The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 1 · Chapter 8
CHAP. 8. A Vindication of Origen upon the point of the invocation of one only God, againſt the accuſations of Cardinal du Perron.
THe Cardinal bearing himſelf for judge of antiquity, deals very unworthily with many antient Doctors, becauſe they are not favourable enough unto the Roman Church. It is uſual with him to call Socrates and Sozomenus Novatians, to derogate from the authority of their hiſtory, even in things that concern not at all the doctrine of Novatus. He revileth Euſebius, and calls him an Arrian, although Socrates, Sozomenus, and Theodoret clear him of that accuſation, as we have(a)Before Book 3. ch. 2. proved. The reaſon of that hatred, is, becauſe that excellent Author being the only Hiſtorian of the three firſt ages of the Church, ſpeaks no otherwiſe of the Biſhop of Rome, then of another Biſhop, and giveth him no preheminence: and becauſe he condemneth images as a Pagan cuſtom, and calls very often the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, the figure of Chriſts body. But the Father whom he hates above all is Origen, not for the cauſes, for which he hath been condemned by the antient Church, but for ſaying that the thing that we receive in the holy Communion, as for the matter, goeth to the draught, and that it is a ſymbolicall and figurative body. Alſo becauſe he condemneth images, and rejecteth them from the ſervice of God. Alſo becauſe in all his writings, which are two great volumes, he never ſpeaks of the Primacy of the Biſhop of Rome, but calls Paul the greateſt of all the Apoſtles. And becauſe he fights with ſo much ſtoutneſs againſt the invocation of Angels and creatures, and teacheth that prayers muſt be addreſt to none but God.
The Cardinal chap. 13. of the 5. Book, labours to defend himſelf againſt a teſtimony of Origen alleadged by his Majeſty of great Brittain in theſe words, God alone was worſhipped, God alone was invocated through his only Son, mediatour between God and men, alone, only, moſt only. To which he could have added theſe Texts of the fifth Tome againſt Celſus, (b)foreign.That ſcience which repreſents unto us the nature of Angels, and that for which every one of them is ordained, will not give us leave to put our truſt, or addreſs our prayers to any other, but him who is God over all things, who is ſufficient for all things, by the Son of God our Saviour, who is the Word, the Wiſdom and the Truth. And in the ſame Book he maintains againſt Celſus, that the Jews did not adore the Angels of heaven,(c)foreign. becauſe (ſaith he) they that did ſo, did it againſt the Law. And ſhortly after, ſpeaking of the Sun, and the Moon, and the Stars, of whom he ſpeaks as of animate creatures, and Angelical Spirits (which was the opinion of many Antients, of Auſtin among the reſt)(d)foreign. We judge (ſaith he) that we muſt not pray to thoſe that pray, ſince they rather would ſend us to God whom they pray to, then to bring us down unto them, and divide our vertue from God to themſelves. And in the ſame place,(e)foreign We worſhip not thoſe that worſhip, nor Moſes, nor thoſe that came after him, and propheſied from God: And in the ſame Book, ſpeaking of Moſes and the Prophets, he ſaith, that(f)foreign ▪ they ſtudied to pray to the only Soveraign god. Again,(g)foreign. We muſt rather worſhip God, who is only announced by the Angels, then his Heraulds and Angels.
The eighth and laſt Tome of Origen againſt Celſus, is full of ſuch ſentences. For he anſwereth Celſus, who blamed the Chriſtians for adoring none but God alone through Jeſus Chriſt:(h)foreign, &c. We ſerve one only God, and his only Son, his Word, and his image by prayers and honours, according to our power. And there again,(i)foreign, &c. We muſt pray to God alone, who is above all things. We muſt alſo pray to his only Son.
This taken out of the ſame Book will ſerve for all.(k)foreign, &c. We ought to make the only Soveraign God propitious unto us, and pray to him that he be favourable to us, ſeeking to get his love by piety and by all vertue. If Celſus will make ſome others propitious unto him after the Soveraign God, let him learn, that as the ſhadow is moved after the bodies motion, ſo when one hath made the Soveraign God propitious unto him, hence it follows that he hath all the beloved Angels and the [bleſſed] ſouls and ſpirits propitious unto him.
