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 ...
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".
Andrewes was not “Calvinistic” but an Anglican Catholic, not quite Roman Catholic or Lutheran but Catholic.
ReplyDeleteSee Jeffrey Steels 250 page thesis on the matter where he makes an excellent and clear case that Andrewes was less “Calvinistic” and close to a Cappadocian Eucharist theology, or Transelementation view. Nonetheless he held to the Objective reality, an effectual objective reality that is at the heart of the matter, precisely what the Calvinists reject. It’s not objective for believer and unbeliever alike. It’s nothing to the unbeliever . Sorry, but Andrewes is not on your team.
Where to begin? Firstly, please engage with the source that has been quoted and the evidence it offers. Secondly, you assume that a Reformed view of the Eucharist is incompatible with a Cappadocian view. Thirdly, the notion that a Reformed view of the Eucharist rejects "the Objective reality" suggests a quite embarrassing ignorance of the sources. Fourthly, Andrewes would have been equally bemused and offended at the idea that he - a faithful subject of Elizabeth I and James VI/I - was "not quite Roman Catholic": to suggest this is to side was the Puritan critique of Andrewes. Perhaps any future comment from you might demonstrate a meaningful engagement with both the source and with serious historical studies.
DeleteFriend, I don’t believe you understand my comment. I wasn’t classifying Andrewes as not quite Roman Catholic, or in essence almost Roman Catholic. No I was setting Andrewes exactly where Steele places him (who of course you can’t engage with because his thesis undercuts your entire narrative)
DeleteThe point is Andrewes was completely Anglican. An English Catholic, a reformed Catholic.
Not Calvinist.
You show me where Calvinists hold that the Sacrament of the Altar is Objective and not only limited to the secret puritans or elect. Good luck!
You won’t find it because Calvinists don’t even hold that faith is objective, according to Calvin himself, Faith may be temporary and evanescent for the unbeliever, fully giving him the delusion that he is saved. Alas, he is actually a reprobate in the end and the faith was never a reality. Is this what you call “objective” regarding the sacrament? How do you know you’re actually receiving it and are not in the actually going through a temporary faith as Calvin calls it. It’s almost entirely indistinguishable from genuine faith.
Once again, using 'Anglican' to describe any 16th or 17th century is a complete anachronism. By contrast, the phrase 'Reformed Catholic' was well known and frequently used across the Churches of the Reformation, including those of the Reformed traditions. Applying the phrase to Andrewes, therefore, does not at all aid your anachronistic terminology. It does, however, rightly place Andrewes within a broader stream of Protestant theologies.
DeleteAs for the notion that 'Calvinists' equated to "the secret puritans", it is a rather laughable depiction of the 17th century Church of England. A significant number of recent studies have emphasised the profound differences between Reformed Conformists, with their 'Calvinist soteriology', and those 'Puritans' who rejected the Elizabethan Settlement. Indeed, Reformed Conformist bishops were often robust in upholding conformity against Puritan clergy.
The idea that the 17th century Reformed tradition did not regard the gift of the Lord in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as 'objective' is, I am afraid, not at all to be taken seriously.
The idea of a 'Calvinist consensus on Eucharistic doctrine' in the 17th century Church of England is now widely acknowledged in serious historical circles. This, of course, is a much richer sacramental theology than the cartoon caricature you provide.