The Historical Understanding of: Signs, Types, Figures, Images, Sacraments, etc.

Note: Last Updated 9/13/2024.

Note: Click here for a list of the abbreviations used in the bibliographical citations.

Outline:

i. Prolegomena.

1. The Historical Understanding of Signs.

2. The Historical Understanding of Types/Antitypes.

3. The Historical Understanding of Figures.

4. The Historical Understanding of Images.

5. The Historical Understanding of Sacraments.

6. Endnotes (Alternate Translations and Additional Testimony).

i. Prolegomena. Return to Outline.

     The Patristic writers frequently referred to the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper as symbols, signs, images, types, antitypes, figures, representations, and commemorations of the body and blood of Christ. While these terms may carry more limited meanings in the modern vernacular, the ancient Church understood them more deeply. To borrow Kantian terminology, early Christians largely (if not entirely) believed that the phenomenal (the realm of sensory experience) and noumenal (the realm of spiritual realities) realms were inextricably intertwined. In other words, there was an inseparable conjunction of the sign and the reality it signified (e.g., 1 Corinthians 10:14-22). [i.]

     However, despite this interconnectedness, it is evident that the Patristic conceptualization of symbols was such that they remained distinct from the things they symbolized. Returning to Kantian terminology, we can see that while the phenomenal and noumenal realms overlap (the conjunction of symbol and reality), they are not identical. A symbol, by definition, must be differentiated from the object it represents; it cannot be, in every respect, identical with what it symbolizes, or it would no longer function as a symbol. The Patristic understanding preserves this distinction (see documentation below). Hence Augustine writes “to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage” (ut autem litteram sequi, et signa pro rebus quæ iis significantur accipere, servilis infirmitatis est).

    Furthermore, the Patristic understanding of the “real presence” was spiritual not somatic (corporeal)—a view that aligns with the later historical-confessional Protestant understanding. That is, that Christ is really and truly present in the Lord’s supper in a spiritual (noncorporeal) manner, and, to quote Augustine, “that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting” (quia gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus), but rather through the mouth of faith. “Believe,” says Augustine, “and you have eaten” (crede, et manducasti). And again, “the one who eats inwardly, not outwardly; the one who eats in the heart, not the one who presses with the teeth” (qui manducat intus, non foris; qui manducat in corde, non qui premit dente). [ii.]

Note: See further: The Question of the “Real Presence.” 

Note: See further: The “Real” Presence: Four Interpretations of the Lord’s Supper.

1. The Historical Understanding of Signs. Return to Outline.

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.): 

For this is then a sign [Σημεῖον], when the reality [πρᾶγμα] of which it is the sign is found with thee, that is, faith; since if thou have not this, the sign to thee has no longer the power of a sign, for what is it to be the sign of? or what the seal of, when there is nothing to be sealed? much as if you were to show one a purse with a seal to it, when there was nothing laid up within. ...For the reason of your receiving a sign [σημεῖον] was that you might seek diligently for that reality [πρᾶγμα] whereof you have the sign: so that if you had been sure of diligently seeking thereafter without it, then you had not needed it.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, Hom. 8 [on Rom. 4:12]; PG, 60:458; NPNF1, 11:388, 388-389.) See also: ccel.org.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

     Now the rule in regard to this variation has two forms. For things that signify [significant] 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 hath 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 cases. The examples I have adduced are indeed by no means doubtful in their signification, because only plain instances ought to be used as examples [Et hæc quidem quæ commemoravi, minime dubiam significationem gerunt, quia exempli gratia commemorari nonnisi manifesta debuerunt].

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.25.36; PL, 34:79; trans. NPNF1, 2:566.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.): 

…I come in its turn to discuss the subject of signs [signis], I lay down this direction, not to attend to what they are in themselves, but to the fact that they are signs [signa], that is, to what they signify. For a sign [Signum] 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. 

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 2.1.1; PL, 34:35-36; trans. NPNF1, 2:535.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

…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 [signa] for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage…

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.9.13; PL, 34:71; trans. NPNF1, 2:560.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Now it is surely a miserable slavery of the soul to take signs [signa] for things, and to be unable to lift the eye of the mind above what is corporeal and created, that it may drink in eternal light.

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.5.9; PL, 34:69; trans. NPNF1, 2:559.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.): 

…and hence may be understood what I call signs [signa]: those things, to wit, which are used to indicate something else. 

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 1.2.2; PL, 34:20; trans. NPNF1, 2:523.) See also: ccel.org. [1.]

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.): 

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. 

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 2.2.3; PL, 34:37; trans. NPNF1, 2:536.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

He does not say, They signify [significant] three days. And this mode of expression is greatly to be noted, where the signs [significantia] are called by the name of the things which they signify [significant]: hence the apostle saith: And the rock WAS Christ, he does not say, The rock SIGNIFIED Christ.

(S. Augustini, In Heptateuchum Locutionum: Liber Primus [Locutiones de Genesi], Gen. Cap. 40.12; PL, 34:497; trans. John Henry Hopkins, The Novelties Which Disturb Our Peace: A Third Letter: Addressed to the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church, [Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1844], pp. 73-74.)

Note: Augustine is commenting on Gen. 40:12 — “the three branches are three days.”

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

It would, however, take too long to discuss with adequate fulness the differences between the symbolical [signorum, signs] actions of former and present times, which, because of their pertaining to divine things, are called sacraments [sacramenta].

(Augustine, Letter 138.7 [To Marcellinus]; PL, 33:527; trans. NPNF1, 1:483.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

     On this point, let those heretics not ask us: ‘What can you give us, since we already have baptism?’ They are so far from understanding what they say that they will not even read the testimony of the Sacred Scripture which tells us that even within the Church (that is, within the communion of the members of Christ), many who had been baptized in Samaria had been merely baptized, but had not yet received the Holy Spirit until Apostles came to them from Jerusalem, and that, on the other hand, Cornelius and those who were with him merited to receive the Holy Spirit before they received the sacrament of baptism. Hence, God has taught us that the sign of salvation is one thing, but that salvation itself is another; and that the form of piety is one thing, but that the virtue of piety is another.

(Augustine of Hippo, Sermon (On Baptism) 8.3; trans. FC, 11:334-335.) [2.]

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

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. 

(Augustine of Hippo, Reply to Faustus the Manichæan, 19.16; trans. NPNF1, 4:244-245.) See also. ccel.org.

Note: Symbols.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

And when Moses entrusted him with the task of bringing the people in, he summoned him, and changed his name, and called him Jesus; so that the people of God would enter the promised land not under Moses but under Jesus, that is to say, not under the law but under grace. But just as that man wasn’t the true Jesus, but a model one, so too that promised land wasn’t the real one, but a model one. It was a temporary one, you see, for the first people; whereas the one that has been promised to us will be eternal. But eternal realities were being promised and foretold under temporal, time-bound, models and symbols. So just as he wasn’t the real Jesus, and neither was that the real promised land, but the model or symbolic one; so too the manna wasn’t really heavenly food, but a symbol of it; so too that rock wasn’t really Christ, but only symbolically, and so with all the other things.

(Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 352.4; trans. WSA, III/10:141-142.)

Note: Symbols.

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.): 

Orth.—Tell me now; the mystic symbols which are offered to God by them who perform priestly rites, of what are they symbols? 

Eran.—Of the body and blood of the Lord. 

Orth.—Of the real body or not? 

Eran.—The real. 

Orth.—Good. For there must be the archetype of the image. So painters imitate nature and paint the images of visible objects. 

(Theodoret of Cyrus, Dialogue II.—The Unconfounded. Orthodoxos and Eranistes; trans. NPNF2, 3:200.) See also: ccel.org.

Note: Symbols.

Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt (c. ?-853 A.D.): 

That thing is no sign, of which the sign is, nor is anything called a sign of itself, but of another thing. And in general every sign, so far as it is perceived to be a sign, is different from that which it signifies. 

(Haymonis Halberstatensis Episcopi, De Corpore Et Sanguine Domini; PL, 118:817; trans. JHT-TCF, 218.

Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux (c. 1090-1153 A.D.): 

That the visible sign is as a ring, which is given not for itself or absolutely, but to invest and give possession of an estate made over to one. Many things (saith he) are done for their own sake, and many in reference to something else, and then they are called signs. A ring is given absolutely as a gift, and then it hath no other meaning: it is also given to make good an investiture or contract, and then it is a sign; so that he that receives it may say, ‘the ring is not worth much; it is what it signifies, the inheritance, I value.’ In this manner, when the passion of our Lord drew nigh, He took care that His disciples might be invested with His grace, that His invisible grace might be assured and given to them by a visible sign. To this end all sacraments are instituted, and to this the participation of the eucharist is appointed. 

(S. Bernardi Abbatis Claræ-Vallensis, In Coena A Domini Sermo [de baptismo, sacramento allaris, et ablutione pedum], §. 2; PL, 183:271; trans. John Cosin, The History of Popish Transubstantiation, ed. John Sherren Brewer, [London: J. Leslie, 1840], pp. 181-182.)

2. The Historical Understanding of Types/Antitypes. Return to Outline.

Second Clement (c. 95-140 A.D.): 

Now the church, being spiritual, was revealed in the flesh of Christ, thereby showing us that any of us who guard her in the flesh and do not corrupt her will receive her back again in the Holy Spirit. For this flesh is a copy [ἀντίτυπός, antitype] of the Spirit. No one, therefore, who corrupts the copy [ἀντίτυπον, antitype] will share in the original [αὐθεντικὸν]. This, therefore, is what he means, brothers and sisters: guard the flesh, in order that you may receive the Spirit. 

(Second Clement, 14.3; trans. Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], p. 157. Cf. ANF, 9:255.) [3.]

Cf. Hebrews 9:24:

For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy [ἀντίτυπα, antitype] of the true one [ἀληθινῶν], but heaven itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf.

(New American Bible.)

Basil the Great, Bishop of Cæsarea (c. 329/30-379 A.D.): 

The type is an exhibition of things expected, and gives an imitative anticipation of the future. So Adam was a type of “Him that was to come.” 

(Basil the Great, De Spiritu Sancto [On the Spirit], 14.31; trans. NPNF2, 8:19.) See also: ccel.org.

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 A.D.):

Now turn from the old to the new, from the figure [τύπου, type] to the reality [ἀλήθειαν]. There we have Moses sent from God to Egypt; here, Christ, sent forth from His Father into the world: there, that Moses might lead forth an afflicted people out of Egypt; here, that Christ might rescue those who are oppressed in the world under sin: there, the blood of a lamb was the spell against the destroyer; here, the blood of the Lamb without blemish Jesus Christ is made the charm to scare evil spirits: there, the tyrant was pursuing that ancient people even to the sea; and here the daring and shameless spirit, the author of evil, was following thee even to the very streams of salvation. The tyrant of old was drowned in the sea; and this present one disappears in the water of salvation. 

(S. Cyrilli Hierosol Archiep., Catechesis XIX (Mystagogica I), §. III; PG, 33:1068; trans. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 19.3; NPNF2, 7:144-145.) See also: ccel.org. 

Cf. Romans 5:14:

But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type [τύπος] of the one who was to come.

(New American Bible.)

Gregory Nazianzen, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 329-390 A.D.): 

Will they keep us from the altars? But I know of another altar, of which those things which now are seen are the types [τύποι], to which no axe or hand went up, on which no iron was heard, nor any work of the craftsmen or men of skill, but all is accomplished by the mind, and the ascent is by means of contemplation. At this will I stand, at this will I offer acceptable gifts, sacrifice, and offering, and burnt offerings, better than those which are now offered, as the reality [ἀλήθειαπερὶ] is better than the shadow [σκιᾶς].

