The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 22
CHAP. XXII. The Cardinals allegations out of the Fathers are examined, beginning at his allegations out of the Catecheſes of Gregory of Nyſſa.
TO darken the clear evidence of this truth, the Cardinal poureth a thick miſt of allegations of Fathers, ſome falſe, ſome wreſted, ſome to no purpoſe.
Among the laſt ſort I put thoſe which he brings from new Authors, or ſuch as lived long after the fourth univerſal Council, which is the limit which he had ſet to himſelf. Such is Alger the Schoolman, who writ about the year of Chriſt 1130. Such is Theophilactus, who writ about the year 1075. Damaſcenus, who writ about the year 750. And Euthymius, who is of the year 1120. Although the Cardinal make all theſe men to ſpeak againſt their intention; yet it would be ſuperfluous, and out of the limits of this diſpute to examine them.
(a)Book 4. ch. 8. p. 882.In ch. 8. of which I have anſwered the moſt part, he brings a great liſt of the moſt ſpecious teſtimonies which he could gather out of all Chriſtian Antiquity. He ſets in the front the Catechetical Oration of Gregorius Nyſſenus, and fills a page with it, forgeting his own verdict in the ſame chapter, and in many other places, That one muſt not ſeek the belief of the Fathers in the books in which they ſpeak before the Catechumens, becauſe before them they durſt not ſay plainly what they believed, nor ſpeak according to their ſenſe; and that(b)Ch. 8. p. 886, & 887. whoſoever publiſhed openly ſome part of the doctrine of the Church in the point of the Euchariſt before the Catechumens or Infidels, was accounted anathema. Now this Catechetical Oration was made purpoſely for the Catechumens, as the title ſhews it.
I could ſay alſo, that in this matter Gregorius Nyſſenus had a particular belief, which the Roman Church approveth not. For in the firſt Oration of the reſurrection of Chriſt, to finde the three dayes and three nights, the time which holy Scripture ſaith that Chriſt was in the womb of the earth, that is in the Sepulchre, he begins thoſe three dayes at the hour of the inſtitution of the Euchariſt; and holds, that then Chriſt ſacrificed himſelf, and that his body became inanimate.(c)foreign. For (ſaith he) the body of the victime had not been fit to be eaten if it had been animated. And that he addeth, that from that time his ſoul was in the heart of the earth. We ſhould not wonder then, if a man that had ſuch a ſtrange opinion as to believe that the body of the Lord Jeſus was dead already, when he was at the table with his Diſciples, had alſo in this matter ſome unwarrantable tenet.
I could ſay alſo, that in the ſame Catecheſis there are ſome errours that extenuate the authority of the ſame;(d)foreign. Et verſio Gentiani Herveti. Illa quidem (fides) ſita in arbitrio liberae noſtrae electionis. The ſame he ſaith ch. 31. As when he ſaith in ch. 36. that faith is in the power of our free-will: Whereas Paul, Eph. 2.8. ſaith, You are ſaved by grace through faith, and that not of your ſelves, it is the gift of God; Not of works, leſt any man ſhould boaſt, teaching us, that neither ſalvation nor faith comes from us, but that both are the gift of God. The ſame Gregory in the ſame book, ch. 35. teacheth that ſuch as dye without baptiſm, whoſe affections were hardened, and that are dead without purgation of their ſins, without myſtical water, without prayer, without amendment of repentance, muſt neceſſarily be purged from their ſins by a convenient means, namely by the fire of the furnace that they may be preſerved pure for many ages. Then he adds, Becauſe that in the fire and in the water there is an abſterſive vertue, they that were waſhed from the filth of ſin by the myſtical water, have no need of the other kind of purgation. But they that were not initiated by this purgation [of baptiſm] by neceſſity are purged by fire: I paſs by the expoſition which he brings of Eph. 3.18. That you might comprehend with all Saints, (e)foreign.what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, underſtanding by theſe four dimenſions the four ends of the Croſs(f)Greg. Orat. Catecheſ. cap. 32..
But paſſing by theſe things and many more which are found in that oration, Let us conſider this book and this paſſage with ſome care. This Catechetical oration is not found in the antient Editions, as in that of Baſil. The Edition of Paris of the year 1573. added that piece tranſlated into Latin, as Bellarmin (g)Bellar. de Scriptor. Eccl. in Gregorio Nyſſeno.obſerveth. Suidas and Nicephorus in book 11. ch. 19. name ſeveral books of Gregorius Nyſſenus, but ſpeak not of that Catechetical oration. But Theodoret ancienter then they, in the ſecond Dialogue intitulded the Inconfounded, alledgeth foure or five paſſages of that Oration, yet with ſuch diverſity of words from our Editions, that it is eaſie to ſee that the book paſt ſince through diverſe hands, which have fowlly disfigured it. In the end of that oration, mention is made of one Severus an heretick, that impugned the two natures of Chriſt. But that Severus lived long after Gregorius Nyſſenus, that is, under the Emperour Anaſtaſius about the year of the Lord 512. Of whoſe perverſeneſs Evagrius ſpeaks in book 3. ch. 33. and Liberatus Diaconus ch. 19. Which ſheweth plainly, that to that Catechetical oration other pieces were added written in diverſe ages. For that Severus was of the Sect of the Acephali Eutychians, which is the hereſie taxed in the end of the oration.
As for that paſſage, it is eaſie to know that it is none of Gregorius Nyſſenus, but thruſt in by ſome Eutychian; for there Eutychianiſm is plainly taught. We have ſeen before and proved by Theodoret, that the Eutychians had two errours, the one ſerving to maintain the other. They confounded the two natures of Chriſt by a mixture of the humane nature with a divine, teaching that the humane nature by the union with the divine was deified or changed into God. To defend that errour, they taught the Tranſubſtantiation of bread into the body of Chriſt in the Euchariſt, ſaying, that as after the conſecration the bread is turned into the ſubſtance of the body of Chriſt, ſo by the incarnation the body of Chriſt was converted into the ſubſtance of the Godhead. This is the language of the Eutychian heretick in the ſecond Dialogue of Theodoret. In the ſame manner as the ſigns of the body and blood of the Lord are others before the invocation of the Prieſt, but after the invocation they are changed and made others. Likewiſe the Lords body after the aſſumption, was changed into the divine ſubſtance.
This is the very doctrine contained in ch. 37. which the Cardinal alledgeth, and in divers other places of this Catechetical oration, where it is ſaid divers times, that a mixture or commutation was made of humane nature with the Godhead. As in ch. 11.(h)foreign. The Godhead is blended or mingled with the manhood. In the ſame place he ſpeaks,(i)foreign. of the manner of the mixture or contemperature of the Godhead with the manhood. And in ch. 16.(k)foreign. He hath mingled the intellectual nature with the ſenſible. The ſame he ſaith in the 26, and 32. chapters, uſing the groſſeſt terms that he is able to finde to expreſs that mixture of the natures. And in ch. 37. whence this paſſage is taken, he ſaith, that by that union, humane nature foreign, was changed into the excellency of the Godhead, and as he ſaith a little after, it was(l)foreign. condeified, made God, which is rank Eutychianiſm. And he makes that mingling of natures to prove the Eutychian Tranſubſtantiation. And thus he buildeth his diſcourſe. The proper food of mans body is bread, ſo that a mans body is in ſome ſort made of bread, and bread before it be eaten is mans body in potentia. Chriſt while he had his converſation in earth, ate bread, and his body was in ſome ſort made of bread, becauſe the bread which he ate was changed into Chriſts body, and that body mingled with the Godhead and deified, entring into our bodies by the Euchariſt, changeth our bodies into his nature, and quickeneth them; and thence cometh reſurrection. And as the bread which Chriſt ate was changed into his body, ſo the bread of the Euchariſt is changed into the body of Chriſt mingled with his Godhead: Theſe are his own words: We asked how the body of Chriſt which is in him quickeneth the whole nature of men in whom faith is, being diſtributed to all without ſuffering any diminution. Perhaps we are not far from the probable reaſon; for if the ſubſiſtence of each body is compounded with food which is meat and drink, and that meat is bread, and that drink is water tempered with wine; the Word of God according as it was defined before, which is God and Word, is mingled with humane nature; And when it was in our body, it did not innovate ſome other conſtitution of humane nature, but gave ſubſiſtence to his body by the things that are uſual and convenient, ſuſtaining his ſubſiſtence with meat and drink, and that meat was bread. As then in us (as I ſaid often) he that ſeeth bread, ſeeth the humane body in ſome ſort, becauſe when it is within the body it becomes the body; So in this place (m)foreign.the body [of Chriſt] which received God, having received the food of bread, was in ſome ſort the ſame thing as bread, the food (as it was ſaid) paſſing into the nature of the body. For that which is proper to all, is alſo without queſtion in that fleſh, namely, that this body is contained in the bread. Now the body by the inhabitation of the Word God, was (n)foreign.changed into the dignity of God. Wherefore alſo now I believe with juſt reaſon, that the bread ſanctified by the Word of God, is changed into the body of God the Word: for that bread was this body in potentia, &c. With ſuch wilde conceits and intricate words the Author of ch. 37. of that Oration goeth about to prove, that as the bread which Chriſt ate was changed into the body of Chriſt, and as Chriſts humane nature was changed into the divine nature, alſo the bread of the Lords Supper is Tranſubſtantiated into the fleſh of Chriſt. Shall we be ſo unjuſt to Gregorius Nyſſenus, a man ſo famous in his time, as to father upon him ſuch a galimaufry of abſurdities and doctrines contrary to the faith? Wherefore the reſult of this examination is, that either this Oration is none of that Gregory's works, or rather that this Catechetical Oration was corrupted by the Eutychians, and that though it were his, yet Cardinal du Perron can make no uſe of it, ſince he will not have us to believe the writings of the Fathers wherein they ſpeak to the Catechumens, before whom they diſſembled their ſenſe, and diſguiſed the belief of the Church.