Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| How the Man Not Yet Righteous Can Know the Righteous Man Whom He Loves.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter 6.—How the
Man Not Yet Righteous Can Know the Righteous Man Whom He
Loves.
9. Return then with me, and let us
consider why we love the apostle. Is it at all on account of his
human kind, which we know right well, in that we believe him to
have been a man? Assuredly not; for if it were so, he now is not
him whom we love, since he is no longer that man, for his soul is
separated from his body. But we believe that which we love in him
to be still living, for we love his righteous mind. From what
general or special rule then, except that we know both what a mind
is, and what it is to be righteous? And we say, indeed, not
unfitly, that we therefore know what a mind is, because we too have
a mind. For neither did we ever see it with our eyes, and gather a
special or general notion from the resemblance of more minds than
one, which we had seen; but rather, as I have said before, because
we too have it. For what is known so intimately, and so perceives
itself to be itself, as that by which also all other things are
perceived, that is, the mind itself? For we recognize the movements
of bodies also, by which we perceive that others live besides
ourselves, from the resemblance of ourselves; since we also so move
our body in living as we observe those bodies to be moved. For even
when a living body is moved, there is no way opened to our eyes to
see the mind, a thing which cannot be seen by the eyes; but we
perceive something to be contained in that bulk, such as is
contained in ourselves, so as to move in like manner our own bulk,
which is the life and the soul. Neither is this, as it were, the
property of human foresight and reason, since brute animals also
perceive that not only they themselves live, but also other brute
animals interchangeably, and the one the other, and that we
ourselves do so. Neither do they see our souls, save from the
movements of the body, and that immediately and most easily by some
natural agreement. Therefore we both know the mind of any one from
our own, and believe also from our own of him whom we do not know.
For not only do we perceive that there is a mind, but we can also
know what a mind is, by reflecting upon our own: for we have a
mind. But whence do we know what a righteous man is? For we said
above that we love the apostle for no other reason except that he
is a righteous mind. We know, then, what a righteous man also is,
just as we know what a mind is. But what a mind is, as has been
said, we know from ourselves, for there is a mind in us. But whence
do we know what a righteous man is, if we are not righteous? But if
no one but he who is righteous knows what is a righteous man, no
one but a righteous man loves a righteous man; for one cannot love
him whom one believes to be righteous, for this very reason that
one does believe him to be righteous, if one does not know what it
is to be righteous; according to that which we have shown above,
that no one loves what he believes and does not see, except by some
rule of a general or special notion. And if for this reason no one
but a righteous man loves a righteous man, how will any one wish to
be a righteous man who is not yet so? For no one wishes to be that
which he does not love. But, certainly, that he who is not
righteous may be so, it is necessary that he should wish to be
righteous; and in order that he may wish to be righteous, he loves
the righteous man. Therefore, even he who is not yet righteous,
loves the righteous man.673
| 673 [The “wish” and “love”
which Augustin here attributes to the non-righteous man is not true
and spiritual, but selfish. In chapter vii. 10, he speaks of true
love as distinct from that kind of desire which is a mere wish. The
latter he calls cupiditas. “That is to be called love
which is true, otherwise it is desire (cupiditas); and so
those who desire (cupidi) are improperly said to love
(diligere), just as they who love (diligunt) are said
improperly to desire (cupere).”—W.G.T.S.] | But he cannot love the righteous
man, who is ignorant what a righteous man is. Accordingly, even he
who is not yet righteous, knows what a righteous man is. Whence
then does he know this? Does he see it with his eyes? Is any
corporeal thing righteous, as it is white, or black, or square, or
round? Who could say this? Yet with one’s eyes one has seen
nothing except corporeal things. But there is nothing righteous in
a man except the mind; and when a man is called a righteous man, he
is called so from the mind, not from the body. For righteousness is
in some sort the beauty of the mind, by which men are beautiful;
very many too who are misshapen and deformed in body. And as the
mind is not seen with the eyes, so neither is its beauty. From
whence then does he who is not yet righteous know what a righteous
man is, and love the righteous man that he may become righteous? Do
certain signs shine forth by the motion of the body, by
which
this or that man is manifested to be righteous? But whence does any
one know that these are the signs of a righteous mind when he is
wholly ignorant what it is to be righteous? Therefore he does know.
