The Silence and Speech of God

They fall into the same folly as the Arians. For the Arians also say that he was created for us, so that he might create us, as if God waited until our creation to bring him forth, as the one party says, or to create him, as the other says. So the Arians are more generous to us than to the Son. They say, not that we came to be for his sake, but that he came to be for ours; that is, if he was created and came into existence for this reason, so that God might create us through him. And these others, as impious as they are or more so, give less to God than to us. For we are often active in thinking even when we are silent, so that we form the results of our thoughts into images. But they would have God inactive when he is silent, and only exerting his strength when he speaks; if, that is, when silent he could not make, and began to create when he spoke. For it is fair to ask them whether the Word, when he was in God, was perfect, so as to be able to make. If on the one hand he was imperfect while in God, but became perfect by being begotten, then we are the cause of his perfection, that is, if he has been begotten for us; for it is on our behalf that he has received the power of making. But if he was perfect in God, so as to be able to make, his being begotten is superfluous, for even while in the Father he could frame the world. So either he has not been begotten, or he was begotten, not for us, but because he is always from the Father. For his being begotten shows, not that we were created, but that he is from God; for he existed even before our creation. [a]

The same presumption will be proved against them with regard to the Father. For if, while silent, he could not make, he must have gained power by begetting, that is, by speaking. And where did he gain it from? And why? If he could make when he had the Word within him, he begets for no reason, since he was able to make even in silence. Next, if the Word was in God before he was begotten, then once begotten he is outside God and external to him. But if so, how does he now say, “I am in the Father and the Father in me”? And if he is in the Father now, then he was always in the Father, as he is now. And it is pointless to say, “He was begotten for us, and after we are formed he goes back, so that he may be as he was.” For he was not anything that he is not now, nor is he what he was not. He is as he always was, in the same state and in the same respects. Otherwise he will seem imperfect and changeable. For if he will be afterward what he was before, as though he were not so now, it is plain that he is not now what he was and will be. I mean that if he was in God before, and will be again afterward, it follows that the Word is not in God now. But the Lord refutes such people when he says, “I am in the Father and the Father in me,” for he is so now, as he always was. And if he is so now, as he always was, it follows, not that he was begotten at one time and not at another, nor that once there was silence with God and then he spoke. No, there is always a Father, and a Son who is his Word: not a Word in name alone, nor the Word a Son only in idea, but existing of one substance with the Father. He was not begotten for us; rather, we were brought into being for him. Suppose he was begotten for us, and in his begetting we were created, and in his being begotten the creation holds together, and then he goes back so that he may be what he was before. First, then, the one who was begotten will once more not be begotten. For if his going forth is his being begotten, his going back will be the end of that begetting, since when he has come to be in God, God will be silent again. But if he is silent, there will be what there was when he was silent: stillness and not creation, for the creation will cease to be. For as the creation came to be and existed when the Word went forth, so when the Word withdraws, the creation will not exist. What use was it, then, for it to come into being, if it is to cease? Or why did God speak, only to be silent afterward? Why did he send forth one whom he calls back? And why did he beget one whose begetting he willed should cease? Again, it is uncertain what he will be. Either he will be silent forever, or he will beget again and devise a different creation. For he will not make the same one, or what was made would have remained; he will make another. And in due course he will bring that one too to an end and devise another, and so on without end. [b]