The Cardinal anſwereth two things; The one, that Origens authority is not an authentical Warrant for the deciſions of Religion, ſeeing that in the ſame Book he deſtroyeth the Godhead of Chriſt. The other, that Books written againſt the Pagans, are not fit to teach the exact belief and practiſe of antiquity.
I anſwer, that in this point the authority of Origen is nothing inferiour to any of the Fathers. For Origen having in his life time been honoured as an incomparable man, and praiſed by Saint Gregory the maker of miracles (who lived in his time) by an expreſs Book, hath alſo after his death, won by his writings the admiration of moſt men. Ambroſe and Hierom borrow from him, and imitate his allegories and intepretations of Scripture. Euſebius hath written an Apology for him, and ſpent moſt part of the ſixth Book of his hiſtory about his praiſe. Ruffinus alſo, Prieſt of Aquileia, hath written a Book for his vindication.
But Hierom, in his old age, being faln out with Ruffinus and John of Jeruſalem, great admirers of Origen, that he might have an occaſion of invectives againſt them, began to write againſt Origen, and to mark his errours: Being angry that Ruffinus ſaid that Hierom was an Origeniſt as well as he, and that if he was an Origeniſt, he had learned it of Hierom.
In the ſame time lived Epiphanius Biſhop of Salamin in Cyprus, who alſo was at odds with John of Jeruſalem. That John accuſed Epiphanius, that he was an Anthropomorphite; and Epiphanius accuſed John, that he was an Origeniſt. This was the cauſe, why Epiphanius leaving out the Anthropomorphites in his Catalogue of Hereticks, put Origens in that liſt; deſcribing him as a monſter and a plague in the Church. And after an exact examination of his errours, he chargeth him to have burnt incenſe unto idols in his old age; which yet(l)Baron. An. 253. §. 17. & 20. Baronius affirmeth to be a calumny, and cleareth him of that imputation.
The truth is, that Origen had extravagant opinions and many errours, and that by his Allegories he hath altered the purity of Scripture. But it muſt be acknowledged alſo, that never was a man more narrowly, and with more animoſity, examined by poſterity. Which is very conſiderable. For if there had been a juſt ſubject of reproving Origen, becauſe he did abſolutely condemn images, and believed that God alone ought to be invocated, and that the bread of the holy Communion, is bread ſtill after the conſecration; we may be ſure that Epiphanius and Hierom, who have bent all their wits to pick faults in the doctrine of Origen, would not have forgotten to condemn him upon theſe points. It will not be ſound, that any of thoſe antients that writ againſt him, found fault with him about the point of images,Note. or about real preſence, or about the invocation of creatures. So that the ſilence of his enemies upon thoſe points, is a manifeſt approbation of his doctrine. The ſame I ſay of Auſtin, of Theodoret, and of Philaſtrius, who have made an enumeration of Origens errours. It is ſo far then that theſe ſentences for being Origens ſhould have leſs authority, that rather becauſe they are Origens, we have the conſent and approbation of all antiquity.
