[De Coena Domini, plana et perspicua tractatio; (Geneva: Oliva Robert Stephan, 1559)]
Theodore Beza, born on June 24, 1519, in Vézelay, France, was a distinguished theologian, scholar, and reformer of the Protestant Reformation. Educated under the humanist Melchior Wolmar, Beza initially pursued law but later embraced the Reformed faith, leading to his exile from France. In 1548, he settled in Geneva, where he became a close associate of John Calvin. Beza's contributions were manifold. He served as a professor of Greek at the Academy of Lausanne and later at the Geneva Academy, where he succeeded Calvin as the chair of theology. His leadership extended to the Company of Pastors in Geneva, where he played a pivotal role in shaping Reformed theology and church governance. A prolific writer, Beza authored several significant works. His De jure magistratuum (1574) defended the rights of magistrates against tyranny, and his editions of the Greek New Testament were instrumental in biblical scholarship. Beza also penned a biography of Calvin and contributed to the Genevan Psalter, enhancing the liturgical life of the Reformed churches. Throughout his life, Beza was actively involved in theological debates, notably defending the doctrine of predestination and engaging in dialogues with Lutheran theologians. His efforts were crucial in consolidating the Reformed tradition during a period of religious upheaval. Beza passed away on October 13, 1605, in Geneva, leaving behind a legacy as a steadfast guardian of Reformed orthodoxy and a key figure in the Protestant Reformation.
Table of Contents:
<aside>
</aside>
Truly indeed, but nevertheless not without a trope is bread said to be the body of the Lord, and this we prove with arguments which seem to us firm and consistent with the Word of God. Some of these Westphalus has proposed to refute in this third chapter.
Since we are accustomed to bring forth passages of Scripture, and indeed many in similar arguments, in which the same use of trope is shown, lest we seem to introduce some new method of interpretation into the Church of God: Westphalus, either because he does not understand what kind of arguments we use, or because he thinks he is dealing with blockheads, attributes this argument to us: “Scripture is full of many tropes. Therefore the words of Christ’s Testament are not averse to trope.” But where, except in his own brain, did he find this form of argument? Then he opposes another reason, namely that no Evangelist makes mention of the trope which we establish.
I answer that it is not always necessary that tropes be explained, especially when they are of such a kind that unless the statement is taken tropically, something must follow which is either most absurd by its nature, or repugnant to the remaining testimonies of Scripture—such as this saying which we are discussing. For we say that attributing to Christ an invisible body, or one which can be in many places at once (as indeed it must be attributed unless these words are explained tropically) contradicts both the nature of a true body and the express Word of God.
And also in the other symbol, that is wine, we say a double trope occurs, of which, however, only one was explained by some Evangelists. For we affirm that the cup can be called neither the testament in blood, nor blood, without a trope. From which it follows that tropes are not to be immediately rejected in the explanation of the sacramental matter. What does Westphalus say to this? He denies that there is a metonymy in these words, “The cup is the New Testament in blood,” but that the container with the contained, that is the cup with the blood, is truly called a testament because of the present blood. For these are his words.
But until this day we had not known this theology of Westphalus, namely that the cup itself also pertains to the covenant. For we had believed that the attribute of testament and blood belonged only to what is contained, namely the wine. But even if we were to grant this man what he demands, namely that we also deify the cup because of the present blood, yet when in this statement, “This cup is the new testament in my blood,” what he himself attests belongs to both the container and the contained is attributed to the cup alone, does he not at least admit here the trope of synecdoche?
Moreover, if we substitute the contained for the container, and say, “This wine is the new testament in my blood,” how will Westphalus again extricate himself without a trope? For we do not doubt that most truly, by the use of the symbol of wine, the Lord establishes with us that new covenant. But we ask this: whether without any trope wine can be called that covenant or testament which is established with us by Christ’s blood, since not even the blood itself can properly be called a covenant, but rather that through whose shedding the Lord has made with us that very covenant which is established in us through that blood received by faith.
It remains, therefore, that in these words of the Lord not only is the container alone put synecdochically for the container and the contained, but also the container for the contained, that is, the cup for the wine, which trope is another species of metonymy, and different from that in which the name of the thing signified is attributed to the sign itself—as is done by other Evangelists when they say that wine is the blood of the new covenant: in exactly the same way as they also testify that bread is the body. But why the Lord preferred to speak tropically rather than use simple speech, we shall declare in its proper place.
Finally, Westphalus demands that we prove from the Evangelists or Paul that the container is taken for the contained, when the cup is called blood. But I demand that he teach us these three things: First, how the cup can be called blood without any trope. Second, how wine can be simultaneously wine and blood, without any trope. Third, how without a trope these two statements can be equivalent: “This wine is the Lord’s blood,” and “My blood is with, or in, or under this wine.”