“Tertullian-”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 of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).”
By the way, why did you quote my same quote at me? So does “the figure of his body” mean something different when you quote it?
Or are you trying to say that the “real body” he is referring to is the Eucharist, instead of Christ Himself possessing a body? Tertullian was writing against those who denied that Christ even had a body, thus the “figure” of the Eucharist stands for a real physical body, and not a “phantasm.” His opponents argue that Christ didn’t really physically die, or even had a physical body, and therefore the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper is a firm repudiation of their heresy. I guess that’s why YOUR quote removes that comment, as seen in the ellipses, while mine retains it.
“Some empty thing, which is a phantasm, were not able to satisfy a figure.”
The problem is that you’re looking at what Tertullian wrote with a modern mind set and even the Protestant Scholar JND Kelly disagrees with you because of this...
“YET WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT INTERPRETING SUCH EXPRESSIONS IN A MODERN FASHION. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense WAS the thing symbolized. Again, the verb -repraesentare-, in Tertullian’s vocabulary [Cf. ibid 4,22; de monog. 10], retained its original significance of ‘to make PRESENT.’
“All that his language really suggests is that, while accepting the EQUATION of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them [as do Catholics today — see the Catechism, paragraphs 1333ff].
“In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of -figura-, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are NOW Christ’s body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine.” (JND Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, page 212)
From http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num29.htm