2 Chronicles 19 – When
Jehoshaphat returns to his house, Jehu,
son of Hanani, the seer, meets him and criticizes him for helping Ahab. “Should
you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord?” (19:2)
He nevertheless tells him that some good is found in him for his having destroyed the sacred poles
and set his heart on seeking God. He went out among the people and “brought
them back to the Lord” (19:4). He appointed judges and told them, “let the fear
of the Lord be upon you; take care what you do, for there is no perversion of
justice with the Lord our God, or partiality, or taking of bribes” (19:7).
Similarly, in Jerusalem, he appointed Levites and priests and heads of families
to decide disputes. “Deal courageously, and may the Lord be with the good!” (19:11)
Augustine’s Treatise
on the Profit of Believing
22 - But perhaps
you seek to have some reason given you on this very point, such as may persuade
you, that you ought not to be taught by
reason before faith. Which may easily be done, if only you make yourself a fair hearer. But, in
order that it may be done suitably, I wish you as it were to answer my
questions; and, first, to tell me, why
you, think that one ought not to believe. Because, you say, credulity, from
which men are called credulous, in itself, seems to me to be a certain fault:
otherwise we should not use to cast this as a term of reproach. For if a
suspicious man is in fault, in that he suspects things not ascertained; how
much more a credulous man, who herein differs from a suspicious man, that the
one allows some doubt, the other none, in matters which he knows not.
OK, so these terms – credulous and
suspicious – are terms we use in a kind of negative way, maybe especially
credulous. That means you are believing things that most people would not
because you have a weak reasoning powers or don’t expect “proof” of what is
being said. Suspicious means you just suspect something isn’t accurate or right
– you have doubts about something. Augustine knows his friend – as he himself –
did not what either of these “tags” applied to them. But are there some things
where faith – trust in something you cannot KNOW – might be the best approach?
In the meanwhile, I accept this opinion and distinction. But
you know that we are not wont to call a person even curious without some
reproach; but we call him studious even with praise. Curiosity
is perhaps valued more among moderns. But studious is definitely a good
adjective, especially when we’re young and in school. Wherefore observe,
if you please, what seems to you to be the difference between these two. This
surely, you answer, that, although both
be led by great desire to know, yet the
curious man seeks after things that no way pertain to him, but the studious
man, on the contrary, seeks after what pertain to him. I’m
not sure this applies to the way we use these terms today. Sometimes what we
are expected to be “studious” of are the things others have set before us
because they believe them to be important to us, but they are not the things we
would have chosen – not the things we are really curious to learn. Or maybe
this is what he is getting at.
But, because we deny not that a man's wife and children, and
their health, pertain unto him; if any one, being settled abroad, were to be careful to ask all comers, how his wife and
children are and fare, he is surely
led by great desire to know, and yet we call not this man studious, who
both exceedingly wishes to know, and that (in) matters which very greatly
pertain unto him. Wherefore you now understand that the definition of a studious person falters in this point, that every
studious person wishes to know what pertain to himself, and yet not every one,
who makes this his business, is to be called studious; but he who with all earnestness seeks those things which pertain unto the
liberal culture and adornment of the mind. So he
is saying what I said above. Yet we rightly call him one who studies,
especially if we add what he studies to hear. For we may call him even studious
of his own (family) if he love only his own (family), we do not however,
without some addition, think him worthy of the common name of the studious. But
one who was desirous to hear how his family were I should not call studious of
hearing, unless taking pleasure in the good report, he should wish to hear it
again and again: but one who studied, even if only once.
Now return to the curious person, and tell me, if any one
should be willing to listen to some tale, such as would no way profit him, that
is, of matters that pertain not to him: and that not in an offensive way and
frequently, but very seldom and with great moderation, either at a feast, or in
some company, or meeting of any kind; would he seem to you curious? I think
not: but at any rate he would certainly
seem to have a care for that matter, to which he was willing to listen.
Wherefore the definition of a curious person also must be corrected by the same
rule as that of a studious person: Consider therefore whether the former
statements also do not need to be corrected. For why should not both he, who at
some time suspects something, be unworthy the name of a suspicious person; and
he who at some time believes something, of a credulous person? Thus as there is very great difference
between one who studies any matter, and the absolutely studious; and again
between him who has a care and the curious; so is there between him who
believes and the credulous.
We have to remember here that Augustine is really not
meaning to go into the particulars of Christian doctrine, which I think I may
have thought before I started reading it closely. He is interested in simply
lifting up, examining and recommending the mental act of “believing” as
something we all do and must do as human beings.
No comments:
Post a Comment