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.