Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Book II: On the Real Presence, from the Testimonies of the Fathers
Chapter 7: The Testimony of Tertullian (Third Age of the Church)
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. IV, De Sacramento Eucharistiae, Book II: On the Truth of the Body of the Lord in the Eucharist, from the Testimonies of the Fathers. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
In the third age we have three witnesses: Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian. Tertullian flourished about the beginning of the year 200; and although he was a Montanist heretic in his extreme age, yet he is reproved by none of the ancient Fathers on this score, that he erred concerning the Sacrament of the Lord’s body. And so he can be admitted to give testimony, as a most ancient and learned author, as even the heretics of this time admit him.
He, then, in Book 2 To His Wife, when he exhorted Christian women not to marry Gentile husbands, among other arguments by which he strives to persuade this, takes one from the communication of the Eucharist. For either she will have to receive the Eucharist secretly from her husband, and this can scarcely be done; or, he knowing it, the Sacrament will then be exposed to contempt. “The husband will not know,” he says, “what thou secretly tastest before all food; and if he knows, he believes it to be bread, not Him who is said.” So he. Where Tertullian indicates plainly enough that the Eucharist is not material bread, although it seem so to the Gentiles, but is Christ.
Peter Martyr answers, in his book against Gardiner, objection 160, that Tertullian means that the Gentiles do not know the Eucharist to be a sacrament, but believe it only profane bread.
But the reason of grammar is against him. For Tertullian says: “And if he knows, he believes it to be bread, not Him who is said”; but he does not say: He believes it to be bread, not that which is said; certainly ‘sacrament’ is of the neuter gender, not the masculine. Finally, there was no difficulty either for a Christian woman to signify that that bread was sacred, because it represented Christ, or for a Gentile man to believe this. But Tertullian speaks of a thing which a Gentile husband could not easily believe, nor could it safely be explained to him.
The same Tertullian, in his book On the Soldier’s Crown, among other Christian rites sets down the greatest caution which the Christians used lest anything of the Eucharist should fall to the ground: “We suffer anxiously,” he says, “if anything of our chalice or even of our bread be shaken to the ground.” So he; of which argument we spoke above in the testimony of Saint Pope Pius.
The same Tertullian, in his book On the Resurrection of the Flesh, proves that the flesh will truly rise, and not only the soul be saved, from this, that all the sacraments pass through the body to the soul: “The flesh,” he says, “is washed, that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fattened on God.”
Peter Martyr in the place cited, and Beza in the Cyclops, and Boquin in his book On the Supper of the Lord, answer that by Tertullian the body of Christ is called the very sacrament of the body, because it represents, after the manner of a sign, the very true body of Christ.
But if it is so, the argument of Tertullian falls. For the heretics who denied the true resurrection will say that, just as the soul alone receives the true body of Christ, but the flesh not the body itself but its figure, so the soul alone truly and properly rises, but the flesh not truly and properly, but metaphorically.
The same, finally, in his book On Idolatry, reproving certain men who promoted makers of idols to the priesthood, or at least the diaconate: “O crime,” he says, “the Jews laid hands on Christ once; these daily assail His body; O hands to be cut off,” and so forth. And certainly Tertullian would not compare the crime of those who unworthily handle this Sacrament with the crucifixion of Christ, nor would he say that those hands are to be cut off, if he thought there were in the Sacrament only a figure of the body of Christ. For although the injury of an image is referred (as we said above) to the exemplar, yet when it is not done with the intention of injuring the exemplar, the crime is in no way to be compared with the injury done to the exemplar itself. But Tertullian speaks not of those who of set purpose, and to injure Christ, violated His Sacrament, but of those who, being sinners, dared to handle the body of the Lord and offer it to the communicants.
But let us see what they bring forward from Tertullian. They produce three testimonies from him. The first is Book 1 against Marcion, a little before the middle: “But He,” he says, “even until now has neither reprobated the water of the Creator, with which He washes His own, nor the oil with which He anoints His own, nor the union of honey and milk with which He gives His own the food of infants, nor the bread by which He represents His very body.”