(S. Gregorii Theologi, Oratio XXVI, §. XVI; PG, 35:1248, 1249; trans. Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909], p. 116. Cf. FC, 107:188.) [4.]

Marcus of Nitra (c. 4th Century A.D.): 

Do not therefore, call types the truth. 

(S. Marci Eremitæ, De Melchisedech, Opusculum X, Caput. VIII; PG, 65:1132; trans. JHT-TCF, 217.)

Cf. Marcus of Nitra (c. 4th Century A.D.): 

But where the thing itself is present, it is not called a type, but the truth. 

(S. Marci Eremitæ, De Melchisedech, Opusculum X, Caput. IX; PG, 65:1133, trans. JHT-TCF, 217.)

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

And behold the relationship of the type [τύπου] to the truth [ἀλήθειαν], and the superiority of the truth [ἀληθείας] over the type [τύπον]. For the type [τύπον] must neither be completely alienated from the truth [ἀληθείας], for then it would not be a type [τύπος]; nor should it be equated with the truth, for then it would itself be the truth. Rather, it must remain in its proper proportion, neither fully possessing the truth nor being entirely devoid of it. For if it fully possesses the truth, it is truth itself; but if it falls away entirely from the truth, it can no longer be a type. Thus, it must hold some of the truth, while preserving its distinction from the truth.

(S. Joannis Chrysostomi, Archiep. Constantinop., In Apostolicum Dictum, Nolo Vos Ignorare, etc., §. 4; PG, 51:248.) [5.]

Cf. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.): 

But what is, “They were baptized into Moses?” Like as we, on our belief in Christ and His resurrection, are baptized, as being destined in our own persons to partake in the same mysteries; for, “we are baptized,” saith he, “for the dead,” i.e., for our own bodies; even so they putting confidence in Moses, i.e., having seen him cross first, ventured also themselves into the waters. But because he wishes to bring the Type near the Truth; he speaks it not thus, but uses the terms of the Truth even concerning the Type.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hom. 23.3; trans. NPNF1, 12:133.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.): 

For as in the benefits the types went before and the substance followed…

(Chrysostom, Homilies on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hom. 23.4 [on 1 Cor. 10:6]; NPNF1, 12:134.) See also: ccel.org. 

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.): 

Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. 

(Theodoret of Cyrus, Dialogue II.—The Unconfounded. Orthodoxos and Eranistes; trans. NPNF2, 3:201.) See also: ccel.org.

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.): 

Orth.—Tell me now; the mystic symbols which are offered to God by them who perform priestly rites, of what are they symbols? 

Eran.—Of the body and blood of the Lord. 

Orth.—Of the real body or not? 

Eran.—The real. 

Orth.—Good. For there must be the archetype of the image. So painters imitate nature and paint the images of visible objects. 

(Theodoret of Cyrus, Dialogue II.—The Unconfounded. Orthodoxos and Eranistes; trans. NPNF2, 3:200.) See also: ccel.org.

Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

     Now certain men have often inquired, and yet frequently inquire, how the bread, which is prepared from corn, and baked by the heat of fire, can be changed to Christ’s body; or the wine, which is wrung from many berries, can by any blessing be changed to the Lord’s blood? Now we say to such men, that some things are said of Christ typically, some literally. It is a true and certain thing that Christ was born of a maiden, and of his own will suffered death, and was buried, and on this day arose from death. He is called bread typically, and lamb, and lion, and whatever else. He is called bread, because he is the life of us and of angels; he is called a lamb for his innocence; a lion for the strength wherewith he overcame the strong devil. But yet, according to true nature, Christ is neither bread, nor a lamb, nor a lion. Why then is the holy housel called Christ’s body or his blood, if it is not truly that which it is called? But the bread and the wine which are hallowed through the mass of the priests, appear one thing to human understandings without, and cry another thing to believing minds within. Without they appear bread and wine, both in aspect and in taste; but they are truly, after the hallowing, Christ’s body and his blood through a ghostly mystery. A heathen child is baptized, but it varies not its aspect without, although it be changed within. It is brought to the font-vessel sinful through Adam’s transgression, but it will be washed from all sins within, though it without change not its aspect. In like manner the holy font-water, which is called the well-spring of life, is in appearance like other waters, and is subject to corruption; but the might of the Holy Ghost approaches the corruptible water through the blessing of the priests, and it can afterwards wash body and soul from all sins through ghostly might. Lo now we see two things in this one creature. According to true nature the water is a corruptible fluid, and according to a ghostly mystery has salutary power; in like manner, if we behold the holy housel in a bodily sense, then we see that it is a corruptible and changeable creature. But if we distinguish the ghostly might therein, then understand we that there is life in it, and that it gives immortality to those who partake of it with belief. Great is the difference between the invisible might of the holy housel and the visible appearance of its own nature. By nature it is corruptible bread and corruptible wine, and is by power of the divine word truly Christ’s body and his blood; not, however, bodily, but spiritually. Great is the difference between the body in which Christ suffered, and the body which is hallowed for housel. The body verily in which Christ suffered was born of Mary’s flesh, with blood and with bones, with skin and with sinews, with human limbs, quickened by a rational soul; and his ghostly body, which we call housel, is gathered of many corns, without blood and bone, limbless and soulless, and there is, therefore, nothing therein to be understood bodily, but all is to be understood spiritually. Whatsoever there is in the housel which gives us the substance of life, that is from its ghostly power and invisible efficacy: therefore is the holy housel called a mystery, because one thing is seen therein and another thing understood. That which is there seen has a bodily appearance, and that which we understand therein has ghostly might. Verily Christ’s body which suffered death, and from death arose, will henceforth never die, but is eternal and impassible. The housel is temporary, not eternal; corruptible, and is distributed piece-meal; chewed betwixt teeth, and sent into the belly: but it is, nevertheless, by ghostly might, in every part all. Many receive the holy body, and it is, nevertheless, in every part all, by a ghostly miracle. Though to one man a less part be allotted, yet is there no more power in the great part than in the less; because it is in every man whole, by the invisible might.

(Ælfric of Eynsham, Sermo de Sacrificio in Die Pascae (A Sermon on the Sacrifice on Easter-Day); trans. The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church: The First Part, Containing the Sermones Catholici, or Homilies of Ælfric: In the Original Anglo-Saxon, With an English Version: Vol. II, trans. Benjamin Thorpe, [London: Printed for the Ælfric Society, 1846], pp. 269, 271, 273.)

3. The Historical Understanding of Figures. Return to Outline.

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.): 

…Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure [figura] of my body. A figure [Figura], however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable [veritatis, of truth] body. 

(Tertullian of Carthage, The Five Books Against Marcion, 4.40; PL, 2:460; trans. ANF, 3:418.) See also: ccel.org.

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

Now these things happened as a figure [figura] of us. Thou hast learnt that they are more excellent. For the light is better than the shadow, the reality [veritas] is better than the figure [figura], the body of the Author and Giver is better than manna from heaven.

(Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 8.49; PL, 16:405; trans. St. Ambrose, On the Mysteries and the Treatise on the Sacraments, trans. T. Thompson, ed. J. H. Strawley, [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1919], On the Mysteries, 8.49, p. 67. Cf. FC, 44:23.) [6.]

Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

Again, that there was a figure [figuram] of our baptism in the Red Sea is asserted by the Apostle, when he says that our fathers were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea. And he added, Now all these things happened unto them by way of figure [figura]; to them in a figure [figura], but to us in reality [veritate]. 

(S. Ambrosii, De Sacramentis, Lib. I, Cap. VI, §. 20; PL, 16:423; trans. St. Ambrose, On the Mysteries and the Treatise on the Sacraments, trans. T. Thompson, ed. J. H. Strawley, [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1919], Treatise on the Sacraments, 1.6.20, p. 83. Cf. FC, 44:275-276.) [7.]

Gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia (c. ?-410 A.D.): 

For a figure is not the truth, but an imitation of the truth [Figura etenim non est veritas, sed imitatio veritatis]. 

(S. Gaudentii Brixiæ Episcopi, Sermo II. De Exodi Lectione Secundus; PL, 20:855; trans. JHT-TCF, 218.) [8.]

Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.): 

When I name a figurative speech, I mean, that the thing that is spoken is not true, but fashioned under the cloud of an allegory [Quando dico, tropicam, doceo verum non esse, quod dicitur, sed allegoriae nubilo figuratum]. 

(S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Apologia Adversus Libros Rufini, Lib. I, §. 28; PL, 23:419; trans. John Jewel, The Works of John Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury: The Second Portion, ed. John Ayre, [Cambridge: Printed at the University Press, 1847], p. 594.)

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.): 

For in the Jewish people was figured the Christian people. There a figure [figura], here the truth [veritas]; there a shadow, here the body: as the apostle says, “Now these things happened to them in a figure.” 

(Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 11.8; PL, 35:1479; trans. NPNF1, 7:77.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.): 

Every figurative and allegorical text or utterance seems to mean one thing materially, and to suggest another thing spiritually.

(Augustine, Sermon 4.23 [Esau and Jacob]; PL, 38:45; trans. WSA, III/1:198.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.): 

…we must beware of taking a figurative expression literally. For the saying of the apostle applies in this case too: “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” For when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner. And nothing is more fittingly called the death of the soul than when that in it which raises it above the brutes, the intelligence namely, is put in subjection to the flesh by a blind adherence to the letter. For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification; but, if he hears of the Sabbath, for example, thinks of nothing but the one day out of seven which recurs in constant succession; and when he hears of a sacrifice, does not carry his thoughts beyond the customary offerings of victims from the flock, and of the fruits of the earth. Now it is surely a miserable slavery of the soul to take signs for things, and to be unable to lift the eye of the mind above what is corporeal and created, that it may drink in eternal light.

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.5.9; PL, 34:68-69; trans. NPNF1, 2:559.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.): 

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 [figura], 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.

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24; PL, 34:74-75; trans. NPNF1, 2:563.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

     34. We see that that doctor says that the mysteries of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in a figurative [figura] sense by the faithful. For he says that to take his flesh and his blood in a fleshly sense involves, not religion, but crime. This was the view held by those who, understanding the Lord’s statement in the Gospel not in a spiritual but in a fleshly sense, departed from him, and were already not going with him.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §. XXXIV; PL, 121:141; trans. LCC, 9:127.) [9.]

Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz (c. 780-856 A.D.):

Therefore, whatever is read in the holy Scriptures that seems harsh and almost cruel in both its actions and words, when spoken from the perspective of God or His saints, serves to destroy the kingdom of lust. If it sounds clearly, it should not be referred to as something figurative, as is the case with the Apostle’s words: “You have laid up for yourself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will repay each one according to his deeds” (Romans 2:5). Thus, in figurative speech, the rule should be such that it is carefully considered for as long as necessary until the interpretation leads to the kingdom of charity. If it already sounds proper, no figurative meaning is to be assumed. If the speech is prescriptive, prohibiting vice or crime, or commanding utility or beneficence, it is not figurative. However, if it seems to command vice or crime, or to forbid utility and beneficence, it is figurative. For example, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). This seems to command a crime or vice. Therefore, it is figurative, instructing that we should share in the Lord’s Passion and recall sweetly and profitably in memory that His flesh was crucified and wounded for us. [Quidquid ergo asperum et quasi sævum factu dictuque in sanctis Scripturis legitur, ex persona Dei vel sanctorum ejus, ad cupiditatis regnum destruendum valet. Quod si perspicue sonat, non est ad aliud referendum, quasi figurate dictum sit, sicuti est illud Apostoli: Thesaurizasti tibi, inquit, iram in die iræ et revelationis justi judicii Dei, qui reddet unicuique secundum opera sua, et reliqua. (Rom. II.) Ergo in locutionibus figuratis regula sit hujusmodi, ut tam diu versetur diligenti consideratione quod legitur, donec ad regnum charitatis interpretatio perducatur. Si autem hoc jam proprie sonat, nulla putetur figurata locutio. Si præceptiva locutio est, aut flagitium, aut facinus vetans, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens, non est figurata. Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem et beneficentiam vetare, figurata est. Nisi manducaveritis, inquit, carnem filii hominis, et sanguinem ejus biberitis, nou habebitis vitam in vobis (Joan. VI). Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figurata ergo est, præcipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, et suaviter atque utiliter recolendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit.]

