Слово 31. К говорящим, что Бог о Своей собственной сущности знает ничуть не больше нас, но что Он мог узнать о Себе, то же в точности [знаем] и мы

The objection seems to be on behalf of our opponents. Unborn, they say, is God's Wisdom, and this is Her being. Therefore, he who knows that this is God will know Him in every way. He also knows Himself as unborn. So, there is no difference between when He thinks this about Himself (δοξάζει), and when we, for our part, believe that He is like that. Rebuttal to this. This is truly funny and very stupid, or rather, the minds of those who are so inclined are beyond any insanity. For, being human and being as inferior to the Divine essence as it is superior to them, they imagine that they have the same mind with it, if one can say so about God; for they must not have heard Isaiah saying: “Who will measure the water with a handful and the sky with a span?” Who has understood the mind of the Lord? 1075 So, let those who try to measure with human thoughts the immeasurable and incomprehensible Divine nature, like the sky an inch, tell us what they will say, being asked in response by us: is God ungenerate, according to their conclusion, and does this itself [the concept of ungeneracy] indicate an ineffable essence, or not? For if they answer in the negative, then their whole structure collapses, and their ingenious premise will be useless if they refuse to say what they proclaimed. If they think that they need to cling to this construction, then even then they will be exposed as delusional. For the fact that God must be unborn does not mean that His being necessarily consists in ungeneracy. For this is the same as if someone said that since every number is either even or odd, this is its existence. And also: since every number is necessarily composed of units, it has its existence in them. And one more thing: since every person is a rational animal, mortal, endowed with intelligence and knowledge, then man does not exist in himself, but has existence in these [definitions]. And again: since every person is wingless, his existence lies in winglessness. But this is ridiculous to even imagine. For since he is a man, he is also a rational animal, mortal; and since he is a man, he is also wingless; and since it is a number, it can be even or odd. Consequently, when there is an essence, [then] it is said that everything affirmed in relation to it, provided that the essence itself is not canceled, is understood as its additional determinations. So, if the word “unborn” is used in relation to God’s essence, then as one of the number of [definitions] relating to Him, and not being [His essence] itself, for it means [only that] He was not born, and not that God will have existence in ungeneration; but, being and existing, He is unborn. OTHER. If everything that is inherent in God alone will certainly be His essence, then for us He will be composed of many essences. For there are many things that are inherent only to Him by nature, and to no other of those who exist. And “King”, and “Lord”, and “imperishable”, and “invisible”, and in addition to this, many other [sublime words] are spoken of by the divine Scriptures about Him. So, if each of His inherent properties is elevated to the rank of essence, then how will the Simple not become complex? And to think so is extremely absurd. Therefore, the word “unborn,” meaning one of His inherent properties, will not be [His] essence, and there is no need to say that the existence of God lies in ungeneration. OTHER. If every essence designates what the thing it defines is, and not what it is not (after all, no one of common sense, when defining the nature of man, would say: “wingless, not four-legged,” but, most likely, [name those signs] by which he is designated more specifically, and from which he consists, i.e., “a rational animal, mortal”), and the concept “unborn” shows not what God is by nature, but what He is not (after all, it means that He is not born), then it will not be the essence, and the existence of God will not lie in it. OTHER. Whatever is asserted of something as denoting what it undoubtedly is, will [denote] either a genus, or a species, or a specific distinction, or a definition. For everything fits for it to be one of the things listed. So, how will the concept of “unborn” point us to the Divine essence? Let those who bring ignorant premises tell [us]. After all, this is not a genus or a species, according to the Aristotelian art [of logic]. For the concepts of genus and species are used in relation to many, differing either in kind or in number. And the name “unborn” cannot be attributed to anyone else, but belongs to God alone, which is why it is used only in relation to Him. Therefore, that which cannot be divided into species, species differences and [a certain] number [of individuals] will not be a genus. But perhaps someone will call unbornness a definition. Here, too, we will expose this as a lie. For every definition is a word that explains what it signifies in essence, and “unborn” is represented not by a word, but by a name. Consequently, unbornness will be a difference, and an essential difference, since [only] this remains. But let's see if there is any reason that allows us to not be mistaken in thinking this way. We will then see that everything that admits of difference is complex and not simple. Since absolutely every person confesses that God is simple and not complex, then unbornness will not be a difference. If it is not any of the above, then the existence of God is not in ungeneracy. For the concept “unbornness” does not designate an essence, but is an indication that it exists in such a way. OTHER. If the name “unborn,” meaning