I answer: The word ‘to represent’ is ambiguous; for it signifies to make some thing present, whether really, or in some sign or image. And, to omit the testimonies of Cicero, and also of the holy Fathers, who frequently use this word to signify that some thing is exhibited truly and properly present: Tertullian himself can furnish examples of either signification. In Book 4 against Marcion, about the middle: “And so,” he says, “now Thou representest Him: This is my Son,” and so forth. Where he says that God the Father, who had once promised the Son, represented the same when He said on Mount Thabor, This is my Son; where he most plainly calls ‘to represent’ ‘to exhibit really’; and in his book against Praxeas he calls the Son the representer of the Father, because in truth the Father is in the Son. But the same, in his book On Penance, distinguishes adultery really committed from adultery represented in the mind by concupiscence; where ‘to represent’ is to exhibit not really, but in an image.
Since, then, the word is ambiguous, it cannot rightly in any way be gathered that Tertullian speaks of a representation in a sign, and not in reality; nay rather the contrary, because that is more properly said to be represented which is really exhibited than what is only in a sign: it will more probably be gathered that Tertullian speaks of a representation by which the body of the Lord is really exhibited.
Wherefore Peter Martyr, in his book against Gardiner, objection 100, treating this passage of Tertullian, confesses that nothing certain can be concluded from this passage alone, but that the mind of Tertullian must be hunted out from other passages, and refers us to another passage, which we shall examine a little later.
The second testimony they produce from Book 3 against Marcion, and from the book against the Jews; for the same words are had in both books. Thus, then, Tertullian in the book against the Jews says: “Of this wood God, through Jeremiah, intimates what you would say: Come, let us cast wood upon His bread. Assuredly wood was cast upon His body; for so Christ revealed, calling the bread His body, whose body of old the Prophet announced under the name of bread.” And again he says thus in Book 3 against Marcion: “This wood Jeremiah too intimates to you, who would say, foretelling the Judge’s [design]: Come, let us cast wood upon His bread, assuredly upon His body. For so God in your Gospel also revealed, calling the bread His body, that from this too you may now understand that He gave the figure of His body to the bread, whose body of old the Prophet figured under the bread.”
I answer: This passage favors the Catholics, not the heretics, if the opinion of Tertullian be diligently considered. For he writes that in Jeremiah, by the bread, is understood the body of Christ, which was fixed on the wood of the cross; and he adds that Christ Himself so explained the prophecy of Jeremiah when He said of the bread of the Eucharist: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. Where it is necessary not to take, by the bread in Jeremiah, material bread which signifies the body of Christ (as the heretics speak of the bread of the Eucharist); for it would follow that the bread was crucified, and not Christ Himself, if we so took the bread in that place; but we are compelled to take, by the bread, the very true body of Christ, which is the bread of life. And so Jeremiah indeed speaks figuratively, but the trope is not in this, that the bread is called the body because it is a sign of the body, but in this, that the body is called bread, because it nourishes our souls after the manner of bread; as Lactantius too rightly expounded, Book 4 Divine Institutes, chapter 18, where he says that the body of the Lord is called bread by Jeremiah because it is the food and life of the men who believe in Him. But Christ, according to Tertullian, declared the prophecy of Jeremiah when He said of the bread, This is my body; therefore Christ did not say of material bread, This is my body, but of the heavenly bread which is truly His body. For if the Lord had said of material bread, This is my body, it would follow that material bread was crucified for us; for of that bread He said, This is my body, according to Tertullian, of which Jeremiah said, Let us cast wood upon His bread. Wherefore, in the opinion of Tertullian, that pronoun This demonstrates indeed the bread, but the heavenly bread; or certainly it demonstrates the earthly bread, not as remaining, but as changed into the body of Christ, so that the sense of those words (according to Tertullian) This is my body is: This bread, which I offer you, is not common bread, but is my very body; or, This, which hitherto was common bread, is now my body.
Now those most obscure words of Tertullian from Book 3 against Marcion, “Hence you will understand that He gave the figure of His body to the bread,” do not signify that Christ gave the Apostles a figure of His body, not the body itself; otherwise he would not say that He gave the figure of the body to the bread, but that He gave the bread as a figure of the body. He signifies, therefore, that Christ gave, that is, explained or fulfilled, the figure of His body which Jeremiah had placed in the bread. And so those words are to be ordered thus: Hence you will understand that Christ opened the figure of His body—the figure, I say, of the bread, that is, lying hidden in the word ‘bread’; whence he subjoins: “Whose body of old the Prophet figured under the bread.” For there is a certain antithesis to be noted in these words: for just as Jeremiah said ‘bread’ when he wished to signify the body of the Lord, so on the contrary the Lord said it was His body when He gave the bread of life to the disciples.
There follows the third passage, from Book 4 against Marcion, where we read thus: “Taking bread and distributing it to the disciples, He made it His body, saying: This is my body; that is, the figure of my body. But it would not have been a figure unless it were the body of the truth.”
I answer: The former words of this testimony, which all the Sacramentarians set as a certain Achilles in the front line, make most of all for us; the latter do nothing against our cause. For that, “He made the received bread His body by saying: This is my body,” openly indicates the real change of the bread into the body of Christ; but that, “This is the figure of my body,” does not signify (as the Sacramentarians believe) that the bread of the Eucharist is a figure of the body of the Lord, but that what was of old a figure in the Old Testament is now changed into the truth of the body. For that, “the figure of my body,” is joined not with the word immediately preceding, “my body,” but with the pronoun “This,” so that this is the sense: He made the received bread His body by saying: This—that is, the bread which was of old the figure of my body—is now my body; where the pronoun “This” demonstrates the bread, not as remaining, but as changed, as we said above.
And that this is so is proved, first, from those following words: “But it would not have been a figure unless it were the body of the truth.” For if by ‘figure’ he understood the Eucharist, he would not say “would not have been,” but “would not be”; he speaks, therefore, of the figure of the Old Testament, which without doubt would not have been a true figure unless a true body corresponded to it.
Secondly, the same is clear from the words following a little below: “Why,” he says, “does He call the bread His body, and not rather a gourd, which Marcion had in place of a heart, not understanding that this was of old the figure of the body of Christ, saying through Jeremiah: Come, let us cast wood upon His bread—namely, the cross upon His body? And so the illuminator of antiquities sufficiently declared what He then wished the bread to have signified, calling His body bread.” Where Tertullian says that Christ called His body bread, not a gourd or some other food, to fulfill the figure of Jeremiah, who under the name of bread had signified the body of Christ; therefore Christ did not institute in the Eucharist a figure of His body, as the adversaries will, but fulfilled the old figure by confecting His body from the bread.
Thirdly, from other following words, where, explaining the prophecy of Jacob, Genesis 49, He shall wash his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape: “The robe,” he says, “denotes the flesh, and the wine the blood. So also now He consecrated His blood in wine, who then figured the wine in blood.” Where it must be noted that, as in Jeremiah the bread signified the body, because the body of the Lord is the food of the faithful, as we said above, so the wine in Jacob the Patriarch signifies the blood of the Lord, because the blood of the Lord is the drink of the faithful. But Christ, to explain those figures or prophecies, delivered to us His body under the species of bread, and His blood under the species of wine; and truly, if He had not really given true body and blood, He would not rightly have explained or fulfilled the prophecies. For as Jeremiah foretold the true body by the bread, so Jacob foretold the true blood by the wine, as Tertullian says. Now those words of Tertullian, “who then figured the wine in blood,” are referred to those words of Jacob, “his garment in the blood of the grape.” For he means that by the blood of the grape wine is understood, but by the wine the blood of the Lord is understood, as he himself explains when he says that by the robe He denotes the flesh, by the wine the blood.
Fourthly, finally, the same is clear from the progress of the whole book. For his purpose was to show that Christ in the Gospel did not destroy the Old Testament, but fulfilled it. And so Tertullian runs through very many works of Christ, and demonstrates that Christ in all of them gave His effort to fulfill the figures of the law; therefore in this place too he does not introduce a figure instituted in the New Testament, but only the fulfillment of the old figures.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII. TERTIA JETAS ECCLESI.E AB ANNO DOMINI 200 AD 300. Testimonium Terta Iliam. In tertia aetate habemus tres testes, Tertul¬ lianum, Origenem, Cyprianum. Tertullianus ad initium anni 200 floruit, et quamvis hae¬ reticus fuerit Monlanista in extrema aetate sua, tamen a nullo veterum Patrum repre¬ henditur hoc nomine, quod erraverit circa Sacramentum Dominici corporis. Itaque pot¬ est ad testimonium dicendum, tanquam auctor antiquissimus et doctus, admitti, ut etiam eum admittunt haeretici hujus tem¬ poris. Is igitur in lib. ii. ad Uxorem. , cum horta¬ retur heminas Christianas, ut non nuberent gentilibus maritis, praeter alia argumenta, quibus id persuadere nititur, unum sumit adi Eucharistiae communicatione. Nam aut opor¬ tebit clam marito sumere Eucharistiam, et hoc vix fieri poterit; aut illo sciente, et tum exponetur Sacramentum contemptui. «Non sciet, inquit, maritus quid secreto ante om¬ nem cibum gustes ; et si sciverit, panem, non illum credit esse qui dicitur. » Haec ille. Ubi Tertullianus satis aperte indicat Euchari¬ stiam non esse panem materialem, licet id videatur esso gentilibus, sed esse Christum. Respondet Petrus Martyr in lib. contra Gardinerum , objecto 160. velle Tertullianum dicere, gentiles non scire Eucharistiam esse sacramentum, sed prophanum panem so¬ lummodo credere. At repugnat ratio grammaticae. Nam Ter¬ tullianus ait : « Et si' sciverit, panem non illum credit esse, qui dicitur » : non autem ait : Non illud credit esse, quod dicitur : certe sacramentum est generis neutri, non mascu¬ lini. Denique nulla difficultas erat, vel foerni- nae Christianae significandi panem illum esse sacrum, quod repraesentaret Christum ; vel viro gentili id credendi. Tertullianus autem loquitur de re, quam maritus gentilis non fa¬ cile credere posset, nec tuto illi explicanda esset. Idem Tertullianus in lib. dc Corona militis inter alios Christianos ritus ponit summam cautionem, quam adhibebant Christiani, ne aliquid Eucharistiae in terram caderet : « Ca¬ licis, inquit, aut panis etiam nostri aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur. » Haec ille : de quo argumento supra diximus in te¬ stimonio S. Pii Papae. Idem Tertullianus in lib. de Rcsurrect. car¬ nis probat, vere carnem resurrecturam, et non solam animam salvandam, ex eo, quod omnia sacramenta per corpus transeunt ad animam : « Caro, inquit, abluitur, ut anima emaculetur ; caro inungitur, ut anima conse¬ cretur ; caro corpore, ct sanguine Christi vescitur, ut anima dc Deo saginetur. » CAPUT - VII. 73 Respondent Petrus Martyr loco citato, et Bcza in Cyclope , et Boquinus in libro de Ccena Domini , a Tertulliano vocari corpus Christi, ipsum sacramentum corporis, quia repraesentat per modum signi ipsum verum corpus Christi. At si ita est, argumentum Tertulliani con¬ cidit. Dicent enim haeretici, qui negabant veram resurrectionem, quod sicut sola anima verum corpus Christi percipit, caro autem non ipsum corpus, sed ejus figuram : ita so¬ lam animam vere, et proprie resurgere, car¬ nem autem non vere et proprie, sed meta¬ phorice. Idem denique in libro de Idololatria repre¬ hendens quosdam, qui artifices idolorum ad sacerdotium, vel certe diaconatum promove¬ bant : « Proh scelus, inquit, semel Judaei Christo manus intulerant, isti quotidie corpus ejus lacessunt, o manus praecidendae etc. » Ac certe non conferret Tertullianus crimen eorum, qui indigne tractant hoc Sacramen¬ tum, cum Christi crucifixione, nec manus illas praecidendas diceret, si tantum putaret esse in Sacramento corporis Christi figuram. Nam etiamsi injuria imaginis refertur (ut su¬ pra diximus) ad exemplar ; tamen quando non fit ea intentione, ut laedatur exemplar, non est crimen ullo modo conferendum cum injuria, qme fit ipsi exemplari in se. Ter¬ tullianus autem non loquitur de illis, qui de¬ dita opera, et ut Christum injuria afficerent, Sacramentum ejus violabant; sed de illis, qui cum peccatores essent, audebant corpus Domini tractare et porrigere communica¬ turis. Sed videamus quid illi ex Tertulliano af¬ ferant. Tria igitur testimonia ex illo produ¬ cunt. Primum est lib. i. contra Marcionem, paulo ante medium : « Sed ille, inquit, usque nunc nec aquam reprobavit Creatoris, qua suos abluit, nec oleum, quo suos ungit, nec mellis et lactis societatem, quo suos infan¬ tat, nec panem, in quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat. » Respondeo : Verbum Repraesentandi am¬ biguum est : significat enim praesentem rem aliquam facere, sive rcipsa, sive in signo ali¬ quo, vel imagine. Ac, ut omittam testimonia Ciceronis, et etiam sanctorum Patrum, . qui frequenter utuntur hac vocc ad significandum rem aliquam vere, et proprie praesentem ex¬ hiberi : Tertullianus ipse utriusque significa¬ tionis exempla praebere potest, lib. iv. in Marcionem , circa medium : « Itaque, inquit, jam repraesentas eum : Ilie est ‘Filius meus etc. » Ubi dicit Deum Patrem, qui aliquando promiserat Filium, eumdem repraesentasse, cum ait in monte Thabor : Hic est Filius meus ; ubi apertissime vocat repraesentare, exhibere reipsa : et in libro contra Praxeam vocat Filium Patris repraesentatorem, quia revera Pater est in Filio. Sed ipse idem in lib. de Domitent, distinguit adulterium, reip¬ sa commissum, ab adulterio per concupi¬ scentiam in mente repraesentatum ; ubi re¬ praesentare est exhibere non reipsa, sed in imagine. Cum ergo vox ambigua sit, non potest recte ullo modo colligi, Tertullianum loqui de repraesentatione in signo, et non in re ; imo contra potius, quia magis proprie di¬ citur repraesentari, quod reipsa exhibetur, quam quod solum in signo : probabilius col¬ ligetur Tertullianum loqui de repraesenta¬ tione, qua reipsa corpus Domini exhibetur. Quare Petrus Martyr lib. contra Gardin. object. 100. tractans hunc locum Tertulliani, fatetur non posse ex hoc solo loco aliquid certi concludi, sed oportere ex aliis locis ve¬ nari mentem Tertulliani, et remittit nos ad alium locum, quem nos paulo post excu¬ tiemus. Secundum testimonium proferunt ex lib. iii. contra Marcionem , et ex libro contra Ju¬ daeos : nam eadem verba in utroque libro habentur. Sic ergo Tertullianus in libro contra Judaeos, ait: « De hoc ligno Deus per Ilieremiam insinuat, quod essetis dicturi ; Venite mittamus lignum in panem ejus. Uti¬ que in corpus ejus lignum missum est : sic enim Christus revelavit, panem corpus suum appellans, cujus retro corpus in panem Prophetes nuntiavit. » Et rursus sic ait lib. iii. in Marcionem: «Hoc lignum, etHieremias tibi insinuat dicturis praedicans Judicis : Ve¬ nite mittamus lignum in panem ejus, utique in corpus. Sic enim Deus in Evangelio quo¬ que vestro revelavit, panem corpus suum appellans, ut et hinc jam eum intelligas cor¬ poris sui figuram panis dedisse, cujus retro corpus in panem Prophetes figuravit. » Respondeo : hic locus Catholicis favet, non haereticis, si sententia Tertulliani diligenter consideretur. Nam scribit ipse apud Iliere¬ miam per panem intelligi corpus Chi isti, quod in ligno crucis affixum fuit : atque addit Christum ipsum ita explicuisse prophetiam Hicremiae, cum de pane Eucharistia} dixit : Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. 74 LIBEft II. Ubi necesse est per panem apud Iliere- miam non accipere panem materialem, qui significet corpus Christi (ut hseretici loquun¬ tur de pane Eucharistia;) sequeretur enim panem fuisse crucifixum, non autem ipsum Christum, si ita acciperemus eo loco panem ; sed accipere cogimur per panem, ipsum verum Christi corpus, quod est panis vitee. Itaque Ilieremias loquitur quidem figurate, sed tropus non est in eo, quod panis dicatur corpus, quia sit corporis signum; sed in eo, quod corpus dicatur panis, quia nutrit ani¬ mas nostras instar panis ; ut etiam recte ex¬ posuit Lactantius lib. iv. diuin. Institut. cap. 18. ubi dicit corpus Domini vocari panem a Hieremia, quia est cibus, et vita hominum, qui credunt in eum. Sed Christus per Tertul¬ lianum declaravit prophetiam Hieremiae, cum ait de pane : Hoc est corpus meum ; ergo Christus non de pane materiali dixit : Hoc est corpus meum ; sed de pane coelesti qui est vere corpus ejus. Nam si Dominus de pane materiali dixisset : Hoc est corpus meum, se¬ queretur , panem materialem fuisse pro nobis crucifixum : dc illo enim pane dixit : Hoc est corpus meum , secundum Tertullianum, de quo dixit Hieremias : Mittamus lignum in panem ejus. Quare ex sententia Tertulliani, illud pronomen, Hoc, demonstrat quidem panem, sed panem coelestem ; vel certe de¬ monstrat panem terrenum, non qui maneat, sed qui mutetur in corpus Christi, ut sensus sit eorum verborum (secundum Tertullia¬ num) IIoc est corpus meum, id est ; Hic panis, quem vobis porrigo, non est panis commu¬ nis, sed est ipsum corpus meum : vel, Hoc, quod hactenus fuit panis communis, jam est corpus meum. Porro illa verba obscurissima Tertulliani ex lib. iii. contra Marcionem : « Hinc intel- liges corpori sui figuram panis dedisse, » non significant Christum dedisse Apostolis figuram corporis sui, non ipsum corpus : alioqui non diceret corporis figuram panis, sed figuram corporis panem dedisse. Signi¬ ficat igitur Christum dedisse, id est, expli¬ cuisse, sive implesse figuram corporis sui, quam in pane Hieremias posuerat. Itaque sic ordinanda sunt illa verba ; Hinc intelliges corporis sui figuram ; figuram, inquam, pa¬ nis, id est, in panis vocabulo latentem, Chri¬ stum aperuisse ; unde subjungit : « Cujus retro corpus in panem Prophetes figuravit. » Est enim antithesis quaedam in his verbis no¬ tanda : nam sicut Hieremias panem dixit. cum significare vellet corpus Domini ; sic e contrario Dominus corpus suum esse dixit, cum panem vitae discipulis daret. Sequitur tertius locus ex lib. iv. contra Marcionem , ubi sic legimus : « Acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit; Hoc est, corpus meum di¬ cendo, id est, figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset cor¬ pus. » Respondeo : priora verba hujus testimo¬ nii , quod omnes Sacramentarii tanquam Achillem quemdam in prima acie constituunt, pro nobis maxime faciunt : posteriora autem nihil obsunt