Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| To the same, in answer to another question. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Letter CCXXXV.2960
To the same, in answer to another question.
1. Which is first
in order, knowledge or faith? I reply that generally, in the case
of disciples, faith precedes knowledge. But, in our teaching, if
any one asserts knowledge to come before faith, I make no
objection;
understanding knowledge so far as is within the bounds of human
comprehension. In our lessons we must first believe that the
letter a is said to us; then we learn the characters and their
pronunciation, and last of all we get the distinct idea of the force of
the letter. But in our belief about God, first comes the idea
that God is. This we gather from His works. For, as we
perceive His wisdom, His goodness, and all His invisible things from
the creation of the world,2961 so we know
Him. So, too, we accept Him as our Lord. For since God is
the Creator of the whole world, and we are a part of the world, God is
our Creator. This knowledge is followed by faith, and this faith
by worship.
2. But the word knowledge has many meanings,
and so those who make sport of simpler minds, and like to make
themselves remarkable by astounding statements (just like jugglers who
get the balls out of sight before men’s very eyes), hastily
included everything in their general enquiry. Knowledge, I say,
has a very wide application, and knowledge may be got of what a thing
is, by number, by bulk, by force, by its mode of existence, by the
period of its generation, by its essence. When then our opponents
include the whole in their question, if they catch us in the confession
that we know, they straightway demand from us knowledge of the essence;
if, on the contrary, they see us cautious as to making any assertion on
the subject, they affix on us the stigma of impiety. I, however,
confess that I know what is knowable of God, and that I know what it is
which is beyond my comprehension.2962
2962 A various
reading gives the sense “but do not know what is beyond my
comprehension.” | So if
you ask me if I know what sand is, and I reply that I do, you will
obviously be slandering me, if you straightway ask me the number of the
sand; inasmuch as your first enquiry bore only on the form of sand,
while your second unfair objection bore upon its number. The
quibble is just as though any one were to say, Do you know
Timothy? Oh, if you know Timothy you know his nature. Since
you have acknowledged that you know Timothy, give me an account of
Timothy’s nature. Yes; but I at the same time both know and
do not know Timothy, though not in the same way and in the same
degree. It is not that I do not know in the same way in which I
do know; but I know in one way and am ignorant in one way. I know
him according to his form and other properties; but I am ignorant of
his essence. Indeed, in this way too, I both know, and am
ignorant of, myself. I know indeed who I am, but, so far as I am
ignorant of my essence I do not know myself.
3. Let them tell me in what sense Paul says,
“Now we know in part”;2963 do we know His
essence in part, as knowing parts of His essence? No. This
is absurd; for God is without parts. But do we know the whole
essence? How then “When that which is perfect is come, then
that which is in part shall be done away.”2964 Why are idolaters found fault
with? Is it not because they knew God and did not honour Him
as God? Why are the “foolish Galatians”2965 reproached by Paul in the words,
“After that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how
turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements?”2966 How was God known in Jewry?
Was it because in Jewry it was known what His essence is?
“The ox,” it is said, “knoweth his
owner.”2967 According
to your argument the ox knows his lord’s essence.
“And the ass his master’s crib.”2968 So the ass knows the essence of the
crib, but “Israel doth not know me.” So, according
to you, Israel is found fault with for not knowing what the essence
of God is. “Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that
have not known thee,”2969 that is, who
have not comprehended thy essence. But, I repeat, knowledge is
manifold—it involves perception of our Creator, recognition of
His wonderful works, observance of His commandments and intimate
communion with Him. All this they thrust on one side and force
knowledge into one single meaning, the contemplation of God’s
essence. Thou shalt put them, it is said, before the testimony
and I shall be known of thee thence.2970 Is the term, “I shall be
known of thee,” instead of, “I will reveal my
essence”? “The Lord knoweth them that are
his.”2971 Does He
know the essence of them that are His, but is ignorant of the
essence of those who disobey Him? “Adam knew his
wife.”2972 Did he
know her essence? It is said of Rebekah “She was a
virgin, neither had any man known her,”2973 and “How shall this be seeing I
know not a man?”2974 Did no man
know Rebekah’s essence? Does Mary mean “I do not
know the essence of any man”? Is it not the custom of
Scripture to use the word “know” of nuptial
embraces? The statement that God shall be
known from the mercy seat
means that He will be known to His worshippers. And the
Lord knoweth them that are His, means that on account of their
good works He receives them into intimate communion with
Him.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|