'An old Calvinistic formula': the sacramental Calvinism of Lancelot Andrewes

How are we to understand the eucharistic theology of Lancelot Andrewes? Since the mid-19th century, the Tractarian suggestion that Andrewes represented a rejection of Reformed sacramental theology has become almost de rigueur within Anglicanism. This being so, the words of Andrewes - here in response to Cardinal Bellarmine - are therefore presented as an alternative to both Reformed and Tridentine eucharistic theologies:

For, what the Cardinal is not, unless willingly, ignorant of, Christ said, This is My Body: not, in this mode, This is My Body. Now, we are agreed with you about the object; all the contention is about the mode: concerning This is, we with firm faith hold that it is [the Body of Christ]; concerning In this mode it is, (namely, by the bread being transubstantiated into His Body,) concerning the mode by which it is made to be, whether by in, or con, or sub, or trans, there is not a word there ...

In The Teaching of the Anglican Divines in the Time of King James I and King Charles I on the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (1858), Henry Charles Groves - a clergyman of the Church of Ireland - pointed out that such a statement was not an alternative to Reformed eucharistic theology. In fact, it was conventionally Reformed:

The language of Andrewes is only an old Calvinistic formula. We find it, for instance, in the same confession of Zanchius ... "I take this word, body, for the true Body of Christ, as Christ Himself doth interpret, who addeth, Which is given for you. And therefore there is no controversy among us, whether in the lawful use of the Supper, the Bread be truly the Body of Christ; but we dispute only of the manner, by which the Bread is the Body of Christ." This last is conclusive to shew that Andrewes in this oft-cited passage went not outside the limits of the Calvinistic doctrine of the Presence.

Recent scholarship points towards Groves' interpretation. This is what Eric Griffin has recently termed the "eucharistic Calvinism of the Caroline Church of England", for "the eucharistic theology of the Caroline Divines conformed much more to Calvin's own position than has been generally recognized". The sacramental theology Andrewes and others described as avant garde and, later, Laudian, "simply reiterated the Reformed consensus". So much is the case, that it is not possible to distinguish 'Puritan-Calvinist' doctrine from the 'Laudian-Caroline'". As Griffin significantly concludes:

The doctrine of the eucharist in England was remarkably uniform, and was based on a virtually unanimous acceptance of the teaching of Calvin.

We might also consider the work of another contemporary scholar, Chris Jones' Reformed Sacramental Piety in England 1590-1630. Jones considers the sacramental teaching of those within "the mainstream of Reformed theology" - both Reformed Conformist and Puritan - in the late Elizabethan, Jacobean, and early Caroline Church of England:

consistently weighty claims were made for the sacraments, in pastoral settings, by authors whose theological grounding was firmly and conventionally Reformed in character. Such writing deserves attention not because authors were plotting an overhaul of Reformed theology with regard to the strictures of sacraments or salvation – but rather because they lauded sacraments from within the constraints of and sometimes despite – their conservative and conventional theology.

Against this background we see the Calvinist consensus on eucharistic doctrine, embracing avant garde and Laudian opinion. Thus, the words of Andrewes, quoted above, can be placed alongside those of the Puritan John Dod and the Reformed Conformist Daniel Featley, with Jones rightly identifying this 'middle way':

A middle way of correctly discerning Christ’s body was advocated, whereby a communicant might, in the words of Dod: 

"discerne betweene the elements, and Lords body and blood: taking every thing in it owne nature and kinde: not confounding the signe with the thing signified, nor putting no difference betweene the Sacramentall and common bread".

Featley formulated this same via media in terms of avoiding two dangerous foes: 

"Sacramentaries viz the Papistes…The one denying the signe, the other the thing signified. The one offereth thee a shadow without the body, the other the body without the shadow, and consequently neither of them giveth thee the true Sacrament to whose nature and essence both are requisite". 

More recent research, therefore, confirms Groves' conclusion on Andrewes: contrary to Tractarian readings of Andrewes, he "went not outside the limits of the Calvinistic doctrine of the Presence". Or, as has been previously stated in this series on Groves' book, the depictions of the Lord's Supper in the two illustrations accompanying these posts shared the same Reformed eucharistic theology.