Chapter XV.--Christ Not God, But the Son of God.
When Simon heard this, he said: "Since you say that we ought not to believe even the prophet that gives signs and wonders if he say that there is another god, and that you know that he even incurs the penalty of death, therefore your teacher also was with reason cut off for having given signs and wonders." And Peter answered: "Our Lord neither asserted that there were gods except the Creator of all, nor did He proclaim Himself to be God, but He with reason pronounced blessed him who called Him the Son of that God who has arranged the universe." And Simon answered: "Does it not seem to you, then, that he who comes from God is God?" [1299] And Peter said: "Tell us how this is possible; for we cannot affirm this, because we did not hear it from Him.
[1299] [Here we encounter marked evidence of Ebionism. Compare with these chapters the letter of Rufinus prefixed to the Recognitions.--R.]
Chapter XVI.--The Unbegotten and the Begotten Necessarily Different from Each Other.
"In addition to this, it is the peculiarity of the Father not to have been begotten, but of the Son to have been begotten; but what is begotten cannot be compared with that which is unbegotten or self-begotten." And Simon said: "Is it not the same on account of its origin?" [1300] And Peter said: "He who is not the same in all respects as some one, cannot have all the same appellations applied to him as that person." And Simon said: "This is to assert, not to prove." And Peter said: "Why, do you not see that if [1301] the one happens to be self-begotten or unbegotten, they cannot be called the same; nor can it be asserted of him who has been begotten that he is of the same substance as he is who has begotten him? [1302] Learn this also: The bodies of men have immortal souls, which have been clothed with the breath of God; and having come forth from God, they are of the same substance, but they are not gods. But if they are gods, then in this way the souls of all men, both those who have died, and those who are alive, and those who shall come into being, are gods. But if in a spirit of controversy you maintain that these also are gods, what great matter is it, then, for Christ to be called God? for He has only what all have.
[1300] The word genesis, "arising, coming into being," is here used, not gennesis, "begetting." The idea fully expressed is: "Is not that which is begotten identical in essence with that which begets it?"
[1301] We have inserted ei. The passage is amended in various ways; this seems to be the simplest.
[1302] [The very ancient variant in John i. 18, "God only begotten," indicates the distinction between the Unbegotten God and the Son. Even the Arians use the phrase, "Only-begotten God."--R.]
Chapter XVII.--The Nature of God.
"We call Him God whose peculiar attributes cannot belong to the nature of any other; for, as He is called the Unbounded because He is boundless on every side, it must of necessity be the case that it is no other one's peculiar attribute to be called unbounded, as another cannot in like manner be boundless. But if any one says that it is possible, he is wrong; for two things boundless on every side cannot co-exist, for the one is bounded by the other. Thus it is in the nature [1303] of things that the unbegotten is one. But if he possesses a figure, even in this case the figure is one and incomparable. [1304] Wherefore He is called the Most High, because, being higher than all, He has the universe subject to Him."
[1303] Lit., "thus it is nature."
[1304] We have adopted an emendation here. The text has: "Even thus the incomparable is one."
Chapter XVIII.--The Name of God.
And Simon said: "Is this word God' His ineffable name, which all use, because you maintain so strongly in regard to a name that it cannot be given to another?" And Peter said: "I know that this is not His ineffable name, but one which is given by agreement among men; but if you give it to another, you will also assign to this other that which is not used; and that, too, deliberately. [1305] The name which is used is the forerunner of that which is not used. In this way insolence is attributed even to that which has not yet been spoken, just as honour paid to that which is known is handed on to that which has not yet been known."
[1305] Wieseler proposes to join this clause with the following: "And in point of choice the name which."