unborn, is an indication of the essence of God, then what prevents the sense of humor (τὸ γελαστικὸν), inherent in human nature, from being his essence; or in general to say that everything that is privately inherent in beings is their essence? If the property of each [being] in itself is not its essence, but is inherent in the essence, as, for example, a person has a sense of humor, and a horse neighs, then ungeneracy will not be an essence, not denoting what God is by [His] nature, but that He exists in such and such a way, and what, among other things, is His property. OTHER. Ungeneracy should be considered as [something] inseparable from the essence of God, just as color is [inseparable] from any body. However, essences are understood not from their inseparably inherent [properties], but from what they are from. Just as you will not know a swan or snow - what they are by nature - if you only know that they are white. For whiteness will not be considered [their] essence, but something inherent in the essence. So, the word “unborn”, meaning one of the inseparably inherent properties of the essence of God, will not, as you believe, be an essence. And if so, then he who knows that God is ungenerate does not yet know what He is by nature, but [only] that ungeneracy is inherent in His essence. The objection is made by those who say that they know God as He knows Himself. The name “unborn,” they say, is either understood as a designation of the essence of God, or means some of its accidents. But the Divine essence has no accidents, for it is perfect from itself. Therefore, unbornness will be a sign of essence. And if so, then God knows Himself as unborn. And if anyone else knows this, he will know God in every way, just as He knows Himself. Rebuttal to this. It is wise to say that the essence of God has no accidents, because it is perfect from itself. But we see that many things force us to think of such [things] as accidents with God, although they are not entirely accidents (καὶ εἰ μὴ πάντως συνέβη). For what shall we say, bearing in mind that before the creation of this universe He was in essence the Creator, but in reality He was not yet, since nothing that exists had yet been brought into being? And when He created everything, it was as if He also became the Creator, and this was in some way added to Him (τρόπον τινὰ συμβέβηκε τοῦτο αὐτῷ) due to the fact that He actually appeared to be such. So, if some things are thought of as coming (ἐπισυμβεβηκότα) to God, then you insist in vain that it is not proper to say that ungeneracy is an accident for God, when some [other properties] inherent in Him by nature are shown in the same form [i.e. e. as accidents]? OTHER. Let those who try to measure the sky with a span of 1076 answer us and claim that they know the Divine essence as it is by nature, what will they say about the name “Father” applied to God? Is it an indication of His essence, or of some accident of it? But those who say that the essence of God has no accidents will not agree that this is an accident. It remains, then, to say that this is an indication of the essence. One and the same, therefore, “Father” and “unborn,” so as not to think of God as complex and composed of two essences. And if so, then, since, in your opinion, the “unbegotten” and the “Father” are one and the same thing, then He neither began to be, nor [did not begin to be] the Father, but was always such, that is, it is meant that at the same time the Generation is thought of with Him, for [only] in this way will He be the Father. And in addition to this [it must be said that] if the words "unbegotten" and "Father" as applied to God signify essence, what is to prevent us from saying that these names are completely interchangeable, so that if anyone is a father, then he is unborn, and if anything is unbegotten, then he is also a father? Then, of course, what is inherent only in God, as His own and exclusive, [the name of] “unborn” will disappear and will pass on to everyone. So, you see what absurdity your words lead to. OTHER. Without thinking in God any contrived (κατ' ἐπίνοιαν) accidents and not allowing anyone to think like that, you will undoubtedly fall into many difficulties, and we will be surrounded by a countless swarm of lawless thoughts. After all, in fact, if someone asks you: [here, there are words] “Father”, “unborn”, “incorruptible”, “immortal”, “invisible” and the like, inherent in God by nature and affirmed in relation to His essence alone; [so] how many entities will you allow to be, or better said, does each of these [words] mean an entity or not? – what answer will you give? If, indeed, each signifies an essence, then your simple God will be composed of as many essences as can be seen to be inherent in Him by nature [properties]. In addition to this, [you] will certainly have to be true that the opposite of what is named - that is, created, corruptible, visible - will all be of the same essence, or, better said, will designate one essence. And if so, then nothing will prevent us from saying that the tree and the Son, the stone and the Generation are one and the same, for these are created things, both perishable and visible. And then [it turns out that] the order of things is disrupted. So, if those [properties] that are said to be inherent in God by nature are not necessarily His essence, then it remains to be said that they are accidents of the essence, considered such only in words. For it is impossible for human nature to say anything about God that exceeds itself. That is why we use our own customs in relation to Him, citing what is characteristic of us as an example for that which is higher than us, as if we were depicting the vault of heaven on