But whence do we know what it is to be righteous, even when we are
not yet righteous? If we know from without ourselves, we know it by
some bodily thing. But this is not a thing of the body. Therefore
we know in ourselves what it is to be righteous. For I find this
nowhere else when I seek to utter it, except within myself; and if
I ask another what it is to be righteous, he seeks within himself
what to answer; and whosoever hence can answer truly, he has found
within himself what to answer. And when indeed I wish to speak of
Carthage, I seek within myself what to speak, and I find within
myself a notion or image of Carthage; but I have received this
through the body, that is, through the perception of the body,
since I have been present in that city in the body, and I saw and
perceived it, and retained it in my memory, that I might find
within myself a word concerning it, whenever I might wish to speak
of it. For its word is the image itself of it in my memory, not
that sound of two syllables when Carthage is named, or even when
that name itself is thought of silently from time to time, but that
which I discern in my mind, when I utter that dissyllable with my
voice, or even before I utter it. So also, when I wish to speak of
Alexandria, which I never saw, an image of it is present with me.
For whereas I had heard from many and had believed that city to be
great, in such way as it could be told me, I formed an image of it
in my mind as I was able; and this is with me its word when I wish
to speak of it, before I utter with my voice the five syllables
which make the name that almost every one knows. And yet if I could
bring forth that image from my mind to the eyes of men who know
Alexandria, certainly all either would say, It is not it; or if
they said, It is, I should greatly wonder; and as I gazed at it in
my mind, that is, at the image which was as it were its picture, I
should yet not know it to be it, but should believe those who
retained an image they had seen. But I do not so ask what it is to
be righteous, nor do I so find it, nor do I so gaze upon it, when I
utter it; neither am I so approved when I am heard, nor do I so
approve when I hear; as though I have seen such a thing with my
eyes, or learned it by some perception of the body, or heard it
from those who had so learned it. For when I say, and say
knowingly, that mind is righteous which knowingly and of purpose
assigns to every one his due in life and behavior, I do not think
of anything absent, as Carthage, or imagine it as I am able, as
Alexandria, whether it be so or not; but I discern something
present, and I discern it within myself, though I myself am not
that which I discern; and many if they hear will approve it. And
whoever hears me and knowingly approves, he too discerns this same
thing within himself, even though he himself be not what he
discerns. But when a righteous man says this, he discerns
and says that which he himself is. And whence also does he
discern it, except within himself? But this is not to be wondered
at; for whence should he discern himself except within himself? The
wonderful thing is, that the mind should see within itself that
which it has seen nowhere else, and should see truly, and should
see the very true righteous mind, and should itself be a mind, and
yet not a righteous mind, which nevertheless it sees within itself.
Is there another mind that is righteous in a mind that is not yet
righteous? Or if there is not, what does it there see when it sees
and says what is a righteous mind, nor sees it anywhere else but in
itself, when itself is not a righteous mind? Is that which it sees
an inner truth present to the mind which has power to behold it?
Yet all have not that power; and they who have power to behold it,
are not all also that which they behold, that is, they are not also
righteous minds themselves, just as they are able to see and to say
what is a righteous mind. And whence will they be able to be so,
except by cleaving to that very same form itself which they behold,
so that from thence they may be formed and may be righteous minds;
not only discerning and saying that the mind is righteous which
knowingly and of purpose assigns to every one that which is his due
in life and behavior, but so likewise that they themselves may live
righteously and be righteous in character, by assigning to every
one that which is his due, so as to owe no man anything, but to
love one another.674
And whence
can any one cleave to that form but by loving it? Why then do we
love another whom we believe to be righteous, and do not love that
form itself wherein we see what is a righteous mind, that we also
may be able to be righteous? Is it that unless we loved that also,
we should not love him at all, whom through it we love; but whilst
we are not righteous, we love that form too little to allow of our
being able to be righteous? The man therefore who is believed to be
righteous, is loved through that form and truth which he who loves
discerns and understands within himself; but that very form and
truth itself cannot be loved from any other source than itself. For
we do not find any other such thing besides itself, so that by
believing we might love it when it is unknown, in that we here
already know another such thing. For whatsoever of such a kind one
may have seen, is itself; and there is not any other such thing,
since itself alone is such as itself is. He therefore who loves
men, ought to love them either because they are righteous, or that
they may become righteous. For so also he ought to love himself,
either because he is righteous, or that he may become righteous;
for in this way he loves his neighbor as himself without any risk.
For he who loves himself otherwise, loves himself wrongfully, since
he loves himself to this end that he may be unrighteous; therefore
to this end that he may be wicked; and hence it follows next that
he does not love himself; for, “He who loveth iniquity,675
hateth his
own soul.”676
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