(B. Rabani Mauri Archiep. Mogunt., De Clericorum Institutione, Lib. III, Cap. XIII; PL, 107:390.)

Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

     6. Let us examine the first of these two questions, and, to prevent our being stopped by ambiguity of language, let us define what we mean by “figure,” what by “truth,” so that keeping our gaze fixed on something quite certain, we may know in what path of reasoning we ought to direct our steps.

     7. “Figure” means a kind of overshadowing that reveals its intent under some sort of veil. For example, when we wish to speak of the Word, we say “bread,” as when in the Lord’s Prayer we ask that daily bread be given us, or when Christ speaking in the Gospel says, “I am the living bread who came down from heaven”; or when he calls himself the vine and his disciples the branches. For all these passages say one thing and hint at another.

     8. “Truth,” on the other hand, is representation of clear fact, not obscured by any shadowy images, but uttered in pure and open, and to say it more plainly, in natural meanings, as, for example, when Christ is said to have been born of the Virgin, suffered, been crucified, died, and been buried. For nothing is here adumbrated by concealing metaphors, but the reality of the fact is represented in the ordinary senses of the words. Nothing else may be understood than what is said. In the instances mentioned above this was not the case. From the point of view of substance, the bread is not Christ, the vine is not Christ, the branches are not apostles. Therefore in this latter instance the figure, but in the former the truth, is represented by the statement, that is, the bare and obvious meaning.

     9. Now let us go back to the matter which is the cause of what has been said, namely, the body and blood of Christ. For if that mystery is not performed in any figurative sense, then it is not rightly given the name of mystery. Since that cannot be called a mystery in which there is nothing hidden, nothing removed from the physical senses, nothing covered over with any veil. But that bread which through the ministry of the priest comes to be Christ’s body exhibits one thing outwardly to human sense, and it proclaims another thing inwardly to the minds of the faithful. Outwardly it has the shape of bread which it had before, the color is exhibited, the flavor is received, but inwardly something far different, much more precious, much more excellent, becomes known, because something heavenly, something divine, that is, Christ’s body, is revealed, which is not beheld, or received, or consumed by the fleshly senses but in the gaze of the believing soul.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §§. VI-IX; PL, 121:130-131; trans. LCC, 9:119-120.) [10.]

Christian [Druthmar] of Stavelot (c. 9th Century A.D.):

Our Lord gave to his disciples the sacrament of his body for the remission of sins and for the preservation of charity, that, being mindful of that fact, they might alway[s] in a figure do that, which he not forgetfully was about to do for them. This is my body: that is, in a sacrament. And, taking the cup, he gave thanks and gave unto them. Because, among all the nourishments of life, bread and wine avail to strengthen and refresh our infirmity, he was rightly pleased through these two to confirm the ministry of his sacrament. For wine both exhilarates and increases the blood. Therefore, not inconveniently, the blood of Christ is figured by this: since, whatsoever comes to us from him, makes us joyful with true joy, and increases all our good. As if any person, departing on a journey, leaves to his friends some bond of love, in the tenour that they should do this, every day, for the purpose of not forgetting him: so God commanded it to be done by us, spiritually transferring his body into the bread and the wine into his blood [transferens spiritaliter Corpus in panem, vinum in sanguinem], that by these two we may commemorate what he has done for us from his body and his blood, and may not be ungrateful to such most loving charity.

(Christiani Druthmari Corbeiensis Monachi, Expositio in Matthæum, Cap. LVI (Matth. xxvi. 26); PL, 106:1476-1477; trans. George Stanley Faber, The Difficulties of Romanism in Respect to Evidence: The Third Edition, Revised and Remoulded, [London: Thomas Bosworth, 1853], pp. 259-260.)

Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres (c. 952/70-1028 A.D.):

Unless ye shall eat, He said, the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you. He seems to enjoin a crime or wicked act. It is a figure, therefore (a heretic will say*), commanding us to partake of the Lord’s Passion only…

(S. Fulberti Carnotensis Episcopi, Sermones ad Populum, Sermo VIII (Fragmentum); PL, 141:334; trans. JHT-TCF, 245-246.)

Cf. Jacques Paul Migne:

*NOTE. — The interpretation is mystical, and observe that these two words, ‘a heretic will say,’ are not found in the MS. of Dionysius Petavius.

(PL, 141:334, n. 54; trans. JHT-TCF, 246.)

Cf. John Harvey Treat:

Carolus de Villiers, a Parisian Theologian, published an edition of the works of Fulbert at Paris in 1608. Immediately after the words “Figura ergo est” he inserted in the text “dicet haereticus,” to destroy the force of the passage. Some one informed him that the whole passage was cited from St. Augustine, De doct. Christ., L. 3, c. 16, n. 24, col. 75, and that by the insertion of these words he had made that eminent Saint a heretic. In his next edition, accordingly, he placed these words among the errata and confessed that they were not to be found in the MSS. Such pious frauds and corruptions of texts are of common occurrence in the Church of Rome, as the easiest way to destroy the force of a passage.

(JHT-TCF, 245.) [11.]

Adelmanus, Bishop of Bresse (c. 11th Century A.D.): 

[According to Adelmanus, Berengar of Tours (c. 999-1088 A.D.) taught that the Eucharist was] …not the true body, nor the truth blood of Christ, but a certain figure and similitude [sed figuram quamdam et similitudinem]. 

(Adelmanni Episcopi Brixiensis, Epist de Eucharistiæ Sacramento; PL, 143:1290; trans. JHT-TCF, 246.)

4. The Historical Understanding of Images. Return to Outline.

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.): 

Now the image is not in any case equal to the very thing [veritati, truth]. It is one thing to be like the reality, and another thing to be the reality itself. 

(Tertullian of Carthage, The Five Books Against Marcion, 2.9; PL, 2:295; trans. ANF, 3:304.) See also: ccel.org.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.): 

For just as one who sees an image of someone sees him who’s image it is… 

(Origen of Alexandria, Homilies on Genesis, Hom. 1.13; trans. FC, 71:65.)

Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (c. 310-367 A.D.): 

For neither is any one an image of himself: but it is necessary for the image to designate him, of whom the image is. 

(Sancti Hilarii Episcopi, Liber De Synodis, Seu De Fide Orientalium, Cap. 13; PL, 10:490; trans. JHT-TCF, 216. Cf. NPNF2, 9:7.) [12.]

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335-395 A.D.): 

Indeed, it would be no longer an “image,” if it were altogether identical with that other…

(Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection; trans. NPNF2, 5:437.) See also: ccel.org.

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.): 

First, therefore, the shadow preceded, the image followed, the truth will be. The shadow in the Law, the image in the Gospel, the truth in heaven. …And He indeed assists us before the Father as our Advocate: but now we see Him not; then we shall see Him, when the image shall pass away, when the truth shall come. 

(Sancti Ambrosii, In Psalmum XXXVIII Enarratio, §. 25; PL, 14:1051, 1052; trans. JHT-TCF, 216.)

Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.): 

Ascend, therefore, O man, into heaven, and you shall see those things of which here there was a shadow or image. 

(Sancti Ambrosii, In Psalmum XXXVIII Enarratio, §. 26; PL, 14:1052; trans. JHT-TCF, 216.)

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

But what can be more absurd than that He should be called image in respect to Himself? 

(Augustine, On the Holy Trinity, 7.1.2; trans. NPNF1, 3:105.) See also: ccel.org.

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.): 

Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. 

(Theodoret of Cyrus, Dialogue II.—The Unconfounded. Orthodoxos and Eranistes; trans. NPNF2, 3:201.) See also: ccel.org.

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.): 

Orth.—Tell me now; the mystic symbols which are offered to God by them who perform priestly rites, of what are they symbols? 

Eran.—Of the body and blood of the Lord. 

Orth.—Of the real body or not? 

Eran.—The real. 

Orth.—Good. For there must be the archetype of the image. So painters imitate nature and paint the images of visible objects. 

(Theodoret of Cyrus, Dialogue II.—The Unconfounded. Orthodoxos and Eranistes; trans. NPNF2, 3:200.) See also: ccel.org.

5. The Historical Understanding of Sacraments. Return to Outline.

Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428 A.D.): 

For this reason the blessed Paul said: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do remember the Lord’s death till He come.” He shows that when our Lord shall come from heaven, and make manifest the future life, and effect the resurrection of all of us—from which we shall become immortal in our bodies and immutable in our souls—the use of sacraments and symbols shall by necessity cease. Since we shall be in the reality itself, we shall be in no need of visible signs to remind us of the things that shall take place. 

(Theodore of Mopsuestia, On the Lord’s Prayer, and Sacraments [Part Two of “Liber ad Baptizandos”]; trans. Alphonse Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies: Volume VI: Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Lord’s Prayer and on the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, [Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons Limited, 1933], Ch. 5, p. 72.) See also: tertullian.org.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

It would, however, take too long to discuss with adequate fulness the differences between the symbolical [signorum, signs] actions of former and present times, which, because of their pertaining to divine things, are called sacraments [sacramenta].

(Augustine, Letter 138.7 [To Marcellinus]; PL, 33:527; trans. NPNF1, 1:483.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.): 

The sacraments [sacramenta] are things in which, not what they are, but what they show, is always attended to, since signs [signa] exist as one thing and signify another. 

(S. Augustini, Contra Maximinum Arianorum Episcopum, Liber Secundus (II), Caput XXII, §. 3; PL, 42:794; trans. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1997], 19.3.2, p. 345. Cf. WSA, I/18:307.) [13.]

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.): 

The flesh and blood of this sacrifice was promised before the coming of Christ by the similitude of victims, in the passion it was given by the truth itself, but after his ascension it is celebrated by a sacrament of memory [per Sacramentum memoriæ celebratur]. 

(S. Augustini, Contra Faustum Manichæum, Liber Vigesimus (XX), Caput XXI; PL, 42:385; trans. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1997], 19.29.37, p. 537. Cf. NPNF1, 4:262.) [14.]

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Take away the word, and the water is neither more nor less than water. The word is added to the element, and there results the Sacrament, as if itself also a kind of visible word. For He had said also to the same effect, when washing the disciples’ feet, “He that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.” And whence has water so great an efficacy, as in touching the body to cleanse the soul, save by the operation of the word; and that not because it is uttered, but because it is believed?

(Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 80.3; trans. NPNF1, 7:344.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

     You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, “Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion,” although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, “This day the Lord rose from the dead,” although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? 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.” 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.

(Augustine, Letter 98.9 [To Boniface]; trans. NPNF1, 1:409-410.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

     36. We see that Saint Augustine says that the sacraments are one thing and that the things of which they are sacraments are another. Moreover, the body in which Christ suffered, and the blood which flowed from his side, are things, but he says that the mysteries of these things are the sacraments of Christ’s body and blood which are celebrated for the memory of the Lord’s Passion, not only each year in all the solemnities of the Pascha, but even every day in the year.

     37. And although the Lord’s body, in which he once suffered is one thing, and the blood, which was shed for the salvation of the world, is one thing, yet the sacraments of these two things have assumed their names, being called Christ’s body and blood, since they are so called on account of a resemblance with the things they represent. So also the annual celebrations are called the Pascha and the Lord’s resurrection, although he suffered in his own person and rose again once and for all, and those days cannot now be called back since they are past. Yet the days on which the remembrance of the Lord’s Passion or of his resurrection is celebrated are called by their name, and for the reason that they have some resemblance to those days on which the Saviour suffered once and for all and rose again once and for all.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §§. XXXVI-XXXVII; PL, 121:142-143; trans. LCC, 9:128-129.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

…that is to say, if the fact of their catholic baptism and original reception of the sacrament of the body of Christ in the true body of Christ [sacramentum corporis Christi in vero Christi corpore] is sufficient to deliver these heresiarchs from enternal punishment. 

(Augustine, The City of God, 21.25; PL, 41:742; trans. NPNF1, 2:472.) See also: ccel.org. [15.]

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

In fine, He Himself, when He says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him,”[John vi. 56.] shows what it is in reality, and not sacramentally [non sacramento tenus, sed re vera], to eat His body and drink His blood; for this is to dwell in Christ, that He also may dwell in us. So that it is as if He said, He that dwelleth not in me, and in whom I do not dwell, let him not say or think that he eateth my body or drinketh my blood.

(Augustine of Hippo, City of God, 21.25; PL, 41:742; trans. NPNF1, 2:473.) See also: ccel.org. [16.]

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen and another is understood.

(Augustine, Sermon 272; PL, 38:1247; trans. WSA, III/7:300.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

The sacrament is one thing, the power (virtus) is another.

(S. Augustini, Tractatus in Johannis Evangelium, Tract. XXVI, §. 11; PL, 35:1611; trans. Edward J. Kilmartin S.J., The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology, [Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2004], p. 47. Cf. NPNF1, 7:171.) [17.]

Cf. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

…the sacraments are one thing and that the things of which they are sacraments are another. …It is one thing, however, which is outwardly done, but another which through faith is believed. What pertains to the sense of the body is corruptible, but what faith believes is incorruptible. Therefore, what appears outwardly is not the thing itself but the image of the thing, but what is felt and understood in the soul is the truth of the thing.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §§. XXXVI, LXXVII; PL, 121:142-143, 160; trans. LCC, 9:128, 140.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

They are not to be despaired of, for they are yet in the body: but they may not seek the Holy Spirit unless in the body of Christ, of which they have indeed the Sacrament outwardly [foris sacramentum], but they do not hold inwardly the thing itself of which it is the Sacrament [sed rem ipsam non tenent intus cujus est illud sacramentum], and therefore they eat and drink judgment to themselves.

(Augustine, Letter 185.11.50 [To Boniface]; PL, 33:815; trans. John Henry Hopkins, The Novelties Which Disturb Our Peace: A Third Letter: Addressed to the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church, [Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1844], pp. 72-73. Cf. FC, 30:189. Cf NPNF1, 4:651.) [18.]

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

For if we turn our thoughts to the visible materials themselves, which are to us the medium of the sacraments, every one must know that they admit of corruption. But if we think on that which they convey to us, who can fail to see that it is incorruptible, however much the men through whose ministry it is conveyed are either being rewarded or punished for the character of their lives?

(Augustine of Hippo, On Baptism against the Donatists, 3.10.15; trans. NPNF1, 4:440.) See also: ccel.org.

Isidore, Archbishop of Seville (c. 560-636 A.D.):

     Sacrifice is so called from sacra and fieri, ‘that which is made holy,’ because it is consecrated by mystical prayer to commemorate the Lord’s suffering in our behalf. For this reason, we, at his bidding, say that the body and blood of Christ is what, though made of the earth’s fruits, is consecrated and becomes a sacrament through the invisible action of God’s spirit. This sacrament of bread and cup the Greeks call the Eucharistia, which in Latin may be rendered bona gratia.[Good grace.] And what is better than the blood and body of Christ?

     There is a sacrament in any celebration when what is done takes place in such a way that it is understood to mean something which must be taken in a holy sense. The sacraments are Baptism and anointing, the body and blood.

     They are called sacraments because, under cover of corporeal things, the divine power secretly works the salvation of these same sacraments. Hence, they are called sacraments from powers both secret and holy.

(S. Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi, Etymologiarum, Lib. VI, Cap. XIX, §§. 38-40; PL, 82:255; trans. LCC, 9:130, 131.) [19.]

Cf. Bede the Venerable (c. 672/3-735 A.D.):

     This is the bread which came down from heaven. This bread was symbolized by the manna; and this bread was symbolized by the altar of God. Those sacraments were different in signs but equal in the reality they signify [Sacramenta illa fuerunt in signis diversa sunt in re, quæ significantur paria sunt]. Listen to the Apostle: “I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food” (1 Corinthians 10:1-3). Indeed, spiritual, not physical. They had a different type because it was manna, while we have something else; but spiritually, it is the same as ours [spiritualem vero eamdem quam nos]. However, our ancestors were not like the ancestors of those who are like us, but rather those who were like them. Therefore, this is the bread that came down from heaven, so that anyone who eats of it shall not die. But what pertains to the power of the sacrament is not what pertains to the visible sacrament [Sed quod pertinet ad virtutem sacramenti, non quod pertinet ad visibile sacramentum]: one who eats inwardly, not outwardly; one who eats with the heart, not with the teeth. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Therefore, living because I came down from heaven. Manna came down from heaven too; but manna was a shadow, this is the truth.

(Bedæ Venerabilis, In S. Joannis Evangelium Expositio, Caput VI; PL, 92:717.) [20.]

Amalar of Triers (c. 775-850 A.D.):

Sacraments ought to have a certain similitude of those things, whereof they are sacraments. Let us, therefore, say, that the officiating priest bears a similitude to Christ, as the bread and wine bear a similitude to the body and blood of Christ. Thus also the sacrifice, offered up by the priest at the altar, is, after a sort [quodammodo], as the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.

(Symphosii Amalarii (Metensis Presbyteri et Chorepiscopi), De Ecclesiasticis Officiis Libri Quatuor, Præfatio Altera; PL, 105:989; trans. George Stanley Faber, The Difficulties of Romanism in Respect to Evidence: The Third Edition, Revised and Remoulded, [London: Thomas Bosworth, 1853], p. 258.)

Cf. Amalar of Triers (c. 775-850 A.D.):

Whence, as we learn from Augustine, if sacraments had not a certain similitude to those things whereof they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. But from this similitude, they commonly receive the names of the things themselves [Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque jam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt]. Therefore, as, after a certain mode [quemdam modum], the sacrament of Christ’s body is the body of Christ: and as the sacrament of Christ’s blood is the blood of Christ: so likewise, the sacrament of faith (in Baptism) is faith.

(Symphosii Amalarii (Metensis Presbyteri et Chorepiscopi), De Ecclesiasticis Officiis Libri Quatuor, Lib. I, Cap. XXIV; PL, 105:1043; trans. George Stanley Faber, The Difficulties of Romanism in Respect to Evidence: The Third Edition, Revised and Remoulded, [London: Thomas Bosworth, 1853], p. 258.)

Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz (c. 780-856 A.D.):

Our blessed Saviour would have the sacrament of His body and blood to be received by the mouth of the faithful, and to become their nourishment, that by the visible body the effects of the invisible might be known for as the material food feeds the body outwardly and makes it to grow, so the word of God doth inwardly nourish and strengthen the soul. …He would have the sacramental elements to be made of the fruits of the earth, that as He, who is God invisible, appeared visible in our flesh, and mortal to save us mortals, so He might by a thing visible fitly represent to us a thing invisible. …Some receive the sacred sign at the Lord’s table to their salvation, and some to their ruin; but the thing signified is life to every man, and death to none. Whoever receives it, is united as a member to Christ the Head in the kingdom of heaven; for the sacrament is one thing, and the efficacy of it another [quia aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti]; for the sacrament is received with the mouth, but the grace thereof feeds the inward man. …And as the first is turned into our substance when we eat it and drink it, so are we made the body of Christ when we live piously and obediently [Sicut ergo in nos id convertitur cum id manducamus et bibimus, sic et nos in corpus Christi convertimur dum obedienter et pie vivimus]. …Therefore the faithful do well and truly receive the body of Christ, if they neglect not to be His members; and they are made the body of Christ, if they will live of His Spirit.

(B. Rabani Mauri Archiep. Mogunt., De Clericorum Institutione, Lib. I, Cap. XXXIV; PL, 107:316-318; trans. John Cosin, The History of Popish Transubstantiation, ed. John Sherren Brewer, [London: J. Leslie, 1840], pp. 121-122.) [21.]

Christian [Druthmar] of Stavelot (c. 9th Century A.D.):

Our Lord gave to his disciples the sacrament of his body for the remission of sins and for the preservation of charity, that, being mindful of that fact, they might alway[s] in a figure do that, which he not forgetfully was about to do for them. This is my body: that is, in a sacrament. And, taking the cup, he gave thanks and gave unto them. Because, among all the nourishments of life, bread and wine avail to strengthen and refresh our infirmity, he was rightly pleased through these two to confirm the ministry of his sacrament. For wine both exhilarates and increases the blood. Therefore, not inconveniently, the blood of Christ is figured by this: since, whatsoever comes to us from him, makes us joyful with true joy, and increases all our good. As if any person, departing on a journey, leaves to his friends some bond of love, in the tenour that they should do this, every day, for the purpose of not forgetting him: so God commanded it to be done by us, spiritually transferring his body into the bread and the wine into his blood [transferens spiritaliter Corpus in panem, vinum in sanguinem], that by these two we may commemorate what he has done for us from his body and his blood, and may not be ungrateful to such most loving charity.

(Christiani Druthmari Corbeiensis Monachi, Expositio in Matthæum, Cap. LVI (Matth. xxvi. 26); PL, 106:1476-1477; trans. George Stanley Faber, The Difficulties of Romanism in Respect to Evidence: The Third Edition, Revised and Remoulded, [London: Thomas Bosworth, 1853], pp. 259-260.)

Florus of Lyon [Florus Magister] (c. 9th Century A.D.):

The flesh and blood of this sacrifice were prefigured by victims before the coming of Christ, were rendered by the very truth in the passion of Christ, and are celebrated through the sacrament of remembrance after the ascension of Christ [Hujus sacrificii caro et sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudine promittebatur, in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur, post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoria celebratur].

(Flori Diaconi Lugdunensis, De Expositione Missæ, §. 4; PL, 119:20.) Note: Observe the distinction between the “very truth” (ipsam veritatem) and the “sacrament of remembrance” (sacramentum memoria).

Cf. Florus of Lyon [Florus Magister] (c. 9th Century A.D.):

Truly, that bread is the body of Christ in the most sacred offering, not in matter or visible species [non materie vel specie visibili], but by spiritual virtue and power [sed virtute et potentia spirituali]. For neither is the body of Christ generated in the field, nor is His blood produced in the vineyard, nor pressed out in the winepress. The bread is simply made from grains, the wine is simply drawn from grapes; to these are added the faith of the offering Church, the consecration of mystical prayer, and the infusion of divine power; thus, in a wondrous and ineffable way, what is naturally bread and wine from earthly seed becomes spiritually [spiritualiter] the body of Christ, that is, the mystery of our life and salvation, in which we see one thing with bodily eyes and another with the eyes of faith; and not only what we receive with the mouth but what we believe with the mind, we honor [sed quod mente credimus, libamus].

