I was comparing a few sections from Pierre Du Moulin with Andrewes, since all the recent hoopla has him on my mind, and so I thought I’d wiki to find a few dates. I’d look to see if any quick info could help me get a picture of who was where when. And I do notice that wiki has Andrewes going to Dort, which I believe is incorrect (Milton’s work explained that James purposely did not send Andrewes).
Nevertheless, some translations of Andrewes’ Eucharistic statements appear on the page, which I thought was fun, and so I took a look. This quote is particularly clear:
By the same rules that the Passover was, by the same may ours be termed a sacrifice. In rigour of speech, neither of them; for to speak after the exact manner of divinity, there is but one only sacrifice, veri nominis, that is Christ’s death. And that sacrifice but once actually performed at His death, but ever before represented in figure, from the beginning; and ever since repeated in memory to the world’s end. That only absolute, all else relative to it, representative of it, operative by it … Hence it is that what names theirs carried, ours do the like, and the Fathers make no scruple at it—no more need we.(Sermons, vol. ii. p. 300).
Now, if one follows the Roman assumption that OT sacrifices were essentially the same as the RC view of the mass, then seeing Andrewes draw parallels between passover sacrifices and Eucharistic sacrifices might cause one to see Andrewes in a more Roman light. But, if one follows the Reformed assumption that OT sacrifices were anticipations, prophecies, and types of the future definitive sacrifice at the Cross, and not ex opere operato in themselves, then seeing Andrewes draw parallels between passover sacrifices and Eucharistic sacrifices allows one to see him fit easily within the Reformed reading. Edmund Calamy does the same sort of thing here.
And so while freely admitting the accidental finding of this Andrewes quote, the quote seems plain enough on its own: there is only one “real” sacrifice, that of Calvary. All other “sacrifices” are something other than “true.” They are representative. They are memorial. They are relative.
Sacrifices before the one true sacrifice point towards it, and sacrifices after it point back to it. It is not repeated, nor is it transported through space and time to be applied ex opere operato or in any earthly or carnal manner.
Rather, as Peter’s fine paper shows, the point of the memorial is to lift us to heaven. The “application” of redemption takes place through the function of the seal, and the “artery” is one of faith, so much so that prayer and the Word are also arteries.
It works consistently this way.
http://frjeffreysteel.blogspot.com/2009/09/andrewes-on-anamnesis-and.html
Jeff,
As your last Andrewes’ quote shows, the sacrifice isn’t transported. We are.
Oh my!
Right, it is a significant difference (Just like Calvin made hay out of us going up rather than Christ coming down).
The next question is, “How are we transported?” And it isn’t time travel, but commemoration and of course, animated faith.
What is the act of his offering? Ad cadaver?
‘we must hoc facere, do that is then done.’
What does this mean?
Is every other statement on my site irrelevant Steven? What does any of that mean?
I liked the transporter effect on the newest Star Trek movie. Not sayin’ that’s theologically correct, but pretty cool nevertheless.
Jeff,
If you would really like an explanation of those various quotes, I believe it is quite possible. No one has attempted to say that “memorial” or “commemoration” is just a sort of mental thinking. (In fact, the “doing” and “showing” was very important for the Reformers, many of whom wanted to greatly expand the action of the Eucharist.)
But there is a difference, as the quote that this post examines shows, between the real sacrifice and its memorial. The first canon on the sacrifice of the mass at Trent clearly states that it is a “true” and “real” sacrifice. Andrewes denies this.
Now, once you have denied that the Eucharist is a “real” sacrifice, you are free to use as “high” language as you want. The essential question has been answered. Furthermore, all of the Andrewes’ quotes that you gave, back at The Avenue blog, were filled with various qualifiers of “representative,” “symbols,” and “commemorations.” These add to the Reformation-friendly connotation that Peter and I immediately pick-up on.
Furthermore, the Reformers allowed for the communication of names, whereby the symbols can be spoken of as if they were the real thing. This is why Baxter can say that the Eucharist is “the Crucifixion set before you continually.” The language can be as “high” or “realist” as you want. And indeed, the Reformers would say that the blood of Christ is in the baptismal font. The same principle let them do this, since no one (not even RCs) thought that the water in the font was changed into actual blood.
The statements on your site are not irrelevant. They are actually quite capable of the Reformation reading (even moreso if we grant that James had a particular warm spot for Lutheranism as well as traditional or antique rhetoric). You just have to use the various “rules” of interpretation that Andrewes himself gives in various places: not a “real” sacrifice, inner/outer distinction, physical touch as ineffective, ascent to the heavens, commemoration transporting “us” back to the event (through faith and the Holy Spirit), no particular attachment to a “bread-god”, etc.
If you use these various rules, then Andrewes sounds just like the other Caroline Divines. He certainly fits within the broadest bounds (and who would contest that there were “hardliners” and “softies” all in the same church?). This is what Peter’s paper was all about, and it fits within the rules of historical interpretation: context, context, context.
It is not enough to find a number of “surprising” quotes. You have to ask, “How do they function within the rest of the system?” Pointing to eloquence of speech or admiration for the fathers is not persuasive, especially since so many of the Reformers were clear that the Patristics taught *their* view. I have a great deal of trouble believing that Andrewes was an island, truly belonging to the thought of men like Lossky or Cavanaugh (quite the characters in their own right!)
And why give Andrewes the revisionist reading when he not only does not contradict the traditional reading, but positively asserts all the key distinctives of Protestantism?
Your last question is the big one, Stephen. Why indeed?
I see that Dimock reads Andrewes in continuity with the other Reformers as well: http://books.google.com/books?id=Ou0CAAAAQAAJ&dq=nathaniel+dimock&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=pHe_j11zTX&sig=gPe99u5M5YQBv4KzqYMNgzhjEvQ&hl=en&ei=cf22Squ_FcGltgeqo9W6Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=andrewes&f=false
Steven, it still seems to me that Jeffrey sees the crediting of blessings and effects to the right use of the sacrament as essentially un-Reformed, which is why he cannot come to terms with what you have so ably demonstrated.
Mentally he still thinks of Protestantism as a religion with empty signs instead of effectual sacraments, so any crediting of blessings such as forgiveness to the Supper is immediately transubstantiated in his mind into an affirmation of Rome.
He uses this exact example on his recent blog. Andrewes says we received the remission of sins, therefore there is a real sacrifice, and so on. Whereas the true explanation is that we receive the remission of our sins in the Supper because it is a sacrament of the sacrifice, conveying the things signified.
Why indeed? Why indeed did the ecumenical James who wanted trade with the lowlands and to keep alliances so those on the continent wouldn’t form alliances with Scotland to attack the Crown, particularly with Lutheran countries, did Andrewes never look to continental reformers for his defence of ‘ecumenical’ pursuits and unity but only to the Church of the first five centuries? He was James’ man and here Andrewes could have been a huge political help to him but NOWHERE does he mention Lutheran views of sacramental presence except where he denies his belief in it in terms of presence and accepts sacrifice that is not only rhetorical high language but theological integrity. YOU are the one who took the terminology of memorial, commemoration, etc and turned those into reformed buzzwords but that language is the language of Trent and the early Fathers so your case that you made about that simply doesn’t hold water. I have provided the clear evidence at my site on these issues giving a defense of how Andrewes theological uses these terms and mystery. I am afraid it is more than high langauge.
The same power of promise that Hooker maintains, Andrewes says is found within the power of the words of Jesus rehearsed at the consecration of the bread and wine transforming them into the objective presence of Christ to be communicated to the faithful. The same power is embraced but for a different purpose. Andrewes embraces what John of Damascus described as a transelementation of the bread and wine.
Hooker does not see any necessity of arguing for any change in the elements themselves since they can be the instruments without any change of either consubstantiation or transubstantiation. This is because the presence is communicated by Christ’s omnipotent promise.
Yet where he differs from Andrewes is seen in that Andrewes did say that there was a transformation, transmutation, transelementation of the elements that allowed them to become for us the body and blood of Jesus.
Andrewes to Bellarmine. Testes vero omnes, pro mutatione, immutatione, transmutatione, loquuntur. Substantialis autem ibi, vel substantiae, mention nulla. At et nos praepositionem ibi trans non negamus: et transmutari elementa damus.
References St. John of Damascus who writes, By dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose existence comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers to secure that by this union with the Immortal man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He “trans-elements” [metastoi-cheiōsis] the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing.
That’s why Jeff!
That very objection was anticipated in Peter Escalante’s paper. He explained it well.
I think we’ve beat this horse all we can. One view has laid out a way to read Andrewes as a consistent Anglican divine, similar to his immediate contemporaries. The other view has him as a unique figure, incompatible with his friends and students, anticipating 20th cent. postmodern ecumenism.
The readers can choose which is more reasonable.
Steven, was Andrewes ever accused of Romanism by his peers?
Considering that they would have been extremely sensitive to even a suggestion of the hated system, that would provide us with a good supporting argument whichever way the answer goes.
He was accused of it by some of the Puritans, but then again, so was everyone. No one in any sort of actual Church of England authority laid charges though, and the majority reading on Andrewes to this point has seen him as a traditionally “Anglican” churchman.
He was the King’s man, right down the line.
Mentally he still thinks of Protestantism as a religion with empty signs instead of effectual sacraments, so any crediting of blessings such as forgiveness to the Supper is immediately transubstantiated in his mind into an affirmation of Rome.
Excellent observation of presuppositions.
Interesting read, Steven. I think this is a clear case of someone getting so invested and committed to an argument that they can do nothing else but press forward with it.
Steven, remembering that the Puritans were liturgical and sacramental, indeed, by our modern standards almost ritualist in their insistence upon following the precise mode and order of the Last Supper for the Communion, they would not have had issues with Andrewes unless he advocated transubstantiation and denied sola fide.
To your knowledge, was he ever plausibly accused of these two errors?
Curate,
Andrewes’ ceremonial was of the Lutheranizing sort; his table was against the wall (though he probably celebrated North endwise), he apparently used incense, and in general favored luxurious circumstances, rather like Cosin and his candles.
Given that the Disciplinarians (a more precise term than “Puritan”) held to a strict regulative principle, any adiaphorist sensibility, especially one which seemed to favor medieval pomp or luxury, would come in for critique.
Andrewes was sterling on justification sola fide. To my knowledge no one ever made noise about that. He was often disliked as being something of an unctious and haughty prelate, which meant, for Disciplinarians, “minion of Antichrist”; but their imaginations were, to say the least, overheated.
peace
P
Thanks Peter. That is as I thought it might be.