To weaken the authority of Origens Books againſt Celſus, Cardinal du Perron ſaith, that in thoſe Books Origen denyeth the God-head of Chriſt. Yet in the firſt Tome of thoſe Books theſe words are found,(m)foreign. The Mages [or Wiſe men] preſented unto Chriſt ſignificative gifts, gold as to a King, myrrh as to him that was to die, and Frankincenſe as to him that was God. And a little after he calls him a God ſuperiour to Angels, Saviour of mankind. And in the ſame Book,(n)foreign, &c. We believe Jeſus himſelf ſaying concerning his Godhead, I am the way, the truth and the life. And there again(o)foreign. He was properly the Son of God, God, the Word, the Power and the Wiſdom of God, he that is called Chriſt. And in the ſecond Tome,(p)foreign. Celſus is ſilent concerning thoſe things which concern the Godhead of Jeſus. And in the third Tome he calleth Chriſt(q)foreign. the Son of God, and God that came with an humane ſoul and body. And in the fourth Tome he calleth Chriſt foreign, he that is the Word it ſelf, the Wiſdom it ſelf, and the Righteouſneſs it ſelf. Titles not proper to any but the Soveraign God. It is true, that in the ſame Books ſome places are found, where he makes the Son inferiour unto the Father, and that becauſe Chriſt ſaid, The Father is greater then I. But it muſt not be found ſtrange, that the Fathers that were before the time of Arrius, have ſpoken of this matter in hard and improper terms, and with leſs perſpicuity and certainty. For before Arrius; that queſtion was not well cleared: Neither is there any reaſon, why Origen ſhould have harder dealing then the other Fathers of the former ages; as(r)Juſtin. Dialog. cum Tryphone. pag. 2…9 Juſtin Martyr, who affirmeth in his Dialogue againſt Tryphon, that whenſoever it is ſaid in the Old Teſtament, that God deſcended or aſcended, that cannot be proper to the Father, but muſt be underſtood of the Son, becauſe that is repugnant to the nature of the Father, who is every where, and is unmoveable: As if the nature of the Father were another then that of the Son, or as if the Father alone were infinite, and not the Son. So Divines will bear with Epiphanius, who ſaith(ſ)Epiphanius in Ancoratu. that theſe words; My Father is greater then I, are true even in reſpect of the divine nature of Chriſt. The Council of Antioch aſſembled againſt Paulus Samoſatenus, rejecteth the word foreign, or Conſubſtantial. Yet we give a favourable interpretation to their ſentence.
The ſame equity we uſe with(t)Clem. Alex. l. 2. Stromat. p. 173. Clemens Alexandrinus, who puts in the Godhead a fourth hypoſtaſis. For we conſider the time in which he writ. We bear alſo in(u)Iren. l. 4▪ c. 1. Irenaeus that which might be ill taken, his ſaying that none is called God in Scripture, but the Father and the Son, and ſuch as he hath adopted; making no mention of the Holy Ghoſt: Of whoſe Godhead he never ſpeaketh. Thus in the eighth chapter of his fifth book, three times he preſſeth, that we ſhould believe in the Father and in the Son, ſaying nothing of the Holy Ghoſt. Hilary himſelf, though poſteriour in time unto Arrius, and exerciſed in the controverſies of the Arrians, how improperly (to ſay no more) doth he ſpeak of the nature of Chriſt? In the Treatiſe upon Pſal. 138. he ſaith, that in Chriſt(x)Non confundenda perſona divinitatis & corporis eſt. we muſt no confound the perſon of the Godhead with that of the body; as though the perſon of his Godhead were another from that of his manhood. The ſame Father in many places denyeth that Chriſt ſuffered any pain in his body, and holds that it was a ſhew of paſſion and pain, not a real pain. If any ſpake now as Chryſoſtom did in the third Homily upon the firſt chapter to the Hebrews, ſhould be held a Neſtorian.(y)foreign. & paulo poſt foreign. The Apoſtle (ſaith he) appeaſeth the Jews, ſhewing that there are [in Chriſt] two perſons, a God and a man. And in the ſame place, There are two perſons in Chriſt of different hypoſtaſis.
Truly I dare affirm, that the books of Origen againſt Celſus are an excellent work, and that all Antiquity affords not a book made for the defence of Chriſtian Religion, comparable to it, whether it be for various learning, or ſolidity, or elegancy. Neither the Apologeticks of Juſtin and Tertullian, nor the exhortation of Clemens Alexandrinus to the Gentiles, nor his Paedagogue: Nor even Auſtins books of the City of God, are comparable at all to theſe books of Origen.
The Cardinals ſecond anſwer to that teſtimony of Origen is, that it is not out of the books written againſt the Pagans, that we can or ought to learn the belief or practiſe of Antiquity; becauſe diſputing againſt the Pagans, they ſpeak not their ſenſe, but what they are conſtrained to ſay. And that they diſcovered as little as they could of the Chriſtian practiſe: as Hierom ſaith in his book to Pammachius againſt Jovinian. If that be true, why do our Adverſaries, and Cardinal du Perron among the reſt alledge frequently teſtimonies out of the Apologeticks of Juſtin and Tertullian, and out of Lactantius, and out of Auſtin of the City of God? For they are books written againſt the Pagans. But thoſe Fathers (if one may believe our Cardinal) ſpeak againſt their ſenſe, and diſſemble their belief. Then the ſame (by that reaſon) may be ſaid of the writings of the Fathers againſt the Manicheans, the Marcionites, the Arrians, and the Donatiſts; Which writings make up at leaſt two thirds of the works of the Fathers. In effect the Cardinal by that ſhift revileth the Fathers, and uſeth them like Atheiſts, charging them with notorious hypocriſie, by his ſaying that they ſpeak againſt their own ſenſe, and diſguiſe their belief, altering their doctrine in the points of faith according to the perſons they had to do with, ſpeaking now one thing, now another, ſo that there is nothing certain in their doctrine.
