Letter 235

235. To the same, on another question.

Which comes first, knowledge or faith? We say that, in general, in the case of the disciplines faith goes before knowledge, but in our doctrine, even if someone says that knowledge takes the lead before faith, we do not dispute it—meaning, however, the knowledge that is proportioned to human apprehension. For in the disciplines one must first believe that a letter is called alpha, and, having learned the characters and the pronunciation, afterward grasp also the exact understanding of the power of the element. But in faith concerning God, the conception that God exists leads the way, and this we gather from his works. For wise, and powerful, and good, and all his invisible things we recognize by perceiving them from the creation of the world. So too we accept him as our own Master. For since God is the maker of the whole world, and we are part of the world, then God is the maker of us also. Upon this knowledge faith follows, and upon such faith, worship.

But now, since the word 'knowledge' has many meanings, those who mock the simpler folk, and who display themselves alike with their paradoxes—like those who in the theatres, before the eyes of all, palm the counting-stones—snatch up the whole by a question put in general terms. For since the word 'knowledge' extends widely, and a thing is known in one way according to number, in another according to magnitude, in another according to power, in another according to its manner of existing, in another according to the time of its coming to be, in another according to substance—these men, taking up the whole in a single question, if they catch us confessing that we know, demand of us the knowledge of the substance; but if they see us cautious about the assertion, they turn upon us the reproach of impiety. But we confess that we know what is knowable of God, while to know again something that escapes our apprehension is impossible. So, just as, if you ask me whether I know what sand is, and I answer that I do, you will plainly be slandering me if you straightway demand also its number—because your first question bore upon the nature of the sand, but your second, a slander, was turned about its number. This sophism is like the one that says: 'Do you know Timothy? Then, if you know Timothy, you know also his nature; but you have confessed that you know Timothy; render to us, then, the account of Timothy's nature.' But I both know Timothy and do not know him—not, however, in the same respect and in the same regard. For it is not in the respect in which I know him that I also do not know him, but in one respect I know him, in another I am ignorant of him. For I know him by his appearance and his other characteristics, but I am ignorant of his substance. Indeed, in this way I both know and am ignorant of myself by the same reasoning. For I know myself, who I am, but I do not know myself in so far as I am ignorant of my substance.

Let them explain to us, then, how Paul said, 'For now we know in part.' Do we know his substance in part, as though we know parts of his substance? But this is absurd, for God is without parts. Or do we know the whole of it? How, then, 'When that which is perfect comes, that which is in part shall be done away'? And on what charge are the idolaters accused? Is it not that, knowing God, they did not glorify him as God? Or the foolish Galatians—why are they reproached by Paul, when he says, 'But now, having known God, or rather having been known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements?' And how was God known in Judaea? Is it because in Judaea his substance, whatever it was, came to be known? 'The ox,' it says, 'knew its owner'—so then, by your account, the ox knew the substance of its master; 'and the ass its master's crib.' The ass, then, also knew the substance of the crib! 'But Israel,' it says, 'did not know me.' This is charged against Israel, on your account—that they did not come to know the substance of God, whatever it is. 'Pour out,' it says, 'your wrath upon the nations that do not know you'—that is, that have not apprehended your substance. But knowledge is manifold, as we have said. For there is the understanding of him who created us, and the perception of his wonders, and the keeping of his commandments, and intimacy with him; but these men, thrusting all this aside, drag knowledge to a single meaning, the contemplation of the very substance of God. 'You shall place it,' it says, 'before the testimonies, whence I will be known to you from there.' Does 'I will be known' stand for 'I will reveal my substance'? 'The Lord knew those who are his.' Did he, then, know the substance of his own, but is ignorant of the substance of the disobedient? 'Adam knew his wife.' Did he, then, come to know her substance? And of Rebecca it says, 'A virgin; a man had not known her'; and, 'How shall this be, since I do not know a man?' Did no one, then, come to know the substance of Rebecca? And does Mary mean this—that I have not perceived the substance of any man? Or is 'knew' what Scripture is accustomed to use of marital unions? And 'God shall be known from the mercy-seat'—that is, he shall be made manifest to those who serve him. And 'The Lord knew those who are his'—that is, he received them, through their good works, into intimacy with himself.