[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>
Published by Joachim Westphal, Concerning the Word “Sacrament,” and Concerning Sacramental Speech
What Westphal prefaces concerning Carlstadt and likewise concerning Oecolampadius of blessed memory, since it looks toward other matters, I omit.
But what is disputed is of this kind: As often as there are objected to us these words of the Lord, “This is my body,” and the propriety of the word “is” is urged, we are accustomed to oppose not this one thing only, but nevertheless this especially, which we think no one can deny: namely, that words are to be explained according to the subject matter.
Then since these words are spoken concerning Sacraments, we gather that the body is not said of the bread otherwise than the nature of Sacraments bears. Finally, we affirm this to be the nature of Sacraments: that they are certain signs of those things for the signifying of which and for subjecting them to our external senses they have been instituted—signs, I say, by no means vain, such as are wont to be represented by painters, but thus far efficacious that what we discern with the eyes, touch with the hand, take with the mouth and swallow, is neither more true nor more certain than it is true and certain that there is offered to us by God whatever those things figure for us, namely the true body and true blood of the Lord (concerning which matter more shall be treated by us hereafter).
From these things, however, we finally say that it is effected that the body is not said of the bread otherwise than the sacrament is said of the thing sacramentally, that is, truly indeed, but nevertheless by an external sign and symbol, of the thing signified. And therefore that the name of the thing signified is attributed to the sign μετωνυμικῶς [metonymically], when the bread is said to be the body.
In this argument, what then does Westphal reprove? First, he clamors that we flee to a little word, and that an obscure and ambiguous one. But why ambiguous? Because, he says, the expression “Sacrament” signifies one thing to Latin writers, another to theologians. But if this reason ought to prevail, why does he not abstain also from the very word “Faith”?
Let us hear therefore another reason. By theologians, he says, it is used with ambiguous signification. Is it so indeed? But what then, I beseech? By how manifold signification are the names of Spirit and flesh received in the sacred letters? Yet who for that reason has shunned them as ambiguous?