(Flori Diaconi Lugdunensis, Opuscula Adversus Amalarium, Cap. I, §. 9; PL, 119:77.) [22.]

Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

This sacrament is a pledge and figure, the body of Christ is the truth. We observe this pledge until we shall have come to the truth, and then the pledge will be consummated. It is in truth, as we have already said, the body and blood of Christ, not bodily but spiritually; neither does it become us to inquire how this comes to pass, but to have firm faith that so it is. 

(Ælfric’s Easter Homily. Vind. Cath. III. 350; trans. William Wigan Harvey, The History and Theology of the Three Creeds: Volume I, [London: John W. Parker and Son, 1854], footnote, p. 296. Cf. JHT-TCF, 253-254.) [23.]

Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux (c. 1090-1153 A.D.): 

That the visible sign is as a ring, which is given not for itself or absolutely, but to invest and give possession of an estate made over to one. Many things (saith he) are done for their own sake, and many in reference to something else, and then they are called signs. A ring is given absolutely as a gift, and then it hath no other meaning: it is also given to make good an investiture or contract, and then it is a sign; so that he that receives it may say, ‘the ring is not worth much; it is what it signifies, the inheritance, I value.’ In this manner, when the passion of our Lord drew nigh, He took care that His disciples might be invested with His grace, that His invisible grace might be assured and given to them by a visible sign. To this end all sacraments are instituted, and to this the participation of the eucharist is appointed. 

(S. Bernardi Abbatis Claræ-Vallensis, In Coena A Domini Sermo [de baptismo, sacramento allaris, et ablutione pedum], §. 2; PL, 183:271; trans. John Cosin, The History of Popish Transubstantiation, ed. John Sherren Brewer, [London: J. Leslie, 1840], pp. 181-182.)

6. Endnotes (Alternate Translations and Additional Testimony). Return to Outline.

[i.] Cf. Edward Harold Browne:

In juxtaposition then, and immediate comparison with these feasts on Jewish and heathen offerings, St. Paul places the Christian festival of the Eucharist; and as he tells the Corinthians, that the Israelites in their feasts were partakers of the altar, and the heathen partook of the table of devils, so he says, Christians partake of the Lord’s table. But more than this, he asks, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a joint partaking (κοινωνία) of the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a joint partaking of the Body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread” (vv. 16, 17). The natural signification of the word κοινωνία, and the sense deducible from the context, require that it should be rendered, as above, joint partaking or joint participation. The parallel is between partaking of idol sacrifices, partaking of Jewish sacrifices, and partaking of the Christian Sacrifice, i.e. Christ. And the 17th verse is added to show, that by such participation there is a joint fellowship, not only with Christ, the Head, but with His whole Body the Church.

     Now, what must we infer from this teaching? Does it not plainly tell us, that the feeding at the Lord’s table corresponds with the feeding at the Jewish altar and the heathen idol-feasts. That, as the latter gave them participation in their sacrifices and their demon-gods, so the former gives us participation of Christ’s Body and Blood! This much we cannot, and we would not deny. The bread and wine are to us means or instruments, whereby, through God’s grace, we become partakers of the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. But, on the other hand, must we therefore infer, that we partake of Christ’s Body, naturally and materially? The very words appear to teach us otherwise. If there were a real change of the elements into Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood, it seems altogether unaccountable, that the force of the argument should have been weakened by the introduction of the word κοινωνία participation. If the bread be literally and substantially the Body, it would have been more natural to say, “Is not the bread which we break, Christ’s Body?” And the inference would be immediate; Can we eat Christ’s Body and demon-sacrifices together? The word κοινωνία, on which the peculiar strength of the passage depends, whilst it clearly points to the Eucharistic elements as ordained means to enable us to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet shows too that they are means of partaking, not themselves changed into the substance of that which they represent. They are ordained, that we may partake of Christ; but they are not Christ themselves.

(Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal: The Tenth Edition, [London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1874], pp. 728-729.) Return to Article.

[ii.] Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

…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 [signa] for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage…

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.9.13; PL, 34:71; trans. NPNF1, 2:560.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

“But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 27.3; PL, 35:1616; trans. NPNF1, 7:174.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

     So they said to him then, What shall we do, to work the works of God? For he had said to them, Work not for the food which perishes but for that which abides to eternal life. What shall we do? they say. “What observances must we keep, if we are to comply with this instruction?” Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, to believe in the one whom he has sent. (Jn 6:27-29) So this is to eat the food which does not perish, but which abides to eternal life. Why are you getting your teeth and stomachs ready? Believe and you have eaten. [Utquid paras dentes et ventrem? crede, et manducasti.]

(Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 25.12; PL, 35:1602; trans. WSA, I/12:439. Cf. NPNF1, 7:164.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

The one who eats inwardly, not outwardly; the one who eats in the heart, not the one who presses with the teeth [qui manducat intus, non foris; qui manducat in corde, non qui premit dente].

(Augustine of Hippo, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 26.12; PL, 35:1612. Cf. NPNF1, 7:172. Cf. WSA, I/12:460.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. C. J. Wright:

…the visible is ever the medium of the invisible—for those who have eyes to see. No one has seen God at any time, but Jesus, the Word has declared Him—to those who have ears to hear. …and all human experience corroborates it. The physical is sacramental of the spiritual, but on spiritual conditions. The external will touch the spirit, but only through the spirit. The material will reach the centre of man’s spiritual being, but never of itself. Always and everywhere there is the condition of faith, of insight, of obedience. Without one’s five senses physical contacts mean nothing, and convey nothing. To a blind man a sunset is not sacramental. To a deaf man, a symphony is not sacramental—unless, like Beethoven, he has written it himself. Incense means nothing, conveys nothing, to one who has no sense of sight or of smell. The mind is reached through the body, but it is only in so far as the physical that is without can in some way speak to the consciousness that is within, that the outward can be sacramental. Nothing, in other words, is sacramental in and by itself. Grace is a spiritual gift, and requires spiritual conditions for its reception. If it were otherwise, both the Giver and the Gift were degraded—as also the receiver.

(C. J. Wright, “Jesus: The Revelation of God;” In: The Mission and Message of Jesus: An Exposition of the Gospels in the Light of Modern Research, [New York, E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 1938], pp. 775-776.) Return to Article.

[1.] Full Text. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

     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 [signa]: those things, to wit, which are used to indicate something else. Accordingly, every sign is also a thing; for what is not a thing is nothing at all. Every thing, however, is not also a sign. And so, in regard to this distinction between things and signs, I shall, when I speak of things, speak in such a way that even if some of them may be used as signs also, that will not interfere with the division of the subject according to which I am to discuss things first and signs afterwards. But we must carefully remember that what we have now to consider about things is what they are in themselves, not what other things they are signs of.

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 1.2.2; PL, 34:19-20; trans. NPNF1, 2:523.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[2.] Cf. Denis J. Kavanagh, O.S.A.:

This and the following six sermons are not to be confused with the sermons listed under the same numbers in any edition of the complete works of St. Augustine. Six of them are from the collection of twenty-five sermons which were first published by Michael Denis at Vienna in 1792. The seventh is one of seventeen sermons which were first published by Dom Germain Morin in Revue Bénédictine, intermittently from 1890 to 1929. This sermon was first published in 1922. The present translation is based on the Latin text in the Miscellanea Agostiniana 1.21-38; 1.55-64; 1.627-635.

(FC, 11:307 fn.1.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

     So now they should stop saying to us, “What is there for you to give us, if we already have baptism?” They are so unaware of what they are saying, you see, that they are not even willing to read what holy scripture assures us of: that right inside the Church itself, that is to say, in the communion of the members of Christ, many were baptized in Samaria, and did not receive the Holy Spirit, but remained only in the baptismal state, until the apostles came to them from Jerusalem; while on the other hand Cornelius and those who were with him were found worthy to receive the Holy Spirit even before they received the sacrament of baptism. In this way God has taught us that the sign of salvation is one thing, salvation itself another; the form of godliness one thing, the power of godliness another.

(Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 260A, §. 3; trans. WSA, III/7:189.) Return to Article.

[3.] Alt. Trans. Second Clement (c. 95-140 A.D.):

The church being spiritual, was made manifest in the flesh of Christ, signifying to us that if any one of us shall preserve it in the flesh and corrupt it not, he shall receive it in the Holy Spirit. For this flesh is the type of the spirit; no one, therefore, having corrupted the type, will receive afterwards the antitype. Therefore is it, then, that He saith, brethren, “Preserve ye the flesh, that ye may become partakers of the spirit.”

(Second Clement, 14; trans. ANF, 9:255.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[4.] Alt. Trans. Gregory Nazianzen, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 329-390 A.D.): 

Will they bar me from the altars? But I know of yet another altar, one of which our visible specimens are only the symbols; one over which no chisel or workman’s hand has ever passed; that has never heard the hammer or other tool of the craftman’s trade, but is the product of the mind alone and approached only through contemplation. It is before this altar that I shall stand and offer acceptable victims as sacrifice and oblation and whole burnt-offerings so far superior to those we now make as truth is to shadow.

(Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 26.16; PG, 35:1248, 1249; trans. FC, 107:188.) Return to Article.

[5.] Καὶ ἴδε συγγένειαν τύπου πρὸς ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ἀληθείας ὑπεροχὴν πρὸς τύπον. Οὔτε γὰρ ἀπηλλοτριῶσθαι πάντη χρὴ τὸν τύπον τῆς ἀληθείας, ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴη τύπος· οὔτε πάλιν ἐξισάζειν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἐπεὶ πάλιν καὶ αὐτὸς ἀλήθεια ἔσται· ἀλλὰ δεῖ μένειν ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκείας συμμετρίας, καὶ μήτε τὸ πᾶν ἔχειν τῆς ἀληθείας, μήτε τοῦ πανα τὸς ἐκπεπτωκέναι. Ἂν μὲν γὰρ τὸ πᾶν ἔχῃ, ἀλήθεια πάλιν ἐστὶ καὶ αὐτὸς· ἂν δὲ τοῦ παντὸς ἐκπέσῃ, τύν πος εἶναι λοιπὸν οὐ δύναται· ἀλλὰ δεῖ τὸ μὲν ἔχειν, τὸ δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ τηρεῖν.

Alt. Trans. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

The figure [τύπον, type] may not be far off from the truth; otherwise it were no figure [τύπος, type]: neither may it be even, and one with the truth; otherwise it would be the truth itself. 

(S. Joannis Chrysostomi, Archiep. Constantinop., In Apostolicum Dictum, Nolo Vos Ignorare, etc., §. 4; PG, 51:248; trans. John Jewel, The Works of John Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury: The Second Portion, ed. John Ayre, [Cambridge: Printed at the University Press, 1847], p. 594.)

Alt. Trans. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

Look at the close kinship the prefiguration [τύπου, type] has with the truth [ἀλήθειαν], as well as the superiority of the truth [ἀληθείας] to the prefiguration [τύπον, type]. One shouldn’t entirely divorce the prefiguration [τύπον, type] from the truth [ἀληθείας], since then it wouldn’t be a prefiguration [τύπος, type]; but again neither should one equate it with the truth [ἀλήθειαν], since then the prefiguration [αὐτὸς, it] would itself be the truth [ἀλήθεια]. Instead, it’s necessary for the prefiguration [it] to remain within its own limits, neither having the whole truth nor completely falling short of it. For if it had the whole, then, again, the prefiguration [it] would itself be the truth, even as, if the prefiguration [it] fell completely short of the truth, in the end it couldn’t be a prefiguration [it]. Instead, it must contain, but not fully preserve, the truth.