To give ſome colour to his exception, he alledgeth the text of the Maſs, where the Prieſt ſaith, Command that our ſacrifice be carried by the hands of thy Holy Angel to thy Heavenly Altar. Truly, though there were nothing amiſs in that prayer, yet it is nothing to the purpoſe; for it is not a prayer to Angels, but to God, that he command the Angel. But that prayer is moſt evil and injurious againſt Chriſt. For whereas in the Maſs by that ſacrifice the body of Chriſt is underſtood, is it not an evident impiety to beſeech God, that his Angel take Chriſt to carry him up to heaven, and preſent him unto God? as though Chriſt had need of the intervention of Angels to be preſented to his Father: or as though he cauſed himſelf to be carried by Angels, now that he hath attained the height of his glory.
But the ſuperlative abſurdity lyeth, in that the Prieſt having prayed that the Angel may carry the conſecrated Hoſt to heaven, falls to it bodily, and eats it up immediately after that prayer, to prevent the Angel, as fearing leſt the Angel carry the Hoſt away. Having called for the Angel, he ſhould in manners ſtay a little for him. But perhaps the cauſe why the Angel never yet carried the hoſt away, is, that the Prieſt never gives him time enough for it.
The Cardinal alſo to fence himſelf againſt Origens blows, ſaith that when Origen denyeth, that any but God ought to be invocated and adored, he underſtands if of the invocation and adoration which Celſus and other Pagans beſtowed upon their falſe Gods, that is, the ſoveraign and abſolute invocation and adoration of Latria, not the ſubaltern and relative adoration and invocation. But the Cardinal is deceived if he think that the Pagans adored all their Gods with a ſoveraign adoration, and that they(z)Horat. Carm. l. 1. Od. 12. Ʋnde nil majus generatur ipſo, Nec viget quicquam ſimile aut ſecundum; Proximos illi tamen occupavit Pallas honores. worſhipped Mercury or the Nymphs, or the houſhold Gods, and thoſe whom they called Deos minorum gentium, with the like adoration as Jupiter; for they prayed to them as to Servants and Meſſengers of the Soveraign God. Wherefore Celſus ſpeaking of the adoration of many Gods, could not mean the ſoveraign adoration only. Beſides, it is an unreaſonable conceit, to imagine an adoration which is not relative. For the ſoveraign worſhip is relative to him that is worſhipped, even to God. This Prelat hath but an unlucky hand in handling the terms of Philoſophy.
As for Origen, it is certain, that he ſpeaks of the ſoveraign adoration, for he knew none other. And as for invocation, he ſaith abſolutely and without exception, that none muſt be prayed to, but God alone: Of relative, or inferiour adoration and invocation, he ſpeaks neither there nor any where elſe. For as for that clauſe which is found in the verſion of the Homilies upon Ezekiel; Receive, O Angel, the man converted from his antient error, (if theſe Homilies be of Origen) that clauſe is but a rhetorical Apoſtrophe, whereby Orators in their Homilies or Orations uſe to addreſs their ſpeech unto abſent perſons, as if they were preſent, and to the dead, as if they were yet alive. Note, that the place which the Cardinal alledgeth out of Origen ſpeaks only of Angels, not of deceaſed Saints, of whom it is a queſtion, eſpecially in this controverſie. And that the words which he takes out of the eighth book againſt Celſus ſpeak not of the invocation of Angels, but of their interceſſion. Now our difference is only about the invocation. That place deſerveth a chapter apart, becauſe the Cardinal doth ſtrangely falſifie it.