents are contrary to nature; but they are not so. For how is that contrary to nature which happens by the will of God, since the will of so mighty a Creator is certainly the nature of each created thing? A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature, but contrary to what we know as nature. But who can number the multitude of portents recorded in profane histories? Let us then at present fix our attention on this one only which concerns the matter in hand. What is there so arranged by the Author of the nature of heaven and earth as the exactly ordered course of the stars? What is there established by laws so sure and inflexible? And yet, when it pleased Him who with sovereignty and supreme power regulates all He has created, a star conspicuous among the rest by its size and splendor changed its color, size, form, and, most wonderful of all, the order and law of its course! Certainly that phenomenon disturbed the canons of the astronomers, if there were any then, by which they tabulate, as by unerring computation, the past and future movements of the stars, so as to take upon them to affirm that this which happened to the morning star (Venus) never happened before nor since. But we read in the divine books that even the sun itself stood still when a holy man, Joshua the son of Nun, had begged this from God until victory should finish the battle he had begun; and that it even went back, that the promise of fifteen years added to the life of king Hezekiah might be sealed by this additional prodigy. But these miracles, which were vouchsafed to the merits of holy men, even when our adversaries believe them, they attribute to magical arts; so Virgil, in the lines I quoted above, ascribes to magic the power to

"Turn rivers backward to their source,

And make the stars forget their course."

For in our sacred books we read that this also happened, that a river "turned backward," was stayed above while the lower part flowed on, when the people passed over under the above-mentioned leader, Joshua the son of Nun; and also when Elias the prophet crossed; and afterwards, when his disciple Elisha passed through it: and we have just mentioned how, in the case of king Hezekiah the greatest of the "stars forgot its course." But what happened to Venus, according to Varro, was not said by him to have happened in answer to any man's prayer.

Let not the sceptics then benight themselves in this knowledge of the nature of things, as if divine power cannot bring to pass in an object anything else than what their own experience has shown them to be in its nature. Even the very things which are most commonly known as natural would not be less wonderful nor less effectual to excite surprise in all who beheld them, if men were not accustomed to admire nothing but what is rare. For who that thoughtfully observes the countless multitude of men, and their similarity of nature, can fail to remark with surprise and admiration the individuality of each man's appearance, suggesting to us, as it does, that unless men were like one another, they would not be distinguished from the rest of the animals; while unless, on the other hand, they were unlike, they could not be distinguished from one another, so that those whom we declare to be like, we also find to be unlike? And the unlikeness is the more wonderful consideration of the two; for a common nature seems rather to require similarity. And yet, because the very rarity of things is that which makes them wonderful, we are filled with much greater wonder when we are introduced to two men so like, that we either always or frequently mistake in endeavoring to distinguish between them.

But possibly, though Varro is a heathen historian, and a very learned one, they may disbelieve that what I have cited from him truly occurred; or they may say the example is invalid, because the star did not for any length of time continue to follow its new course, but returned to its ordinary orbit. There is, then, another phenomenon at present open to their observation, and which, in my opinion, ought to be sufficient to convince them that, though they have observed and ascertained some natural law, they ought not on that account to prescribe to God, as if He could not change and turn it into something very different from what they have observed. The land of Sodom was not always as it now is; but once it had the appearance of other lands, and enjoyed equal if not richer fertility; for, in the divine narrative, it was compared to the paradise of God. But after it was touched [by fire] from heaven, as even pagan history testifies, and as is now witnessed by those who visit the spot, it became unnaturally and horribly sooty in appearance; and its apples, under a deceitful appearance of ripeness, contain ashes within. Here is a thing which was of one kind, and is of another. You see how its nature was converted by the wonderful transmutation wrought by the Creator of all natures into so very disgusting a diversity,--an alteration which after so long a time took place, and after so long a time still continues. As therefore it was not impossible to God to create such natures as He pleased, so it is not impossible to Him to change these natures of His own creation into whatever He pleases, and thus spread abroad a multitude of those marvels which are called monsters, portents, prodigies, phenomena, ¹ and which if I were minded to cite and record, what end would there be to this work? They say that they are called "monsters," because they demonstrate or signify something; "portents," because they portend something; and so forth. ² But let their diviners see how they are either deceived, or even when they do predict true things, it is because they are inspired by spirits, who are intent upon entangling the minds of men (worthy, indeed, of such a fate) in the meshes of a hurtful curiosity, or how they light now and then upon some truth, because they make so many predictions. Yet, for our part, these things which happen contrary to nature, and are said to be contrary to nature (as the apostle, speaking after the manner of men, says, that to graft the wild olive into the good olive, and to partake of its fatness, is contrary to nature), and are called monsters, phenomena, portents, prodigies, ought to demonstrate, portend, predict that God will bring to pass what He has foretold regarding the bodies of men, no difficulty preventing Him, no law of nature prescribing to Him His limit. How He has foretold what He is to do, I think I have sufficiently shown in the preceding book, culling from the sacred Scriptures, both of the New and Old Testaments, not, indeed, all the passages that relate to this, but as many as I judged to suffice for this work.