(S. Joannis Chrysostomi, Archiep. Constantinop., In Apostolicum Dictum, Nolo Vos Ignorare, etc., §. 4; PG, 51:248; trans. Margaret M. Mitchell, John Chrysostom on Paul: Praises and Problem Passages, Writings from the Greco-Roman, Number 48, [Atlanta: SBL Press, 2022], p. 333.) Preview. [The brackets in the text are mine.] Return to Article.

[6.] Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

If that which you admire is a shadow, how great is that whose shadow you admire? Hear that what came to pass among the fathers is a shadow. It is said: ‘For they drank of the rock that followed, and the rock was Christ; but with many of them God was not well pleased; for they were laid low in the desert. Now these things came to pass in a figure for us.’? You recognize the more excellent things; for the light is more powerful than the shade, truth than figure, the body of its author than manna from heaven.

(Ambrose, The Mysteries, 8.49; PL, 16:405; trans. FC, 44:23.)

Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

The good cloud overshadows those whom the Holy Spirit visits; so he came upon the virgin Mary and the power of the Highest overshadowed her, when she bare redemption for the human race. And that miracle was wrought by Moses in a figure [figura]. If, then, the Spirit was present in the figure [figura], is he not present in the reality [veritate], since the Scripture says to thee, For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ?

(Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 3.13; PL, 16:393; trans. St. Ambrose, On the Mysteries and the Treatise on the Sacraments, trans. T. Thompson, ed. J. H. Strawley, [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1919], On the Mysteries, 3.13, p. 50. Cf. FC, 44:9.)

Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

You hear that our fathers were under a cloud, that is, a good cloud which cooled the fires of carnal passions, a good cloud; it overshadows those whom the Holy Spirit visits. Finally it came upon the Virgin Mary, and the power of the Most High overshadowed her, when she conceived the Redemption for the human race. And that miracle was performed in a figure by Moses. If then the Spirit was in a figure, He is now present in truth, when Scripture says to you: ‘For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.’

(Ambrose, The Mysteries, 3.13; PL, 16:393; trans. FC, 44:9.) Return to Article.

[7.] Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

Moreover, the Apostle says that in the Red Sea there was a figure of this baptism, in these words: ‘All our fathers were baptized in the cloud and in the sea,’ and he added: ‘Now all these things happened to them in figure,’ but to us in reality.

(Ambrose, The Sacraments, 1.6.20; PL, 16:423; trans. FC, 44:275-276.)

Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

There are many kinds of baptisms: but the Apostle cries, one baptism. Why? There are baptisms of the Gentiles, but they are no baptisms. They are baths, baptisms they cannot be. The flesh is washed, but guilt is not washed away; nay, it is contracted in that bath. There were, however, baptisms of the Jews, some superfluous, others figurative [in figura]. And the mere figure [figura] helps us, since it is the herald of reality [veritatis].

(S. Ambrosii, De Sacramentis, Lib. II, Cap. I, §. 2; PL, 16:424-425; trans. St. Ambrose, On the Mysteries and the Treatise on the Sacraments, trans. T. Thompson, ed. J. H. Strawley, [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1919], Treatise on the Sacraments, 2.1.2, p. 85. Cf. FC, 44:279-280.)

Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

The Apostle proclaims many kinds of baptism, but one baptism. Why? There are the baptisms of the Gentiles, but they are not baptism. They are baths, but they cannot be baptisms. The flesh is bathed; fault is not washed away; rather, in that bath fault is contracted. There were baptisms among the Jews, some superfluous, others in figure. And the figure itself was of benefit to us, since it is an indication of the truth.

(Ambrose, The Sacraments, 2.1.2; PL, 16:424-425; trans. FC, 44:279-280.)

Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

Therefore, if baptisms by way of figure [figura] could do so much, how much more can baptism in reality [veritate] do?

(S. Ambrosii, De Sacramentis, Lib. II, Cap. IV, §. 13; PL, 16:427; trans. St. Ambrose, On the Mysteries and the Treatise on the Sacraments, trans. T. Thompson, ed. J. H. Strawley, [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1919], Treatise on the Sacraments, 2.4.13, p. 90. Cf. FC, 44:283.)

Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

So, if in a figure baptisms have such great power, how much more power does baptism have in reality?

(Ambrose, The Sacraments, 2.4.13; PL, 16:427; trans. FC, 44:283.) Return to Article.

[8.] Alt. Trans. Gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia (c. ?-410 A.D.): 

In the shadow of that legal Passover not one lamb was slain, but many. For one was slain in every house, since one was not sufficient for all. But a figure is not the reality of the Lord’s passion. For a figure is not the truth, but an imitation of the truth. For man too was made in the image of God, but was not therefore God. 

(S. Gaudentii Brixiæ Episcopi, Sermo II. De Exodi Lectione Secundus; PL, 20:854-855; trans. John Harrison, An Answer to Dr. Pusey’s Challenge Respecting the Doctrine of the Real Presence: In Two Volumes: Vol. II, [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1871], pp. 100-101.) Return to Article.

[9.] Alt. Trans. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

We see this Doctor saith, that the Mystery of Christ’s Body and Blood is celebrated by the Faithful under a FIGURE [figura]. For he saith, To receive his Flesh and Blood carnally, is not an Act of Religion, but of Villany. For which Cause,they in the Gospel, who took our Saviour’s Words not Spiritually, but Carnally, departed from him, and followed him no more.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §. XXXIV; PL, 121:141; trans. Bertram or Ratram Concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, In Latin; With A New English Translation: The Second Edition, [London: H. Clark, 1688], §. 34, p. 173.) Return to Article.

[10.] Alt. Trans. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

…let us define what a Figure is, and what the Truth; that having some certain mark in our Eye, we may know how the better to direct the course of our Reasoning.

     A Figure is a certain covert manner of Expression, which exhibits what it intends under certain Vails. For example; We call the Word, Bread, as in the Lords Prayer, we beg that God would give us our daily Bread: Or as Christ in the Gospel speaks, I am the Living Bread that came down from Heaven. Or when he calls himself a Vine, and his Disciples Branches, I am the true Vine, and ye are the Branches. In all these Instances, one is said and another thing is understood.

     The Truth is the Representation of the very thing it self, not vailed with any Shadow or Figure, but expressed according to the pure and naked (or to speak more plainly yet) natural Signification of the words. As when we say that Christ was Born of a Virgin, Suffered, was Crucified, Dead and Buried: Here is nothing shadowed out under the coverture of Figures, but the very Truth of the thing is expressed, according to the natural Signification of the words; nor is anything here understood but what is said. But in the forementioned Instances it is not so. For in Substance, neither is Christ Bread, or a Vine, nor the Apostles Branches. These are Figures, but in the other, the plain and naked Truth is related.

     Now let us return to the Subject which hath occasioned the saying of all this, viz. the Body and Blood of Christ. If there be no figure in that Mystery, it is not properly called a Mystery; for that cannot be said to be a Mystery, which hath nothing secret, nothing remote from our bodily Senses, nothing covered under any Vail. But as for that Bread which by the Ministry of the Priest, is made Christ’s Body, it sheweth one thing outwardly to our Senses, and inwardly proclaims quite another thing to the minds of the Faithful. That which outwardly appears is Bread, as it was before in Form, Colour and Taste: But inwardly there is quite another thing presented to us, and that much more precious and excellent, because it is Heavenly and Divine: That is, Christ’s Body is exhibited which is beheld, received, and eaten, not by our carnal Senses, but by the sight of the believing Soul.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §§. VI-IX; PL, 121:130-131; trans. Bertram or Ratram Concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, In Latin; With A New English Translation: The Second Edition, [London: H. Clark, 1688], §§. 6-9, pp. 137, 139, 141.) Return to Article.

[11.] Cf. James Ussher:

In the year 1608 there were published at Paris certain works of Fulbertus, Bishop of Chartres, “pertaining as well to the refuting of the heresies of this time” (for so saith the inscription) “as to the clearing of the History of the French.” Among those things that appertain to the confutation of the heresies of this time, there is one especially (fol. 168) laid down in these words: Nisi manducaveritis, inquit, carnem filii hominis, et sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figura ergo est, dicet hæreticus, præcipiens Passioni Domini esse communicandum tantum, et suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoriâ, quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit. “Unless, saith Christ, ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. He seemeth to command an outrage or wickedness. It is therefore a figure, will the heretic say, requiring us only to communicate with the Lord’s Passion, and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.” He that put in those words (dicet hæreticus) thought he had notably met with the heretics of this time; but was not aware, that thereby he made St Augustine an heretic for company. For the heretic that speaketh thus, is even St Augustine himself: whose very words these are, in his third book De Doctrinâ Christianâ, the 16th chapter. Which some belike having put the publisher in mind of, he was glad to put this among his errata, and to confess that these two words were not to be found in the MS. copy which he had from Petavius; but telleth us not what we are to think of him, that for the countenancing of the Popish cause ventured so shamefully to abuse St Augustine.

(James Ussher, Archbishop Usher’s Answer to a Jesuit: With Other Tracts on Popery, [Cambridge: Pitt Press, 1835], “An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuit in Ireland,” Ch. 1: An Answer to the Former Challenge, pp. 14-15.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

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 [figura], 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.

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24; PL, 34:74-75; trans. NPNF1, 2:563.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[12.] Alt. Trans. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (c. 310-367 A.D.): 

For no one is himself his own image, but it is necessary that the image should demonstrate him of whom it is an image. 

(Hilary of Poitiers, De Synodis [On the Councils], §. 13; trans. NPNF2, 9:7.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Peter Martyr Vermigli:

Chedsey: It is true that Tertullian and Augustine[fn. 199: MSa omits Augustine: Marcion haereticus in causa erat Tertullianus sic verbu hic interpretatur (AL, 2:xlvi).] say that it is a figure, yet they do not exclude the thing itself, so that the figure and the figured are the same. Likewise to the Hebrews: “The Son is the image of the Father’s substance,”[fn. 200: Heb. 1:3.] and yet is the same as [35v] the Father’s substance. But if you say in that place: he is a figure of the Father’s substance; therefore he is not the Father’s substance, you see clearly that the argument does not hold. So in the present matter, to say it is a figure of the body of Christ and therefore it is not the body of Christ, does not follow.

Martyr: Whether it follows or not is not in question; I only say this, that in that style of speech, “This is my body,” the Fathers identified a figure, as their own words show, for they often use a figure and representation. In his treatise On Christian doctrine and elsewhere, Augustine clearly declares that the saying about eating the body of Christ is figurative: what you deny, he affirms at length.[fn. 201: Augustine, De doctrina christiana III.9 (PL 34.70-71).] When you allege that sign and signified are one, it is beside the point, nor could you easily prove it. To the place in the letter to the Hebrews that the Son is called a figure of the Father’s substance, I say that Paul there speaks of the Son insofar as he is human, and in this respect is a figure, and not the substance of the Father. Through the figure antonomasia he comes to have the image of the Father, which fits him more nobly than other men. Here are the words of the letter: “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.”[fn. 202: Heb. 1:1.] If you understand “Son” in regard to his divinity, God spoke through him as well as the prophets in the Old Testament, as he spoke to us in our time. But the difference lies in this, that now through his humanity he performed what he did not in antiquity. If you argue that this speech must be understood of the divine person, it still would not prove that sign and signified are one. [36r] For the Greek words are “the likeness of his substance.”[fn. 203: tês hypostasês auton (Heb. 1:3): MSa omits the Greek text (AL, 2:xlvii).] What our interpreter simply called “substance” is in Greek hypostasis. Since the person of the Son is not the person of the Father, in terms of divinity the Son may well be called the substantial figure [figura hypostaseos] of the Father. Yet it does not follow that figure and figured are one; for between persons there is (as they term it) a real distinction.[fn. 204: The Nicene-Constantinopolitan theology of the Trinity held “three persons in one substance,” distinguishing among the three without ontological separation.]

