Слово 17. О том, что ничто из присущего Сыну не присуще твари но природе, но она носит в себе все [таковые свойства лишь] по причастию или по уподоблению Давшему [их ей]; а Сын – не так. Поэтому Он – иной по сравнению с нею. А если так, то, стало быть, Он не есть тварь

Apology literally. If all creation is in a state of ignorance of the Father, since no one knows the Father, and only the Son knows Him, 718 then, therefore, He is not a creature. OTHER. If nothing created is by nature God, but the Son is God by nature, then He is not [one of] created things. Our previous life was ridiculous, when we served gods that did not exist by nature, and even more pitiful do we now find ourselves, worshiping a god that was not by nature. Away with such absurdity! OTHER. If every created thing is [something] absolutely different in nature in comparison with the uncreated, then it cannot equally participate in its glory. For God says: “My glory I will not give to another” 719. If the coming Son participates in the glory of the Father, then, therefore, he is not a creature clothed with the glory of the Uncreated. OTHER. The Divine Scriptures call the Son true God, and so we believe. If every created thing is new in comparison with the uncreated, and is unworthy that we should have a new God 720, then the Son, who is the uncreated (ὅπερ ἐστὶ τὸ ἀγένητον), will not be a new God. OTHER. If every created thing is completely different from the uncreated, then it should not be worshiped. For this is forbidden by Divine utterance. And since we are commanded to worship the Son, and not [some] other god who is created, then the Son is not created. OTHER. If everything created is in slavery to the one who made it, then it is not able to provide another with freedom, which it itself did not receive. If the Son gives [freedom], then this means that [He does this] not as a slave, but rather as Lord and God. OTHER. If all creation, existing under the power of nature (ὑπὸ φύσιν), is enslaved to nature, subject to which it was created, and the Divinity is absolutely free and above natural necessity, then it is clear that God is not enslaved to nature. And since the Son is God, He will not be under the power of nature, as is characteristic of the created. But what is by nature removed from the affinity with the creature, how will it not be foreign to it and alien? OTHER. If nothing in creation exactly corresponds to the likeness of God and the Father, but the Son is like [Him], so that whoever sees Him sees the Father, then, therefore, it is not a creation that bears [in Himself] an exact likeness to Him. OTHER. If all creatures are the servants of God, and not the masters of glory, and the Son is not so, for He is the Lord of Glory 721, then it means that He is not a creature. OTHER. If everything brought from non-existence into being allows for a return back into non-existence, but in relation to the Son this is not permissible, since He truly is God, then, therefore, the Son is not from non-existence, but was born of the true Father. OTHER. If creatures have the capacity to sin, but the Son does not, then He is not a creature. OTHER. If nothing created has ever been found to create essences from non-existence, but the Son creates, then how will He be among the created? OTHER. If every created thing is similar to itself according to the logos of creation, and not one differs from any other, since each is created, [and if also] the Son is created, then, therefore, He will not differ from any [of the creatures], if He also arose [like them]. If He differs in everything from all created things, then it is obvious that according to the tropos of emergence (κατὰ τὸν τῆς γενέσεως τρόπον,), which consists in the fact that He did not arise [from non-existence, like the created ones], for, thus, He will differ from the created ones. And if so, then how is He not God? OTHER. If all creation came into being in the interval, that is, in time, and none of this preceded the birth of the Son, then, therefore, He did not come into being [like the created ones]. And if He is preceded by a time and a created interval, then how will the Creator of everything be preceded by a created interval? If there is no sign (ῥοπή), no interval, or anything else before the Son, then on what basis do they say that the Father pre-exists [in relation to Him], when nothing is found that would indicate this pre-existence? OTHER. If none of the created things is called and is not [being] God above all, 722, and the Son is [precisely what] is [being] God above all, then, therefore, He is not one of the created ones. If the Son, being God over all, is also created, and the Father is also God over all, then He too will be like the created, which is wicked to even think. OTHER. If none of the created things can do the same as God, but everything that the Father creates, the Son also [creates] 723, then, therefore, the Son is not one of the created things. OTHER. If all created things have their being from something else, then how much more [from something else do they have] that they should be called gods. If by communion they have being gods (that is, created, of course, not by nature gods), and not by nature gods (οὐ φύσει θεοῖς) 724 it is prohibited to worship; and if, while these [gods to be worshiped] are prohibited, the Son is not prohibited, then, therefore, [worshiping Him is considered] not as [worshiping] not by nature a god, which are [those] created things [who happen to be called gods by communion]. OTHER. If we assume that the One Who Existed from non-existence was Himself created by another, and the Father creates from non-existent things, then, in their opinion, it follows that He also arose from non-existent things. And if it is obscene and impossible to think that the Creator of other natures is Himself created by another nature, then it is even more absurd to assume that the Maker of every nature can be created by another nature. After all, [then it turns out that] both the creating arose [from non-existence] and the arising creates, - if, in their opinion, the Son arising [from nothing] creates, - which is extremely absurd, since in the Divine nature alone it is proper for its advantages to be preserved, of which one and the first is the ability to create [entities] from non-existence. You might be interested in: