Chapter 34: Understanding Figurative Language in Sacramental Context
unto salvation," meaning it is the instrument whereby God's power is declared to the saved. The Gospel of the cross is foolishness to the ungodly, representing foolishness to them but the power and wisdom of God to the godly. The law is said to set before the Hebrews life and death, blessing and cursing, signifying the promises and threats expressed in it.
In Genesis, the seven kine and ears of corn represent seven years. Ahia the Prophet gave Jeroboam ten pieces of his torn mantle, symbolizing the kingdom of the ten tribes. Paul writes in the first Corinthians, "The woman ought to have on her head power," referring to a covering symbolizing the husband's power. In the second Corinthians, "God made Christ to be sin," meaning He represented the flesh. Sacrifices for sins are called sin, and priests are said to eat the sins of the people, meaning they consume the sacrifices offered for sins.
In Ezekiel, "I will pour upon you pure water" signifies the Holy Ghost.
Christ says, "He that drinks of this water," referring to the Spirit. The Passover lamb is called the Passover, a monument and signification of the Angel passing over. Christ sought a place to eat the Passover with His apostles, referring to the consecrated items representing the passing over.
Paul says, "Christ our Passover is offered," meaning Christ himself represents our solemnity and passing over.
These examples illustrate that the body of Christ, which once suffered, is now commemorated and symbolized through the Eucharist, not to be crucified or have its blood shed again.
Chapter 34:
Understanding Figurative Language in Sacramental Context
And if they would expound these words of Christ rigorously, when He says, "This is my body which is given for you," it would be necessary for them to say that the bread was to be crucified, or at the very least, Christ hidden under accidents, as they appoint in the Sacrament. For Christ, showing what
He had in His hands, said that the same should be delivered and shed for them. But if they say it was indeed the same that was delivered, but not in the same manner or form, then they seek interpretations and shifts, and do not take the proposition simply. This is evident in the words, "is delivered" and "is shed."
If, while we utter the words of consecration, they are understood as they sound, the body of Christ will be signified as being presently crucified, and His blood presently shed, or within a while to be shed. But they would have these words to be converted into the preterperfect tense, to understand that the body is delivered and that the blood is shed: and this is to deal figuratively when one tense is taken for another.
Whereas Paul said, "They which eat unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," and "they eat their own condemnation because they put no difference in the Lord's body," it means nothing without further explanation. Ambrose answers this while interpreting that place: "They shall be punished for the Lord's death because He was slain for them who make no account of His benefit." Therefore, he interprets them to be guilty of the Lord's body, yet Transubstantiation is not required here.
Those who receive unworthily are said not to put a difference, meaning they have no esteem for the Lord's body: because the conjunction between the signs and the things signified is so great that the reproach of one redounds to the other. Paul similarly spoke when he said, "A man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonours Christ," implying that what is done to the man's head, a sign of Christ, redounds to Christ.
Figurative Language and Scriptural Context It is also important to consider that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, who were not entirely devoid of faith, but troubled with some infirmities. We do not claim that only these kinds of men receive the signs and not the body of Christ, but we affirm this of infidels, Epicureans, atheists, and strangers from the Church. Thus, it might rightly be said to them, not only regarding the signs but also regarding the matter of the sacrament, that they were guilty of the body and blood because they made no difference in the Lord's body, receiving it without faith and not expressing it in their lives.
When Paul speaks of the sacramental action, that is, the eating and drinking, he mentions bread, saying, "He that eateth this bread." But when he wants to emphasize the fault, he mentions the Lord's body. In the entire treatise on this Sacrament, Paul mentions bread more often than the body of the Lord.
He mentions bread five times and the body of the Lord only four times.
Figurative Interpretation of "This is My Body"
Now we must see what compels us to understand this phrase, "This is my body," figuratively. First, consider that Christ was present at the supper, so there was no need for Him to show His body to His apostles—they saw
Him. Further, how could He eat Himself really and corporally? That He communicated with His apostles is affirmed by the fathers and by Christ
Himself in Matthew: "I will not hereafter drink of this fruit of the vine."
Moreover, we consider the remembrance aspect, which indicates a figure.
These men change the tenses; what is pronounced in the future or present tense regarding the delivery of the body and shedding of the blood, they interpret in the preterperfect tense. We also note that they cannot be without signs in their consecration because they understand the verb "is" as "it is
changed," "it is transubstantiated," or "it is made." Christ, instituting a sacrament, meant for the signs to be understood figuratively, according to the nature of a sacrament, which is a sign.
Further Considerations and Analogies We also consider the ascension of Christ into heaven, the truth of the human nature He took upon Himself, and what is written in John when He said to the Capernaites: "My words are spirit and life, the flesh profits nothing," meaning being carnally eaten; it is the spirit that quickens. Paul, who clearly names it bread, should also be considered. Despite these men insisting it is a figure, Paul testifies that the forefathers had the same sacrament that we have. Augustine asserts it was not enough to say they had spiritual meat and drink; he added, "the same." The Apostle also mentions baptism, which they obtained in the sea and the cloud, showing that they had the same sacraments as us.
Analogy and Sacramental Unity We also see that adjoining speeches are understood figuratively. For instance, "The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ," and "This cup is the New Testament." These things have been often rehearsed. It does not well agree with the body of Christ to be eaten. These considerations illustrate what should be said to the second argument, where they object that the sentence must not be understood figuratively unless something else compels it. They urge the phrase, "which shall be given for you," insisting on a literal sense, but this is false as we change the tenses.
We do not take it to be the body that was delivered, for that was visible and passable. The conditions of a corruptible body and the qualities of a glorified body cannot coexist in one substance simultaneously.
Addressing Different Natures We will address another argument concerning things distinct or "disparate," as the schoolmen call them, among which no mutual predication can exist.
Things that are different, if an analogy or signification occurs, can be joined to form a proposition. This is seen when the Lord says, "The seed is the word of God," and "I am the vine," and when Paul says, "We are one bread," and "The bread we break is the communion of the body of Christ," and "This cup is the New Testament in my blood." While Matthew and Mark may plainly say, "This is my blood of the New Testament," we do not deny this but insist that the words Luke and Paul use must also be received.
We assert that these sentences, despite differing words, are joined by analogy and signification.
Figurative Language and the Eucharist In another argument, it was said that when Christ uttered, "This is my body," He did not say, "This signifies my body," or "This represents my body," or "This bread is a figure or sign of my body." Against these objections, we reply that Christ did not say His body lies hidden in those accidents without a subject, nor did He affirm that the substance of bread ceases to be or is changed or transubstantiated into His body.
Furthermore, I marvel that these things are objected, considering that among the Fathers, these interpretations are found. They often say that the body and blood of Christ are represented, signified, notified, and shown, and they call the signs of bread and wine a seal, a figure, a type, and an example of like form. There is no cause to cavil that they refer these signs or figures to the death and not to the body of Christ because the Fathers manifestly say that the body and blood are signified and that signs and figures are given of the body and blood of the Lord.
To demonstrate the truth of this, among many places of the Fathers, we will set forth these few. Augustine, in "De Catechizandis Rudibus," speaks of the Sacrament, saying there are visible seals of divine things, but the invisible things are honoured in them. In "De Civitate Dei," Book 10, Chapter 5, he states: "The visible sacrifice is a sacrament of the invisible sacrifice, that is, a holy sign." Jerome, in his commentary on Matthew 26, notes that Melchizedek, the priest of the high God, offered bread and wine as a prefiguration, representing the truth of Christ's body and blood.
Bertram, in his book "De Corpore et Sanguine Domini," says that the bread called the body of Christ and the cup called the blood of Christ are figures because they are mysteries. Tertullian, in his fourth book against Marcion, explains that Christ, having received bread and distributed it to His disciples, made it His body, saying, "This is my body," meaning "a figure of my body." Cyprian, in his second epistle, says: "We see that in the water the people are understood, and in the wine, the blood of Christ is shown."
Ambrose, in "De Mysteriis," notes that before the blessing of the heavenly words, another kind is named, but after consecration, the body of Christ is signified.
Sacramental Understanding and Patristic Testimony Ambrose, in "De Sacramentis," Book 4, Chapter 5, writes: "Do this oblation for us, being recorded in writing as a reasonable and acceptable oblation, because it is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." He further comments on 1 Corinthians 11 that in eating and drinking, we signify the flesh and blood offered for us. Bernard, in his sermon "De
Coena Domini," says the Lord provided to adorn His people with grace, giving invisible grace through a visible sign.
Chrysostom, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 10, asks, "What signifies bread? The body of Christ. And what do they become who receive it? The body of Christ." Basil, in his Liturgy, calls it an example of like form.
Augustine, in "De Trinitate," Book 3, Chapter 4, states: "The Apostle might signify the Lord Jesus Christ by the tongue, by an epistle, or by a sacrament of His body and blood."
Augustine, against Adamantus, asserts: "The Lord doubted not to say, 'This is my body,' when He gave a sign of His body." In his commentary on Psalm 3, he notes that Judas was admitted to the feast where Christ delivered the figure of His body and blood. Against Maximinus, in Book 3,
Chapter 22, he says: "In the sacraments, we consider not what they are, but what they show, because they are signs of things which being one thing signify another."
Adoration and the Nature of Sacraments They argue regarding adoration that if bread remained, it should be adored in the Sacrament. It is surprising that these men are so mindful of true adoration when pictures and images are worshipped among them. They claim not to worship these things, but what they represent. If so, why not grant the same of bread if it remains—that it should not be worshipped, but what it signifies?
Why do they not similarly remove accidents, lest they be worshipped?
Perhaps they excuse themselves by saying that no one will worship accidents. However, we know that pictures and figures in temples are accidents before which men bow. If they worshipped the substances of wood or stone, they would have objects to worship everywhere. Moreover, simple men cannot distinguish between accidents and substance.