causa; nostrae. Illud enim : «Ac¬ ceptum panem corpus suum fecit dicendo : Hoc est corpus meum, » aperte indicat pa¬ nis realem mutationem in corpus Christi ; illud autem : « Hoc est figura corporis mei », non significat (ut Sacramentarii credunt) panem Eucharistiae esse figuram corporis Domini, sed quod fuit olim figura in Testa¬ mento veteri, nunc in corporis veritatem esse mutatum. Conjungitur enim illud : « Fi¬ gura corporis mei, » non cum voce proxime praecedente : « corpus meum, » sed cum pronomine : « Hoc, » ut sit hic sensus : Ac¬ ceptum panem corpus suum fecit, dicendo : Hoc, id est, panis, qui olim fuit figura cor¬ poris mei, nunc est corpus meum : ubi pro¬ nomen : « Hoc » demonstrat panem, non qui manet, sed qui mutatur, ut supra diximus. Id autem ita esse probatur primo ex illis verbis sequentibus :« Figuraautem non fuis¬ set, nisi veritatis esset corpus. » Si enim per figuram intelligerct Eucharistiam, non dice¬ ret, « non fuisset », sed, non esset : loquitur igitur de figura Testamenti veteris, quae sine dubio vera figura non fuisset, nisi corpus verum ei responderet. Secundo idem patet ex verbis paulo infra sequentibus: « Cur, inquit, panem corpus suum appellat, et non magis peponem, quem Marcion cordis loco habuit, non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis Christi, dicentis per Hicremiam : Yenite conjiciamus lignum in panem ejus, scilicet crucem in corpus ejus? Itaque illuminator antiquitatum quid tunc voluerit significasse panem, satis declaravit, corpus suum vocans panem. » Ubi Tertullianus dicit, Christum vocasse cor¬ pus suum panem, non peponem, aut aliquem alium cibum, ut impleret figuram Hieremia;, qui nomine panis significaverat Christi cor¬ pus : non ergo Christus instituit in Eucha- caput vm. 75 ristia figuram corporis sui, ut adversarii vo¬ lunt, sed implevit figuram veterem ex pane conficiendo corpus suum. Tertio ex verbis aliis sequentibus, ubi ex¬ plicans prophetiam Jacob, Genes, xlix. La- vabit in vino stolam suam ; et in sanguine uvae pallium suum (1). «Stolam, inquit, carnem demonstrat, et vinum sanguinem. Ita et nunc sanguinem suum in vino consecravit, qui tunc vinum in sanguine figuravit. » Ubi notan¬ dum, quod sicut apud Hieremiam panis si¬ gnificabat corpus, quia corpus Domini est ci¬ bus fidelium, ut supra diximus : ita vinum apud Jacobum Patriarcham significat san¬ guinem Domini, quia sanguis Domini est po¬ tus fidelium. Christus autem ut explicaret is¬ tas figuras, seu vaticinia, corpus sub specie panis, et sanguinem sub specie vini nobis tradidit : et sane si non verum corpus, et san¬ guinem reipsa dedisset, non recte explicuis¬ set, vel implesset vaticinia. Nam tam Iliere- mias per panem verum corpus, quam Jacob per vinum verum sanguinem praenuntiavit, ut Tertullianus dicit. Illa autem verba Ter¬ tulliani : « Qui tunc vinum in sanguine figu¬ ravit, «referuntur ad illa verba Jacobi, in san¬ guine uvae palliumsuum. Yult enim dicere per sanguinem uvae, intelligi vinum, sed per vi¬ num intelligi sanguinem Domini, ut ipse ex¬ plicat, cum ait per stolam carnem, per vi¬ num sanguinem demonstrans. Quarto denique idem patet ex progressu totius libri. Nam propositum ejus erat osten¬ dere Christum in Evangelio non destruxisse Testamentum vetus, sed illud implesse. Ita¬ que percurrit Tertullianus plurima Christi opera, ac demonstrat Christum in omnibus illis dedisse operam, ut impleret figuras le¬ gis : igitur hoc etiam loco non inducit figu¬ ram institutam in Testamento novo, sed im- pletionem tantum veterum figurarum.