a small tablet. Objection from the same [heretics] through reductio ad absurdum. God, they say, accurately and truly knows His own nature and knows with certainty what He is in essence. If we do not know as He knows [Himself], then, therefore, we will be condemned as having an erroneous and distorted opinion about Him. For he who knows not like the one who truly knows [God] will not know truly, but such a one will be deceived in every way. Rebuttal to this. Again, these people, amazing in their boldness, do not notice into what abyss of wickedness they are falling. For they were probably afraid to appear to know less than God; they are afraid to be considered not as refined in knowledge as the Divine Essence, not realizing that in this too it is so superior to the created ones, as much as it is different from them in nature. Then, in addition to this, is it not extremely absurd to say that someone who does not know something in exactly the same way as someone who has perfect knowledge of a certain subject, which is what we are talking about, does not truly know? After all, one can know [albeit] less - and be inferior in this to the one who knows perfectly - but [still] not completely perverted. Like, for example, someone knows that the moon has an eclipse, but does not know how and in what way; but let's say there is someone else who knows this too. Is it really because one, being wiser, knows both, and the other, inferior to him in the ability to understand, knows [only] one thing, will he falsely think about the moon, saying that it has eclipses? But that's not true. So, if it is allowed that some have great knowledge about the same subject, and others have less, and [at the same time] both have the right opinion, then what prevents us, being people, from knowing God worse than He knows about Himself, what He is in essence, but, nevertheless, [knowing Him] is not false and not perverted? OTHER. We come to the meaning, that is, comprehension, of beings through many and various reflections. And it is not necessarily true that someone will think falsely and pervertedly in comparison with another due to the fact that he rushes towards what he is looking for, not with the same thoughts, but with some other thoughts. For example, let us have two people who are asked whether a horse is the same as a person, and one will answer that it is not the same thing, since every person is endowed with a sense of humor, but a horse is not, and the other will say: “A person is not the same as a horse, since the property of neighing is not found in his essence.” Will not both speak the truth and give the wrong answer, even if they do not use the same reasoning? So, since it is possible to think differently about any of the existing things, but [at the same time] not falsely or pervertedly, then what prevents God from knowing perfectly what He is in essence, and us, being people who understand worse than Him, from having [still] not entirely false opinions? OTHER. If in every rational [being] we see the knowledge inherent in him commensurate with his generic difference, so we believe that the knowledge of the angels is different, the archangels have a greater one, and even more superior is the higher [incorporeal] powers, then the knowledge of man is also commensurate [with the race], being less than that of the listed [spiritual beings]. How, then, will one who is not of the same mind as an angel think in the same way as God, when it is generally accepted that the knowledge of God surpasses all understanding and goes beyond all comprehension? OTHER. Many of the names we see applied to God, but each of them seems to signify not what God is by nature, but either indicates what He is not, or signifies some relation to something different [from Him]. As, for example, "incorruptibility" and "immortality" indicate what [God] is not, and "Father" or "uncreated" - that He is the Parent in relation to the Son, opposed [to Him in this respect], and that He was not created; however, each of these [names] is not a designation of the essence, as we said above, but means something from what is around the essence (τι τῶν περὶ τὴν οὐσίαν). So, if from such names, that is, indications, we are directed to the knowledge of God, then how do we know His essence, recognizing only what is around it, and not being taught what He is by nature? For this is similar to someone saying that he has reliably recognized the human soul - what it is in essence - since he knows that it is qualityless, quantityless and formless; or, saying that he has learned what the human body is by nature, he will say that it is white or black. So, essences are not known from what is around the essences, but from what they are in themselves. OTHER. God, being simple and uncomplicated, is confessed [as such] by everyone. This means that it is absurd to say that He has the same knowledge about Himself as we do. For if He is something else, and if the knowledge that exists in Him is something other than Him, then He will be complex and not simple. Since He, as is recognized by all, is simple, then the knowledge existing in Him is nothing other than in relation to Him. But with us it’s not like that. After all, in our essence we exist separately, but we have knowledge contained in the essence, just as color [is contained] in the body. Therefore, we will not know anything in the same way as God, who are not what He is like. But He, Himself being the Mind, which is above everything [that exists], will divinely contemplate both those who exist and Himself. But we, not being able to exceed the measure given to us, as if in a mirror and in fortune-telling 1077 we see the incomprehensible God. You might be interested in: