Q. In what manner did Augustine understand "signs" and "figures?"
Augustine (c. 354 - 430 A.D.):
As when I was writing about things, I introduced the subject with a warning against attending to anything but what they are in themselves, even though they are signs of something else, so now, when I come in its turn to discuss the subject of signs, I lay down this direction, not to attend to what they are in themselves, but to the fact that they are signs, that is, to what they signify. For a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself: as when we see a footprint, we conclude that an animal whose footprint this is has passed by; and when we see smoke, we know that there is fire beneath; and when we hear the voice of a living man, we think of the feeling in his mind; and when the trumpet sounds, soldiers know that they are to advance or retreat, or do whatever else the state of the battle requires.
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. 2, On Christian Doctrine, II.1.1). Here
…our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage.
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. 2, On Christian Doctrine, III.9.13). Here
All instruction is either about things or about signs; but things are learnt by means of signs. I now use the word “thing” in a strict sense, to signify that which is never employed as a sign of anything else: for example, wood, stone, cattle, and other things of that kind. Not, however, the wood which we read Moses cast into the bitter waters to make them sweet, nor the stone which Jacob used as a pillow, nor the ram which Abraham offered up instead of his son; for these, though they are things, are also signs of other things. There are signs of another kind, those which are never employed except as signs: for example, words. No one uses words except as signs of something else; and hence may be understood what I call signs: those things, to wit, which are used to indicate something else.
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, I.2.2). Here
Conventional signs, on the other hand, are those which living beings mutually exchange for the purpose of showing, as well as they can, the feelings of their minds, or their perceptions, or their thoughts. Nor is there any reason for giving a sign except the desire of drawing forth and conveying into another’s mind what the giver of the sign has in his own mind.
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, II.2.3). Here
For material symbols are nothing else than visible speech, which, though sacred, is changeable and transitory. For while God is eternal, the water of baptism, and all that is material in the sacrament, is transitory: the very word "God," which must be pronounced in the consecration, is a sound which passes in a moment. The actions and sounds pass away, but their efficacy remains the same, and the spiritual gift thus communicated is eternal.
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. IV, Reply to Faustus the Manichæan, XIX.16). Here
And Jesus said unto them, I am the Bread of Life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” “He that cometh to me;” this is the same thing as “He that believeth on me;” and “shall never hunger” is to be understood to mean the same thing as “shall never thirst.” For by both is signified that eternal sufficiency in which there is no want. You desire bread from heaven; you have it before you, and yet you do not eat. “But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me, and ye believed not.”
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. VII, Lectures of Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John, Tractate XXV.14). Here
For the Son, who was begotten equal, does not become better by participation of the Father; just as we are made better by participation of the Son, through the unity of His body and blood, which thing that eating and drinking signifies. We live then by Him, by eating Him; that is, by receiving Himself as the eternal life, which we did not have from ourselves.
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate XXVI.19). Here
For from the words of scripture that the blood of an animal is its soul, apart from what I said above, namely, that it is no concern of mine what happens to the soul of an animal, I can also interpret that commandment as a sign that was given. After all, the Lord did not hesitate to say, This is my body (Mt 26:26), when he gave us a sign of his body.
(Contra Adimantum 12; PL 42.144) Trans. (John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, The Manichean Debate, Part 1, Vol. 19, trans. Boniface Ramsey, Answer to Adimantus, a Disciple of Mani, 12, §3 [Hyde Park: New City Press, 2006], p. 192). Here
Our Lord, it is true, gave a sign through the odor of the ointment which was poured out upon His feet; [John xii. 3–7; Mark xiv. 8.] and in the sacrament of His body and blood He signified His will through the sense of taste; and when by touching the hem of His garment the woman was made whole, the act was not wanting in significance.
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. 2, On Christian Doctrine, II.3.4). Here
…while we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its symbolical authority.
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Volume IV, Reply to Faustus the Manichaen, VI.5). Here
For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith. Now believing is nothing else than having faith; and accordingly, when, on behalf of an infant as yet incapable of exercising faith, the answer is given that he believes, this answer means that he has faith because of the sacrament of faith, and in like manner the answer is made that he turns himself to God because of the sacrament of conversion, since the answer itself belongs to the celebration of the sacrament. Thus the apostle says, in regard to this sacrament of Baptism: “We are buried with Christ by baptism into death.” [Rom. vi. 4.] He does not say, “We have signified our being buried with Him,” but “We have been buried with Him.” He has therefore given to the sacrament pertaining to so great a transaction no other name than the word describing the transaction itself.
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. I, Letter 98 (XCVIII), to Boniface, § 9). Here
On the subject of the sacrament, indeed, which he receives, it is first to be well impressed upon his notice that the signs of divine things are, it is true, things visible, but that the invisible things themselves are also honored in them, and that that species, in reference to the outward and sensible sign of the salt, which is then sanctified by the blessing, is therefore not to be regarded merely in the way in which it is regarded in any common use. And thereafter he ought to be told what is also signified by the form of words to which he has listened, and what in him is seasoned by that (spiritual grace) of which this material substance presents the emblem. Next we should take occasion by that ceremony to admonish him that, if he hears anything even in the Scriptures which may carry a carnal sound, he should, even although he fails to understand it, nevertheless believe that something spiritual is signified thereby, which bears upon holiness of character and the future life. Moreover, in this way he learns briefly that, whatever he may hear in the canonical books of such a kind as to make him unable to refer it to the love of eternity, and of truth, and of sanctity, and to the love of our neighbor, he should believe that to have been spoken or done with a figurative significance; and that, consequently, he should endeavor to understand it in such a manner as to refer it to that twofold (duty of) love.
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. 3, On the Catechising of the Uninstructed, 26.50). Here
And in the history of the New Testament by that so great and so wonderful forbearance of our Lord; in that He bore so long with him as if good, when He was not ignorant of his thoughts; in that He admitted him to the Supper in which He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood; finally, in that He received the kiss of peace at the very time of His betrayal; it is easily understood how Christ showed peace to His betrayer, although he was laid waste by the intestine war of so abominable a device. And therefore is Absalom called “father’s peace,” because his father had the peace, which he had not.
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. 8, Expositions on the Psalms, Psalm 3.1). Here
If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, III.16.24). Here
For in the Jewish people was figured the Christian people. There a figure, here the truth; there a shadow, here the body: as the apostle says, “Now these things happened to them in a figure.”
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. VII, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John, Tractate XI.8). Here
But what can be more absurd than that He should be called image in respect to Himself?
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, On the Holy Trinity, VII.1.2). Here
Now the rule in regard to this variation has two forms. For things that signify now one thing and now another, signify either things that are contrary, or things that are only different. They signify contraries, for example, when they are used metaphorically at one time in a good sense, at another in a bad, as in the case of the leaven mentioned above. Another example of the same is that a lion stands for Christ in the place where it is said, "The lion of the tribe of Judah has prevailed;" and again, stands for the devil where it is written, "Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour." In the same way the serpent is used in a good sense, "Be wise as serpents;" and again, in a bad sense, "The serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty." Bread is used in a good sense, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven;" in a bad, "Bread eaten in secret is pleasant." And so in a great many other case. The examples I have adduced are indeed by no means doubtful in their signification, because only plain instances ought to be used as examples.
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, III.25.36). Here
If you want to know what is the body of Christ, hear what the Apostle [Paul] tells believers: "You are Christ's body, and his limbs" [1 Cor 12.27]. If, then, you are Christ's body and his limbs, it is your symbol that lies on the Lord's altar--what you receive is a symbol of yourselves. When you say "Amen," and you must be the body of Christ to make that "Amen" take effect. And why are you bread? Hear again the Apostle, speaking of this very symbol: "We are one bread, one body, many as we are" [1 Cor 10.17].
(Augustine, Sermon 272) Trans. (Garry Wills, Why Priests?, [New York: Penguin Books, 2014], pp. 16-17). Here
Alternate Translations:
Therefore if you yourselves are the body of Christ and his members, then your own mystery lies on the altar. …Be what you see, and receive what you are.
(Edward J. Kilmartin S.J., The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology. [United States, Liturgical Press, 2004.], p. 25). Here
So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it's you that are the body of Christ and its members, it's the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord's table; what you receive is the mystery that means you. It is to what you are that you reply Amen, and by so replying you express your assent.
(John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century Sermons, III/7, (230-272B) on the Liturgical Seasons, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., [New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993], Sermon 272, p. 300). Here
This bread makes clear how you should love your union with one another. Could the bread have been made from one grain, or were many grains of wheat required? Yet before they cohere as bread, each grain was isolated. They were fused in water, after being ground together. Unless wheat is pounded, and then moistened with water, it can hardly take on the new identity we call bread. In the same way, you had to be ground and pounded by the ordeal of fasting and the mystery of exorcism in preparation for baptism's water, and in this way you were watered in order to take on the new identity of bread. After that the water of baptism moistened you into dough. But the dough dose not become bread until it is baked in fire. And what does fire represent for you? It is the [post-baptism] anointing with oil. Oil, which feeds fire, is the mystery of the Holy Spirit . . . The Holy Spirit comes to you, fire after water, and you are baked into the bread which is Christ's body. That is how your unity is symbolized.
(Augustine, Sermon 227) Trans. (Garry Wills, Why Priests?, [New York: Penguin Books, 2014], pp. 55-56). Here
Alternate Translation:
So the Holy Spirit comes, fire after water, and you are baked into the bread which is the body of Christ.
(John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century Sermons, III/6, (184-229Z) on the Liturgical Seasons, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., [New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993], Sermon 227, p. 255). Here
The Latin reads:
...et efficimini panis quod est corpus Christi.
(J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1845], Patrologiæ Latinæ, Tomus XXXVIII, S. Augustini Episcopi, Sermon CCXXVII, Col. 1100). Here
Literally:
You become the bread, that is the body of Christ.
(Edward J. Kilmartin S.J., The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology. [United States, Liturgical Press, 2004.], p. 25). Here
20. But because these things are known to men, in that they are done by men, they may well meet with reverence as being holy things, but they cannot cause wonder as being miracles. And therefore those things which are done by angels are the more wonderful to us, in that they are more difficult and more known; but they are known and easy to them as being their own actions. An angel speaks in the person of God to man, saying, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;” the Scripture having said just before, “The angel of the Lord appeared to him.” [Ex. iii. 6, 2] And a man also speaks in the person of God, saying, “Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto thee, O Israel: I am the Lord thy God.” [Ps. lxxxi. 8, 10] A rod was taken to serve as a sign, and was changed into a serpent by angelical power; [Ex. vii. 10] but although that power is wanting to man, yet a stone was taken also by man for a similar sign. [Gen. xxviii. 18] There is a wide difference between the deed of the angel and the deed of the man. The former is both to be wondered at and to be understood, the latter only to be understood. That which is understood from both, is perhaps one and the same; but those things from which it is understood, are different. Just as if the name of God were written both in gold and in ink; the former would be the more precious, the latter the more worthless; yet that which is signified in both is one and the same. And although the serpent that came from Moses’ rod signified the same thing as Jacob’s stone, yet Jacob’s stone signified something better than did the serpents of the magicians. For as the anointing of the stone signified Christ in the flesh, in which He was anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows; [Ps. xlv. 7] so the rod of Moses, turned into a serpent, signified Christ Himself made obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. [Phil. ii. 9] Whence it is said, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life;” [John iii. 14, 15] just as by gazing on that serpent which was lifted up in the wilderness, they did not perish by the bites of the serpents. For “our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed.” [Rom. vi. 6] For by the serpent death is understood, which was wrought by the serpent in paradise, [Gen. iii] the mode of speech expressing the effect by the efficient. Therefore the rod passed into the serpent, Christ into death; and the serpent again into the rod, whole Christ with His body into the resurrection; which body is the Church; [Col. i. 24] and this shall be in the end of time, signified by the tail, which Moses held, in order that it might return into a rod. [Ex. iv. 4] But the serpents of the magicians, like those who are dead in the world, unless by believing in Christ they shall have been as it were swallowed up by, [Ex. vii. 12] and have entered into, His body, will not be able to rise again in Him. Jacob’s stone, therefore, as I said, signified something better than did the serpents of the magicians; yet the deed of the magicians was much more wonderful. But these things in this way are no hindrance to the understanding of the matter; just as if the name of a man were written in gold, and that of God in ink.
21. What man, again, knows how the angels made or took those clouds and fires in order to signify the message they were bearing, even if we supposed that the Lord or the Holy Spirit was manifested in those corporeal forms? Just as infants do not know of that which is placed upon the altar and consumed after the performance of the holy celebration, whence or in what manner it is made, or whence it is taken for religious use. And if they were never to learn from their own experience or that of others, and never to see that species of thing except during the celebration of the sacrament, when it is being offered and given; and if it were told them by the most weighty authority whose body and blood it is; they will believe nothing else, except that the Lord absolutely appeared in this form to the eyes of mortals, and that that liquid actually flowed from the piercing of a side [John xix. 34] which resembled this.
(Philip Schaff, NPNF1, Vol. III, On the Trinity, 3.10.20-21). Here
After that comes the greeting, Peace be with you, and Christians kiss one another with a holy kiss. It's a sign of peace; what is indicated by the lips should happen in the conscience; that is, just as your lips approach of peace; what is indicated by the lips should happen in the conscience; that is, just as your lips approach the lips of your brothers or sisters, so your heart should not be withdrawn from theirs.
(John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century Sermons, III/6, (184-229Z) on the Liturgical Seasons, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., [New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993], Sermon 227, p. 255). Here
~ Soli Deo Gloria
No comments:
Post a Comment