(Peter Martyr Vermigli, “A Disputation on the Sacrament of the Eucharist,” Second Day; In: The Oxford Treatise and Disputation on the Eucharist, The Peter Martyr Library: Volume Seven, trans. & ed. Joseph C. McLelland, [Moscow: The Davenant Press, 2018], pp. 188-189.) Return to Article.

[13.] Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

These are mysteries [sacramenta] in which one always looks not to what they are, but to what they reveal. They are signs of things; what they are is one thing, what they signify another.

(Augustine, Answer to Maximinus the Arian, 2.22.3; PL, 42:794; trans. WSA, I/18:307.)

Cf. Pamela Jackson (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

Later sacramental theology would see the sacraments as having the symbol’s quality of being able to represent what it signifies as well as point to it, as having not only sacramentum (outward sign of a more important spiritual reality) and res (invisible reality), but also res et sacramentum; in the Eucharist this res et sacramentum is Christ really present. Since Augustine’s definition of sign, however, contains only sacramentum and res, when he speaks of the consecrated elements in the Eucharist, they cannot be res, by definition an invisible reality, so he must see them as sacramentum, something which points beyond itself to res.

(Pamela Jackson (Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary), “Eucharist;” In: Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, gen. ed., Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A., [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999], p. 334.)

Cf. Helmut Hoping (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

     Bread and wine are signs of a pneumatic reality, the glorified Christ, who died for us and in his self-surrender gives himself anew for us again and again in his Body and Blood. In this sense, Augustine distinguishes between sacramentum tantum, the mere sign, and the res sacramenti, the reality of the sacrament. Unworthy Communion is manducare tantum in sacramento. What matters, however, is to partake not only according to the mere sign: “To eat Christ’s body and drink his blood . . . in reality it . . . means to abide in Christ in such a way that Christ also abides in us.” For the sign alone (sacramentum tantum) is fleeting.

     The sign is not yet regarded by Augustine in its own substantiality but, rather, altogether as a sign and image for the invisible reality given therein. The question about the reality of the sacrament was not fiercely debated until the early Middle Ages. One prerequisite for it was that the understanding of the Eucharist since Isidore of Seville (d. 636) increasingly shifted from the εὐχαριστία as a cultic thanksgiving to which the faithful were called to participate through the gratias agamus to the presence of Christ in the sacramental signs. Gratiarum actio (thanksgiving) became bona gratia (good grace = a literal Latin rendering of eu-charistia). The relation of the sacramental-mystical Body to the ecclesial Body of the Lord, which in Augustine’s writings is still entirely in the foreground, recedes in importance. This was accompanied by a decline in the reception of Communion by the faithful.

(Helmut Hoping, My Body Given for You: History and Theology of the Eucharist, trans. Michael J. Miller, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2019], p. 117.) Preview.

Cf. Gary Wills (Roman Catholic Historian):

     Augustine repeatedly says that Christ cannot be chewed, digested, and excreted. He says that Christ as bread refers to “the validity of the mystery (virtus sacramenti), not to the visibility of the mystery (visibile sacramentum), given to the one who eats inwardly, not outwardly, one who feeds his heart, not one who chews with his teeth” (In Johannis Evangelium Tractatus 26.12). …For us to be united with Jesus we must be taken into him, not he into us. We must become his members (In Johannis Evangelium Tractatus 27.6).

(Gary Wills, Font of Life: Ambrose, Augustine and the Mystery of Baptism, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012], p. 155.)

Cf. William Harmless, S.J. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

For Augustine the Body of Christ appeared as a sort of diptych: at once sanctified people and sanctified bread. This double image was at once fact and exhortation, an indicative and an imperative. He encapsulated this in one of his most memorable aphorisms:

Estote quod videtis, Be what you see,

et accipite quod estis. and receive what you are.[S. 272 (PL 38:1247-48)]

Augustine did not conceive of real presence in strictly ritual terms. His thinking admitted no sharp fissure between the real presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and the real presence of Christ within the Christian community.

(William Harmless, S.J., Augustine and the Catechumenate: Revised Edition, forward by Allan Fitzgerald, O.S.A, [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2014], p. 376.) Preview.

Cf. Father Jack A. Bonsor (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

     Readers familiar with Catholic theology might wonder about Augustine’s position regarding the real presence. Does he hold the church’s doctrine of transubstantiation?

     The question is anachronistic. That is, it takes an issue from later theological disputes and asks it of Augustine’s theology. Augustine never asked the question in this way. He did not focus on what happens to the elements of bread and wine. More, his Neoplatonic perspective never suggested the question of substance. 

(Jack A. Bonsor, Athens and Jerusalem: The Role of Philosophy in Theology, [New York: Paulist Press, 1993], p. 43.)

Cf. Emmanuel J. Cutrone (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

…a full understanding of Augustine’s theological reflections on sacraments must begin with his treatment of signs. Augustine operates within a Platonic worldview which understands the material, visible world to be a manifestation of a deeper inner reality. What is seen and experienced are reflections of a truer world, in such a way that material reality becomes a sign which both reveals and veils the inner world. Augustine, then, understands all signs to have a revelatory quality, but they are not mirror images of what they signify.

(Emmanuel J. Cutrone, “Sacraments;” In: Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, gen. ed., Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A., [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999], p. 741.)

Cf. Joseph Martos (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

With regard to the eucharist, Augustine does not seem to have insisted on the sacramental realism that eventually became part of the Latin theological tradition… 

(Joseph Martos, Deconstructing Sacramental Theology and Reconstructing Catholic Ritual, [Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2015], p. 140.) Return to Article.

[14.] Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

…the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament [per Sacramentum memoriæ celebratur].

(Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichæan, 20.21; trans. NPNF1, 4:262.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[15.] Cf. Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

In short, Augustine teaches that the Church is the true body of Christ (verum corpus Christi) while the eucharistic elements are the sacrament of the body of Christ (sacramentum corporis Christi). Hence the sacrament of the body of Christ is received in the true body of Christ. ...The visible in the sacrament is the expression and possibility of encounter with the invisible, i.e., Christ and the invisible Church: “These things, brothers, are called sacraments, because in them something is seen, [but] something else is understood.”[fn. 64: “Ista, fratres, ideo dicuntur Sacramenta, quia in eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur”—Augustine, Sermo 272 (PL 38.1247); cf. Principia dialecticae 5 (PL. 32.1410-11).]

(Edward J. Kilmartin S.J., The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology, ed. Robert J. Daly, S.J., [Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2004], pp. 28, 26.) Return to Article.

[16.] Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Finally, Christ himself says: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” He thus shows what it is to eat the body of Christ and drink His blood, not only in the sacrament, but in reality [non sacramento tenus, sed re vera], for to remain in Christ is to have Christ also remaining in him. For this is the same as if he said: “He who does not remain in me, and in whom I do not remain, may not say or think that he is eating my body or drinking my blood.”

(Augustine of Hippo, The City of God, 21.25; PL, 41:742; trans. LCL, 417:137. Cf. NPNF1, 2:473; FC, 24:397-398.) See also: ccel.org and loebclassics.com. Return to Article.

[17.] Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

...but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue [virtus, power] of the sacrament another.

(Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 26.11; PL, 35:1611; trans. NPNF1, 7:171.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[18.] Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

But those with whom we are arguing, or about whom we are arguing, are not to be despaired of, for they are yet in the body; but they cannot seek the Holy Spirit, except in the body of Christ, of which they possess the outward sign outside the Church, but they do not possess the actual reality itself within the Church of which that is the outward sign, and therefore they eat and drink damnation to themselves. For there is but one bread which is the sacrament of unity, seeing that, as the apostle says, “We, being many, are one bread, and one body.”

(Augustine, A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists [De Correctione Donatistarum, Liber Seu Epistola CLXXXV], 185.11.50; PL, 33:815; trans. NPNF1, 4:651. Cf. FC, 30:189.) See also: ccel.org.

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Those with whom we are treating, or of whom we are treating, are not to be despaired of, for they are still in the body. But let them not seek the Holy Spirit except in the Body of Christ. It is true they have His sacrament outside the Church, but they do not hold the reality of it within, for it is His sacrament, and therefore they eat and drink judgment to themselves. For, the one bread is the sacrament of unity, since, as the Apostle says: ‘We being many are one bread, one body.’

(Augustine, Letter 185.50 [To Boniface]; PL, 33:815; trans. FC, 30:189. Cf. NPNF1, 4:651.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

     And now then, my dearest friends, we have recognized the great sacrament. Listen. He was walking with them, he is hospitably entertained, he breaks bread, and he’s recognized. And we too must not say that we have not known Christ. We have known him if we believe. It’s too little to say we have known him if we believe; we have him with us if we believe. They had Christ with them at a meal together; we have him inside in our spirits. It’s a greater thing to have Christ in your heart than in your house. Our hearts, after all, are more inwardly attached to us than our houses. So now then, where ought the faithful to recognize him? The faithful know where; the catechumens, though, don’t know; but nobody is shutting the door in their faces, to stop them knowing.

(Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 232.7; trans. WSA, III/7:28.) Return to Article.

[19.] Cf. Isidore, Archbishop of Seville (c. 560-636 A.D.):

For the bread we break is the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16), who said: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven” (John 6:51). The wine, however, is His blood, and this is what is written: “I am the true vine” (John 15:1); but bread, because it strengthens the body, is therefore called the body of Christ, while wine, because it functions as blood in the flesh, is referred to as the blood of Christ. [Panis enim quem frangimus corpus Christi est (1 Cor. X), qui dixit: Ego sum panis vivus, qui de cœlo descendi (Joan. VI). Vinum autem sanguis ejus est, et hoc est, quod scriptum est Ego sum vitis vera (Joan. VI); sed panis, quia corpus confirmat, ideo corpus Christi nuncupatur, vinum autem, quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur.]

(S. Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi, De Ecclesiasticis Officiis, Lib. I, Cap. XVIII, §. 3; PL, 83:755.) Return to Article.

[20.] Hic est panis qui de cœlo descendit. Hunc panem significavit manna; hunc autem panem significavit altare Dei. Sacramenta illa fuerunt in signis diversa sunt in re, quæ significantur paria sunt. Apostolum audi: Nolo enim vos, inquit, ignorare, fratres, quia patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt, et omnes per mare transierunt, et omnes in Moyse baptizati sunt in nube et in mari, et omnes eamdem escam spiritualem manducaverunt (1 Cor. x). Spiritualem utique, non corporalem. Alteram illi, quia manna, nos aliud; spiritualem vero eamdem quam nos, sed patres nostri, non patres illorum, quibus nos similes sumus, non quibus illi similes fuerunt. Hic est ergo panis de cælo descendens; ut si quis ex ipso manducaverit, non moriatur. Sed quod pertinet ad virtutem sacramenti, non quod pertinet ad visibile sacramentum: qui manducat intus, non foris; qui manducat in corde, non qui premit dente. Ego sum panis vivus qui de cœlo descendi. Ideo vivus, quia de cœlo descendi. De cœlo descendit et manna; sed manna umbra erat, iste veritas est. Return to Article.

