Calvin and Andrewes on Sacrifice

by Fr. Jeffrey Steel

The recent articles here by Dr. Cary on Calvin's view of presence have been very helpful and I am most grateful for them. The discussion has been enlightening for my own understanding of Calvin's view of "objectivity". The distinction between Calvin and Andrewes on Eucharistic theology is really not unclear at all. With what has occurred here in the discussions on presence we come to see how the sacramental rite and its effect are different in the theologies of Calvin and Andrewes.

Eucharistic sacrifice follows naturally from a realist view of presence. Without a realist view of presence, i.e., the view that both the righteous and the ungodly receive Christ in the elements, there would quite naturally be a rejection of sacrifice in any sort of a "propitiatory" way. Calvin categorically rejected any sort of sacrifice in the Eucharistic rite other than that of God's children offering themselves in the "thanksgiving" offering (Inst. IV. XVII, 16).

For Calvin sacrifice is 'concerned solely with magnifying and exalting God.' He goes on to say that 'The Lord's Supper cannot be without a sacrifice of this kind, in which, while we proclaim his death and give thanks, we do nothing but offer a sacrifice of praise.' Calvin is more than willing to deny the history of the Church's teaching on Eucharistic sacrifice and submit himself to a sola scriptura hermeneutic where he is the sole interpreter. He writes, 'There is, accordingly, nothing safer than for us to lay aside all the presumption of human understanding, and to cleave solely to what Scriptures teaches. And surely, if we ponder that the Supper is of the Lord and not of men, there is no reason why we should allow ourselves to be moved even a hairsbreadth from it by any human authority or time-hallowed prescription.' (Inst. IV, XVII. 12)

Now let us take a brief look at Andrewes.

Not only do we find Andrewes’ understanding of offering to be a memorial offering of Christ to the Father—in the sense of ‘showing forth’—but it is when approaching the altar and receiving Christ that actual sins committed are forgiven. The propitiatory value of the offering is that we come to Christ and receive him so that the judgment due from sins may be ‘passed over.’ Note the language in the following paragraph that is analogous to the Tridentine view concerning the effects of the Eucharistic offering and why it is necessary to be made.

First, there is reason we should come to Christ, in regard of our sinnes already past: For we have need of a Sacrifice, both in respect of the grinding and upbraiding of our consciences for the sinnes we have committed, and by reason of the punishment we have deserved by them. This sacrifice we are put in minde of in this Sacrament, that Christ hath offered himself to God an oblation and sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour, wherein we have planted in our hearts the passive grace of God, for the quieting of our consciences against sinnes past, by the taking of the cup of Salvation makes us say, Return into thy rest O my soul, Psalm the hundred and sixteen; [and for the turning away of deserved punishment,] as the blood of the Paschal Lamb sprinkled upon the dores, saved the Israelites, from destroying, Exodus the twelfth chapter. So in this true passover we receive the blood of the immaculate Lamb Christ, to assure us of peace with God, [and to deliver us from the destroying Angel.] As the Heathen had their Altar, whereupon they offered to their gods; so we have an Altar, that is, the Lords Table, where we celebrate the remembrance of that oblation once made by Christ, Hebrews the thirteenth chapter and the twelfth verse.

What is clear from this quotation above is Andrewes’ uniting of the historic act of Christ’s oblation with the offering of the Church. Within his view is the point that the Christian Pascha is both eucharistic and peaceable. The offering of Christ turns God away from what our sins deserve and we give thanks for the grace received. In this twofold effect of praise and peace applied to the faithful, the Eucharist is a ‘Passover’ where the blood of the immaculate Lamb is received and judgment due for sins committed is ‘passed over’. The Church’s offering is united to that one oblation of Christ at Calvary in such a way that the historical act of Christ offering himself transcends time and is effectual for forgiveness in the present and future.

This language above is none other than the language of Chrysostom in his homily on the epistle to the Hebrews 9:24-26. Chrysostom comments on the sacrifice offered at Calvary and the unity of it with the daily sacrifice of the Church, i.e., the Eucharist. It is not a ‘new sacrifice’ of Christ since he is now impassible, but it is the same sacrifice as when Christ was offered then passible; yet it is a memorial offering. Chrysostom observes,

What then? do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of His death, and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one, and not many? Inasmuch as that Sacrifice was once for all offered, and carried into the Holy of Holies. This is a figure of that sacrifice and this remembrance of that. For we always offer the same, not one sheep now and to-morrow another, but always the same thing: so that the sacrifice is one. And yet by this reasoning, since the offering is made in many places, are there many Christs? but Christ is one everywhere, being complete here and complete there also, one Body. As then while offered in many places, He is one body and not many bodies; so also [He is] one sacrifice. He is our High Priest, who offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted. This is done in remembrance of what was then done. For (saith He) ‘do this in remembrance of Me.’ (Luke xxii. 19.) It is not another sacrifice, as the High Priest, but we offer always the same, or rather we perform a remembrance of a Sacrifice.

Characteristically of the language of Chrysostom, Andrewes explains that the one sacrifice of the cross and that of the rite of the Church is the very same sacrifice. That ‘bloody sacrifice’ is only to be accomplished once on the cross and the Council in itsTwenty-Second Session said the same.

The Eucharistic offering is also given as a means of grace to help keep us from any future sins that we may be tempted to commit. Andrewes explains the sanctifying effect of the sacrifice in the following way:

In respect of sinne to come likewise, we have need to come to Christ; for thereby there is wrought in us active grace, whereby we are enabled to resist sinne: For the endowing of our souls with much strength, Psalm the hundred and thirtieth eighth, and with much power from above, is here performed unto us that come aright, Luke the twenty fourth chapter: And therefore the Apostle would have us to stablish our hearts with grace, the spirituall food, and not with meat, Hebrews the thirteenth chapter: For by this means we shall be made able both to indure the conflict of sinne, and to be conquerors over Satan and our own corruptions. Thirdly, For that the eating of the flesh of Christ and the drinking of the blood, is a pledge of our rising up at the last day, the fifty fourth verse; and that after this life we which come to the Lord’s Supper shall be invited to the supper of the Lamb, of which it is said, Apocalyps the nineteenth chapter and the ninth verse blessed are they which are called the Lambs Supper.

Andrewes demonstrates his holistic approach to the Eucharist where he defines what Jesus meant by his Eucharistic words, ‘Do this as my memorial.’ Fitzpatrick makes an important point in his essay touching on the Eucharistic sacrifice in the middle ages. In regards to how Aquinas spoke of the nature of sacrifice, Fitzpatrick interprets Aquinas with close similarities to those found in Andrewes. Fitzpatrick observes in Aquinas the ritual emphasis placed on sacrifice.

We are sent back to the ritual reality, a reality which represents the saving actions of Christ. The answer offered by Aquinas is in its austerity less specious than the other theories: it does not pretend to point to some definite if disguised process; it directs us to the ritual itself.

Andrewes, like Aquinas, does not describe the sacrifice and immolation as an act that stands outside worship; neither is it independent of the ritual. In his response to du Perron, Andrewes writes that ‘a Sacrifice is proper and applicable only to divine worship.’ Each time we offer the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, the past and the present are mysteriously united to the cross-event whereby we receive what we ourselves cannot possibly give. Andrewes’ uniqueness in expressing the nature of Eucharistic sacrifice in this way did not contain any ambiguities about the nature of Christ’s ‘proper’ offering. Neither did he make the same challenges as the reformers before him by denying the substance of what we present to God in the Eucharistic rite.