A Four Hundred and Four Year Old Sermon
On Sunday, December 5th, 2010, I quoted (albeit loosely) Bishop Lancelot Andrewes’ sermon from Christmas Day, 1606. He as a Bishop in the Church of England and served the Diocese of Ely, Chichester, and Winchester. He distinguished himself and a scholar and a preacher. I had remembered his comment about the Virgin Birth from back in seminary days. And, through the miracle of Google, was able to find it.
His sermons and the language are a bit antique and hard to grasp, but it will yield treasures for the diligent. Read this short except from his Christmas Day sermon of 1606. In this section he explains how the bible shows the pure divinity of Jesus and the pure humanity of Jesus.
All along His life you will see these two. At His birth, a cratch for the Child, a star for the Son; a company of shepherds viewing the Child, a choir of angels celebrating the Son. In His life, hungry Himself, to shew the nature of the Child; yet feeding five thousand to shew the power of the Son. At His death, dying on the cross as the Son of Adam; at the same time disposing of Paradise, as the O^Son of God.O
If you ask, why both these? For that in vain had been the one without the other. Somewhat there must be borne, by this mention of shoulders; meet it is every one should bear his own burden. The nature that sinned bear his own sin; not Ziba make the fault, and Mephibosheth bear the punishment. Our nature had sinned, that therefore ought to suffer; the reason, why a Child. But that which our nature should, our nature could not bear; not the weight of God’s wrath due to our sin: but the Son could; the reason why a Son. The one ought but could not, the other could but ought not. Therefore, either alone would not serve; they must be joined, Child and Son. But that He was a Child, He could not have suffered. But that he was a Son, He had sunk in His suffering, and not gone through with it. God had no shoulders; man had, but too weak to sustain such a weight. Therefore, that He might be liable, He was a Child, that He might be able He was the Son; that He might be both, He was both.
Care for a loose paraphrase? Here is my attempt:
All his life, you see both his divine nature and human nature. At his birth, you see a cradle for a child and a star for a divine Son; the shepherds honor the baby boy, the choir of angels celebrate the birth of God’s Son. In his life you see him hungry, showing his human nature; feeding the 5,000 showing his Divine abilities. At his death, he dies on the cross like any man, and opens up Paradise as only the Son of God could.
Our nature had sinned and therefore our humanity should suffer—that’s the reason why the savior was born as a human child. But even though our nature should…our nature could not bear it; not bear the weight of God’s wrath due to us because of our sin. But the Son of God could…and thus he was born a Son of God. The one ought…but could not; the other could, but ought not. Therefore, either alone would not serve, they must be joined, the Child of Humanity and the Son of God. Therefore, that He might be liable, He was a Child; that He might be able, He was the Son; that He might be both, He was both.
What a joy to have such a treasure in our Anglican past.