[21.] Cf. Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz (c. 780-856 A.D.):

Indeed, the Lord willed that the sacraments of His body and blood be received by the mouths of the faithful and turned into their nourishment, so that through a visible act the effect of the invisible might be shown. Just as material food nourishes and sustains the body externally, so too does the word of God internally nourish and strengthen the soul; for man lives not by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), and: The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). For the Truth itself says: My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink (John 6:55). Indeed, the flesh of Christ is food because it truly nourishes and sustains man to eternal life, and His blood is truly drink because it satisfies the hungry soul and thirst for justice eternally. Men can have temporal life without this food and drink, but not eternal life, because this food and drink signify eternal union with the head and its members. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him (John 6:56). The sacrament of this matter, that is, the unity of Christ’s body and blood, is taken from the Lord’s table; some for life, others for destruction. The reality itself is for every person’s life, none for destruction, for whoever is a participant is united with Christ the head in the heavenly kingdom. For the sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the sacrament is another. The sacrament is received through the mouth, but the virtue of the sacrament satisfies the inner man. Therefore, since bread confirms the body, it is appropriately called the body of Christ; and wine, because it operates in the flesh as blood, is referred to as the blood of Christ. These, while visible, are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and become the sacrament of the divine body. [Maluit enim Dominus corporis et sanguinis sui sacramenta fidelium ore percipi, et in pastum eorum redigi, ut per visibile opus invisibilis ostenderetur effectus. Sicut enim cibus materialis forinsecus nutrit corpus et vegetat: ita etiam verbum Dei intus animam nutrit et roborat: quia non solo in pane vivit homo, sed in omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei (Matth. IV); et: Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (Joan. I). Ait enim ipsa Veritas: Caro enim mea vere cibus est, et sanguis meus vere est potus (Joan. VI). Vere scilicet caro Christi est cibus, quia vere pascit et ad æternam vitam hominem nutrit et sanguis ejus vere est potus, quia esurientem animam et sitientem justitiam in æternum veraciter satiat. Temporalem quippe vitam sine isto cibo et potu habere possunt homines, æternam omnino non possunt quia iste cibus et potus æternam societatem capitis membrorumque suorum significat. Qui manducat, inquit, meam carnem, et bibit sanguinem meum, ipse in me manet, et ego in eo (Joan. VI). Hujus rei sacramentum, id est, unitatis corporis et sanguinis Christi, de mensa Dominica assumitur quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res vero ipsa omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque ejus particeps fuerit, idem Christo capiti membrum associatur in regno cœlesti: quia aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti. Sacramentum enim ore percipitur, virtute sacramenti interior homo satiatur. Ergo quia panis corpus confirmat, ideo ille corpus Christi congruenter nuncupatur: vinum autem, quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur. Hæc autem dum sunt visibilia, sanctificata tunc per Spiritum sanctum, in sacramentum divini corporis transeunt.]

(B. Rabani Mauri Archiep. Mogunt., De Universo Libri Viginti Duo, Lib. V, Cap. XI; PL, 111:135-136.) Return to Article.

[22.] Prorsus panis ille sacrosanctæ oblationis corpus est Christi, non materie vel specie visibili, sed virtute et potentia spirituali. Neque enim in agro nobis corpus Christi gignitur, aut in vinea sanguis ejus exoritur, vel torculari exprimitur. Simplex e frugibus panis conficitur, simplex e botris vinum liquatur, accedit ad hæc offerentis Ecclesiæ fides, accedit mysticæ precis consecratio, accedit divinæ virtutis infusio; sicque, miro et ineffabili modo, quod est naturaliter ex germine terreno panis et vinum, efficitur spiritualiter corpus Christi, id est vitæ et salutis nostræ mysterium, in quo aliud oculis corporis, aliud fidei videmus obtentu; nec id tantum quod ore percipimus, sed quod mente credimus, libamus.

Full Text. Florus of Lyon [Florus Magister] (c. 9th Century A.D.):

Truly, that bread is the body of Christ in the most sacred offering, not in visible matter or species, but by spiritual virtue and power. For neither is the body of Christ generated in the field, nor is His blood produced in the vineyard, nor pressed out in the winepress. The bread is simply made from grains, the wine is simply drawn from grapes; to these are added the faith of the offering Church, the consecration of mystical prayer, and the infusion of divine power; thus, in a wondrous and ineffable way, what is naturally bread and wine from earthly seed becomes spiritually [spiritualiter] the body of Christ, that is, the mystery of our life and salvation, in which we see one thing with bodily eyes and another with the eyes of faith; and not only what we receive with the mouth but what we believe with the mind. Hence, we sincerely ask that what we touch with our mouth, we may receive with a pure mind. Therefore, this food is of the mind, not of the stomach; it is not corrupted but remains for eternal life, as it brings eternal life to the pious partakers. One partakes piously who, illuminated by the spirit of faith, hungers and thirsts for the virtue of intelligible grace in that visible food and drink; and perceives less of indulgence, and spiritual salvation... no pollution is to be thought or feared in this mystery. For Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God received therein; which wisdom, as Scripture testifies, is the brightness of eternal light and a certain emanation of God’s purity, and thus nothing impure reaches it, but it retains its purity everywhere. Therefore, as previously stated, the body of Christ is not in visible species but in spiritual virtue, nor can it be polluted by bodily dregs, which it is accustomed to cleanse from the vices of both souls and bodies. [Prorsus panis ille sacrosanctæ oblationis corpus est Christi, non materie vel specie visibili, sed virtute et potentia spirituali. Neque enim in agro nobis corpus Christi gignitur, aut in vinea sanguis ejus exoritur, vel torculari exprimitur. Simplex e frugibus panis conficitur, simplex e botris vinum liquatur, accedit ad hæc offerentis Ecclesiæ fides, accedit mysticæ precis consecratio, accedit divinæ virtutis infusio; sicque, miro et ineffabili modo, quod est naturaliter ex germine terreno panis et vinum, efficitur spiritualiter corpus Christi, id est vitæ et salutis nostræ mysterium, in quo aliud oculis corporis, aliud fidei videmus obtentu; nec id tantum quod ore percipimus, sed quod mente credimus, libamus. Unde et fideliter petimus ut quod, ore contingimus, pura mente capiamus. Mentis ergo est cibus iste, non ventris; non corrumpitur, sed permanet in vitam æternam, quoniam pie sumentibus confert vitam æternam. Pie autem sumit qui, spiritu fidei illuminatus, in illo cibo et potu visibili virtutem intelligibilis gratiæ esurit ac sitit; et minus indulgentiæ, et salutis spiritaliter percipit... nullatenus cogitanda vel metuenda est in hoc mysterio ulla pollutio. Christus enim Dei virtus, et Dei sapientia in eo sumitur; quæ sapientia, ut Scriptura testatur, candorem lucis æternæ, et emanatio quædam claritatis Dei sinceris, et ideo nihil inquinatum in illam incurrit, attingit autem ubique suam munditiam. Corpus igitur Christi, ut prædictum est, non est in specie visibili, sed in virtute spiritali, nec inquinari potest fæce corporea, quod et animarum et corporum vitia mundare consuevit.]

(Flori Diaconi Lugdunensis, Opuscula Adversus Amalarium, Cap. I, §. 9; PL, 119:77-78.) Return to Article.

[23.] Alt. Trans. Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

This mystery is a pledge and a symbol; Christ’s body is truth. This pledge we hold mystically until we come to the truth, and then will this pledge be ended. But it is, as we before said, Christ’s body and his blood, not bodily but spiritually. Ye are not to inquire how it is done, but to hold in your belief that it is so done.

(Ælfric of Eynsham, Sermo de Sacrificio in Die Pascae (A Sermon on the Sacrifice on Easter-Day); trans. The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church: The First Part, Containing the Sermones Catholici, or Homilies of Ælfric: In the Original Anglo-Saxon, With an English Version: Vol. II, trans. Benjamin Thorpe, [London: Printed for the Ælfric Society, 1846], p. 273. Cf. JHT-TCF, 253-254.)

Cf. Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

     Now certain men have often inquired, and yet frequently inquire, how the bread, which is prepared from corn, and baked by the heat of fire, can be changed to Christ’s body; or the wine, which is wrung from many berries, can by any blessing be changed to the Lord’s blood? Now we say to such men, that some things are said of Christ typically, some literally. It is a true and certain thing that Christ was born of a maiden, and of his own will suffered death, and was buried, and on this day arose from death. He is called bread typically, and lamb, and lion, and whatever else. He is called bread, because he is the life of us and of angels; he is called a lamb for his innocence; a lion for the strength wherewith he overcame the strong devil. But yet, according to true nature, Christ is neither bread, nor a lamb, nor a lion. Why then is the holy housel called Christ’s body or his blood, if it is not truly that which it is called? But the bread and the wine which are hallowed through the mass of the priests, appear one thing to human understandings without, and cry another thing to believing minds within. Without they appear bread and wine, both in aspect and in taste; but they are truly, after the hallowing, Christ’s body and his blood through a ghostly mystery. A heathen child is baptized, but it varies not its aspect without, although it be changed within. It is brought to the font-vessel sinful through Adam’s transgression, but it will be washed from all sins within, though it without change not its aspect. In like manner the holy font-water, which is called the well-spring of life, is in appearance like other waters, and is subject to corruption; but the might of the Holy Ghost approaches the corruptible water through the blessing of the priests, and it can afterwards wash body and soul from all sins through ghostly might. Lo now we see two things in this one creature. According to true nature the water is a corruptible fluid, and according to a ghostly mystery has salutary power; in like manner, if we behold the holy housel in a bodily sense, then we see that it is a corruptible and changeable creature. But if we distinguish the ghostly might therein, then understand we that there is life in it, and that it gives immortality to those who partake of it with belief. Great is the difference between the invisible might of the holy housel and the visible appearance of its own nature. By nature it is corruptible bread and corruptible wine, and is by power of the divine word truly Christ’s body and his blood; not, however, bodily, but spiritually. Great is the difference between the body in which Christ suffered, and the body which is hallowed for housel. The body verily in which Christ suffered was born of Mary’s flesh, with blood and with bones, with skin and with sinews, with human limbs, quickened by a rational soul; and his ghostly body, which we call housel, is gathered of many corns, without blood and bone, limbless and soulless, and there is, therefore, nothing therein to be understood bodily, but all is to be understood spiritually. Whatsoever there is in the housel which gives us the substance of life, that is from its ghostly power and invisible efficacy: therefore is the holy housel called a mystery, because one thing is seen therein and another thing understood. That which is there seen has a bodily appearance, and that which we understand therein has ghostly might. Verily Christ’s body which suffered death, and from death arose, will henceforth never die, but is eternal and impassible. The housel is temporary, not eternal; corruptible, and is distributed piece-meal; chewed betwixt teeth, and sent into the belly: but it is, nevertheless, by ghostly might, in every part all. Many receive the holy body, and it is, nevertheless, in every part all, by a ghostly miracle. Though to one man a less part be allotted, yet is there no more power in the great part than in the less; because it is in every man whole, by the invisible might.

(Ælfric of Eynsham, Sermo de Sacrificio in Die Pascae (A Sermon on the Sacrifice on Easter-Day); trans. The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church: The First Part, Containing the Sermones Catholici, or Homilies of Ælfric: In the Original Anglo-Saxon, With an English Version: Vol. II, trans. Benjamin Thorpe, [London: Printed for the Ælfric Society, 1846], pp. 269, 271, 273.) Return to Article.

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria