Creatividad y desarrollo evolutivo

Andrewes goes on to speak of union of the heavenly and earthly elements in the Christological terminology of the hypostatic union. He is not speaking as an impanationist by way of his view of presence but within the framework of Nicaean orthodoxy. Is there a possibility that Andrewes’ view of presence in the Eucharist was that of impanation? Impanation teaches that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, but rejects the idea of Transubstantiation. Rather there is a presence by a kind of impanation (Christum quodammodo impanari). This position teaches that ‘Christ’s person is impanated in the bread, just as God is incarnated in the human flesh.86 It is akin to Consubstantiation but focuses more on a sort of ‘hypostatic’ union of the bread and wine with the Body and Blood of Christ. Impanation teaches that in the Eucharist, Christ, through his human body is substantially united with the substances of bread and wine, and thus really present as God, made bread: Deus panis factus. Impanation is a word that was coined to imitate the language of the Incarnation. There is an ‘interchange’ that takes place between the Son of God and the substance of bread, though only through the mediation of the body of Christ. Luther denied the

84 _{Andrewes, Works, I, 281.}

85 _{Andrewes, Works, I, 281. Cf. Psalm 40:6.} 86

New Catholic Dictionary. Dicunt ita personaliter in pane impanatum Christum sicut in

hypostatic union of the unchanged substance of bread but did teach that the body of Christ penetrated it. One of the aspects of Andrewes’ Eucharistic theology for scholars has been the difficulty to actually define where Andrewes is concerning his view of presence. He clearly denied Transubstantiation; yet for him presence was more than a receptionist’s position. Neither was he a Lutheran that taught that the presence is ‘in with and under the bread’—in, cum et sub pane;87 really present though only at the moment of reception by the faithful—in usu, non extra usum.88 But there was a Lutheran who held to a view of what is known as impanation. He is the controversial Lutheran, Andreas Osiander (d. 1552). The term ‘impanation’ does not appear until the controversy of Berengarius of Tours at the end of the eleventh century.

Andrewes related the coming together of these two realities (heaven and earth) as a sort of hypostatical union of the elements and what is actually received in the elements; namely the body and blood of Christ. He stated that, ‘And the gathering or vintage of these two in the blessed Eucharist, is as I may say a kind of hypostatical union of the sign and the thing signified, so united together as are the two natures of Christ.’89

He went on to defend his sacramental theology of union of signs and things signified from the Fathers. Andrewes is lucid when he argues that when receiving the Eucharistic elements we are receiving the whole Christ consisting of his divine and

87

I realise there is considerable scholarly debate about Luther’s position on Consubstantiation and the ‘with’ cum is more directed towards Melancthon’s position. In addition, see G.L.C. Frank’s Dissertation on ‘The Theology of Eucharistic Presence in the early Caroline divines, examined in its European theological setting’ 1985 University of St Andrews. Frank believes there is a hint of Lutheran influence on Andrewes. In addition, in private conversations with Peter E. McCullough, author of Lancelot Andrewes: Selected Sermons and Lectures, (2005) , he revealed that he too believes there is a Lutheran influence on Andrewes, but nowhere in his writings does Andrewes ever refer to Lutheran influences on his thinking.

88 _{This can be shown by Andrewes’ position of reservation for the sick and adoration in} worship of the Eucharist. His three genuflections in his notes on the Prayer Book prove this point.

89 _{Andrewes, Works, I. 281. ‘And the gathering or vintage of these two in the blessed} Eucharist, is as I may say a kind of hypstatical union of the sign and the thing signified, so united together as are the two natures of Christ.’

human natures. It is from the writings of Irenaeus, that Andrewes claims as the source of these insights. He echoes this quotation from Adversus. Haereses Book IV. 18. It reads:

But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the

resurrection to eternity.90

It is quite obvious how it is that Andrewes interprets Irenaeus in this manner as he speaks of the Eucharist as possessing two realities; that of a heavenly and an earthly reality. This was his theme throughout the relevant sermon focusing on the Nativity. Andrewes argues that he comes to this resemblance of the hypostatic union of Christ and the elements via the Fathers. While impanation is not Andrewes’ position, given that there are some similarities it is right to ask whether some version can continue to be entertained. My honest doubts are a result of Andrewes’ very favourable view of Eucharistic sacrifice as something ‘we’ offer to God and what we receive in return the forgiveness of sins. This will be argued further in Chapter Four.

The Son of God came into being by the Dominus dixit, so that the begetting of the Son of God was ‘not by any fleshly way, to abstract it from any mixture of carnal uncleanness.’91

It is in this manner that the Son of God was begotten. Christ was present in the instant or centre of the day; not past nor future but in the hodie of eternity.92 All of eternity past and future are brought into the present at the conception of Jesus in the Virgin’s womb and brought forth in his birth. Time and eternity make up the two natures of Christ who exists in two natures; eternal and temporal. Through this we are able to understand Andrewes’ use of Christological formulations to

90 _{Irenaeus, Adv. Heres. IV. 18.} 91

Andrewes, Works, I, 293. 92

describe the presence of Christ in the sacrament. For Andrewes when the word and Spirit are joined together in the Eucharistic prayer, time and eternity meet and the two natures of Christ become present in the elements of bread and wine and are converted into the true body and true blood of Christ forever changed as history is forever changed by God entering the temporal world and taking on human flesh.