Слово 3. Недвусмысленный ответ, что несотворенность – не сущность, а лишь указание на то, что Бог не сотворен

If uncreatedness is an essence, and there is nothing opposite to essence, then there will be nothing opposite to uncreatedness. If there is the opposite of uncreatedness, createdness, and nothing is opposite to essence, then uncreatedness will not be essence. OTHER. If uncreatedness is an essence, then creation will necessarily be an essence, and if both are essences, then createdness will not be the opposite of uncreatedness, but identical. For essence is not the opposite of essence. OTHER. If uncreatedness means the essence of God, then createdness in justice [will mean] the essence, and not that it was created. And when both of them denote essence, then how can anyone recognize that one is creative, and the other is arising [in the process of creation], since names do not reveal anything, except perhaps essence? OTHER. If uncreatedness is an essence, and [the word] “essence” in relation to everything is said synonymously, then [the term] “uncreatedness” will be said in relation to all essences or all their subspecies (ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐταῖς). If uncreatedness is not affirmed in relation to everything, but essence is [affirmed] in relation to everything, then how can essence and uncreatedness be one and the same? OTHER. If uncreatedness is an essence, and an essence is not better or worse than [another] essence, then, in accordance with this, uncreatedness will not be better, and nothing will be worse than it. If uncreatedness surpasses everything, then it is not an essence; and if not, then everything will surpass everything; so that uncreatedness will not be an essence. OTHER. If uncreatedness means the essence of God, and not that [this essence] was not created, then there is a need for other names for Him, capable of showing that God did not arise from another cause, since the uncreatedness of God does not mean anything other than the essence of God alone. OTHER. If the essence of God is something one, and not many in number, and uncreatedness and kinglessness (ἀβασίλευτον) 85 and other [negative characteristics] are many in number, and not one, then the essence will not be identical to uncreatedness or kinglessness. OTHER. If uncreatedness and createdness, and so on, are the essence of God, while they are distinguished [from each other] by the words [naming them], then this essence must be composed according to different words, so that these words would be properly spoken in relation to it; and if it is not composed [of different parts], then, consequently, these [names] are designations of the [properties] inherent in the essence, and not the essence [named] by them. OTHER. If the essence of God is not spoken for the sake of anything (for it is not for the reason of anything), and the word “Uncreated” is for the sake of the fact that He is the best of all and superior to everything, then the [essence] not spoken for the sake of anything will not be identical with what is said for the reason of [something]. OTHER. If the uncreated (τὸ ἀγένητον) is raised to the uncreated (τὴν ἀγενησίαν), and the essence of God has no relation to anything, then how can something having a relation to something be identical to an essence that has no relation to anything? OTHER. If nothing is opposed to God's essence, and creation is opposed to uncreatedness, then how can essence and uncreatedness be one and the same? OTHER. If every essence called other in relation to another [essence] does not reveal its superiority until the name of superiority is added, and uncreatedness, being named, immediately shows a difference, then how can those who say that essence and uncreatedness are one and the same thing not be the most insane? OTHER. If uncreatedness is an essence, then every essence will be uncreated, which is unholy. OTHER. If uncreatedness is an essence, and it is characteristic of essence to admit opposites, then the uncreated will be containing opposites. If this is characteristic of essence (after all, “to create” (δημιουργεῖν) is the opposite of “not to create” (μὴ δημιουργεῖν), and no longer to the uncreated (ἀγενήτῳ), for it did not happen to arise (γεγονέναι)), then uncreatedness will not be an essence. OTHER. If, when they say “essence” in relation to God, they follow the opinion of philosophers, then God will tend to admit opposites. If, wanting to designate that God exists (εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν σημᾶναι βουλόμενοι), they use the name of essence in the same way as we do, and uncreatedness is identical with essence, then “uncreatedness” will be a name denoting the existence of God, and not itself - the essence. OTHER. If everything that fits the definition of genus and species without accidental properties [i.e. e. accidents], is in the proper sense of the word an essence, and God is not any of this, then God is not called in the proper sense of the word an essence. If “uncreatedness” is said to apply to Him in the proper sense (for He was not formed), then “essence” will no longer [be said] either, [for] how can a precise [expression] be identical to an incorrectly used one? OTHER. If the first and most important thing is called “essence” because it lies at the basis of all random properties, and that which is the basis of God is not a random property, then “essence” in relation to God is not said in the proper sense of the word. For God is the all-essential (ὑπερούσιος). If “uncreatedness” is said to apply to Him in the proper sense (for He is not created), and not also “essence,” then essence and uncreatedness are not the same thing. OTHER. If “uncreatedness,” “kinglessness,” and similar [concepts] simultaneously designate essence, and the designated [things] are not identical with the designating ones, then the essence and uncreatedness will not be the same, just as the signified is not identical to the signified. OTHER. If “uncreatedness” was called [so] not because it did not arise, but because the essence of God exists, then each of the essences would be uncreated. If there are many essences, but they are not uncreated, then it is not the essence that represents the uncreatedness, but the superiority of [one specific] essence. OTHER. If only, as applied to God, as they say, uncreatedness is an essence, then it would be the definition of that whose only characteristic feature is uncreatedness. If there is not a single definition to which the essence of God would fall, then, therefore, in relation to God, “uncreatedness” is not a proper name (ὄνομα κύριον), as it is nothing else that reveals, but only the essence of God. That is, not subject to any king. Compare: Proverbs 30:26. You might be interested in: