Слово 18. О том, что не одно и то же – творение и порождение; а также [не одно и то же] применительно к Богу – творить и рождать

Apology verbatim. If God’s Generation were identical with creation, then [God’s] voice would not have been addressed to the Only Begotten: “This is My beloved Son” 725; since even soulless [creatures] would be by nature sons of God, if only the creation is truly identical with the generation. OTHER. If both "creation" is said to apply to us in the proper sense, and "generation", and in the same way [both are said in the proper sense] to apply to the Son, then He will have no advantage over us, being in the proper sense of the word creation and generation. OTHER. If creation and generation are the same thing, and the Holy Spirit, in their opinion, is a creation, then it is obvious that He will also be a generation. If the Spirit is generation, and the Son is generation, and all are generation, then how can the Son be the Only Begotten when He has many brothers? OTHER. If a creature of God is a begetter, then none of the created things is without adoption. And if so, then God promised us adoption in vain, for even [creatures] who do not have a soul are such by nature, if indeed everything that is a creation is, in the proper sense of the word, a generation. OTHER. If creation and generation are one and the same, and what arises [from non-existence] (τὸ γενόμενον) is God’s creation by [its] nature, then it is obvious that God’s creation and God’s generation by nature are one and the same. If, by nature, and not by adoption, what is begotten is consubstantial with God, then everything that arises [from non-existence] will be by nature [consubstantial with Him], if the creation is indeed also generated by nature, and not by communion. OTHER. If something were a creation, it would also be a generation in the proper sense of the word, then much more, first of all, the angels would be in the proper sense sons [of God]. If the much better ones [of other creatures] are not sons in the proper sense of the word (not a single one was told when the angel said: My son you and you 726), then it means that the creature in the proper sense will not be a generation. OTHER. If creation and generation are one and the same, then the creator will also be the father. If the Son creates, then He will also be the Father. And if so, then the Uncreated One will be the Father of the Father, not having in His God-birth (θεογονίᾳ) anything beyond the usual work for us (τῆς καθ' ἡμάς πραγματείας), if only the generation is really that which is also creation. OTHER. If the creation is truly a generation, [the same as] the Son, then the Son will be a brother to everyone, and not the Lord God. And if He is Lord and God, then, therefore, not a brother. So, if to the Son, who is the Only Begotten, none of the existing ones is a brother, and the rest are not creations in the proper sense of the word, but are creatures in the proper sense of the word, then how are creation and generation one and the same? OTHER. If the creation is [at the same time] a generation, then the creator will [also] be a parent. And he who produces everything from himself as a parent will create the same from the outside as a creator. If he creates from the outside that which he can generate from himself, since both have the same tropos, then how will what comes together in one thing have the names of two things, unless one of them is false? OTHER. If something is a creation, then it is also a generation, and the Spirit, as they say, is a creation, then it is obvious that He is also a generation. But if [He is the offspring of] the Father, then the Son is no longer the Only Begotten. And if the Son, then He will be the son of the Son; if indeed what is a creation, then He will also be a generation. If giving birth and creating are one and the same thing for God, and He gives birth to the Son without the mediation of [anyone or anything], then it is obvious that He gives birth or creates everything without mediation. If He does not give birth through someone, but no longer creates everything directly, then how can giving birth and creating be one and the same with God? He creates an earthquake, a pestilence, a flood; [means], He will give birth to what He creates, if indeed giving birth to Him means the same thing as creating. OTHER. If from where God gives birth, from the same place he creates, then He will be nothing, but in their opinion, different from a spider, which gives birth [to its young] and creates [the web] in different ways. But this one, being guided by the law of nature, from where he gives birth, from there he creates, and God, who is not under the power of nature, is humiliated by them as [supposedly] subject to natural necessity. OTHER. If, due to the fact that the Divinity is not complex, it is the same thing for Him to give birth and to create, then foreseeing (προγινώσκειν) for Him will be the same as creating, so that in this respect He will not be complex. If so, then He will create the evil that He foresees, if He and things are identical for Him, because It is not complex. OTHER. If giving birth and creating are one and the same for God, since He is not complex, then seeing and creating will be one and the same with Him, so that in all respects uncomplexity will be preserved in Him. If, due to the fact that these are not indistinguishable things for Him (for not everything that He sees, it certainly gives birth), His simplicity is not violated, then what He gives birth to in a different way and creates in a different way does not produce in Him a deprivation of simplicity. OTHER. If for those for whom giving birth is something other than creating, it is characteristic to give birth from themselves, and to create from without, then for those for whom giving birth and creating are one and the same, it is impossible to create from the outside, just as it is impossible to give birth from oneself. If they allow Him only what is external, that is, to create, and do not want to allow Him to give birth, then the Creator by nature will be [their] Father by position. OTHER. If giving birth and creating are the same thing for God, since He is not complex, but not for us, since we are not like that, then providing will be the same for Him as giving birth. For for us it is not the same thing, because we are complex; if His simplicity and uncomplicatedness, the inherent difference in us, forced us to be no different before Him, then what He gives birth to in a different way, and creates in a different way, does not produce in Him a deprivation of uncomplicatedness. OTHER. If creating is the same as giving birth, then the one who gives birth will be the creator of what is born and the one who gives birth to what is created. But to create is a property of activity, and to give birth is a property of nature. But nature and activity are not the same thing. Therefore, creating is not the same as giving birth. OTHER. If, by creating, one is a creator, and by giving birth, one is a father, then creating and giving birth are not the same thing, since one is a father, and another is a creator. If creating is the same thing as giving birth, then the creator is also the father. But if the Son, together with the Father, is the Creator, and the creator is [at the same time] the Father, then He will also be [i.e. e. Son] by the Father, which is absurd. OTHER. If the father and the creator are one and the same, since creating is the same as giving birth, and “Creator” is the name of energy, then “Father” will rightly be the name of energy, and not of relationship. And if both are the names of energy, then God will at the same time be the begetter and the creator, since energy does not manifest itself in different ways in giving birth and creating. Matthew 3:17;17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35. You might be interested in: