HOMILY VII.

PHIL. ii. 5-11.

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name: that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I HAVE said all that pertains to the heretics. It is befitting (1) that I now speak of what is our own. They say, that the words, He thought it not robbery, are of wrongfully seizing". We have proved, that this is altogether vapid and impertinent, for no man would exhort another to humility on such grounds, nor in this sort does he praise God, or even man. What is it then, beloved? Give heed to what I now say. Since many men think, that, when they are lowly, they are deprived of their proper right, and debased. Paul, to take away this fear, and to shew that we must not be affected thus, says concerning God, that God, the only-begotten Son of the Father, Who was in the form of God, Who was no whit

6

Meaning, He thought it not a robbery for Himself to commit.' The phrase being always used in the sense

of a gain.' Our language does not
seem capable of expressing it exactly.

76

Usurpers dare not lay their rank aside.

PHIL. inferior to the Father, Who was equal to Him, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

2, 5-11.

Now learn what this meaneth.

Whatsoever a man robs,

and takes contrary to his right, he dares not lay aside, from fear lest it perish, and fall from his possession, but he keeps hold of it continually. He who possesses a dignity which is natural to him, fears not to descend from that dignity, being assured that nothing of this sort will happen to him. As for example, Absalom usurped the government, and dared not afterwards to lay it aside. We will go to another example, but if example cannot present the whole matter to you, take it not amiss, for this is the nature of examples, they leave the greater part for the imagination to reason out. A man rebels against his sovereign, and usurps the kingdom: he dares not lay aside or conceal the matter, for if he once put it away, straightway it is gone. Let us take another example; if a man takes any thing violently, he keeps firm hold of it continually, for if he lay it down, he straightway loses it; and generally speaking they who have ought by rapine, are afraid to lay it by, or put it away, or not to keep constantly in that state which they have assumed. Not so they, who have possessions not procured by rapine, as Man, who possesses the dignity of being a reasonable being. But here examples fail me, for there is no natural preeminence amongst us, for no good thing is naturally our own, since they all are inherent in' the nature of God. What do we say then? That the Son of God feared not to descend from His right, for he thought not Deity a matter of robbery, He was not afraid that any would strip Him of that nature or that right, wherefore He laid it aside, being confident that He should take it up again. He hid it, knowing that He was not made inferior by so doing. For this cause, Paul says not, "He seized not," but He thought it not robbery, for He possessed not that estate by robbery, but it was natural, not conferred, it was enduring and safe. Wherefore He refused not to take the form of an inferior". The tyrant fears to lay

b The word is neuter, and refers only to' right,' (ážíwux,) some copies omit 'nature.'

C

didouin, which would imply an act

of giving.

₫ TROTIST, a soldier of the ranks, who attended on an officer. Herod. v. 111. Xen. Anab. iv. 2. 21.

Our Lord's emptying Himself" His own act. 77

VII.

aside the purple robe in war, while the king does it with Hom. much safety. Why so? because he holds his power not as a matter of robbery. He did not refuse to lay it aside, as one who had usurped it, but since He had it as His own by nature, since it could never be parted from Him, He concealed it.

This equality with God He had not by robbery, but as His own by nature. Wherefore He emptied Himself. Where be they who affirm, that He underwent constraint, that He was subjected? Scripture says, He emptied Himself, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death. How did He empty Himself? By taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man. It is written, He emptied Himself in reference to the text, each esteeming other better than himself. Since had He been subjected, had He not chosen it of His own accord, and of His own free will, it would not have been an act of humility. For if He knew not that so it must be, He would have been imperfect. If, not knowing it, He had waited for the time of command, then would He not have known the season. But if He both knew that so it must be, and when it must be, wherefore should He submit to be subjected? To shew, they say, the superiority of the Father. But this shews not the superiority of the Father, but His own inferiority. For is not the name of the Father sufficient to shew the priority of the Father? For beside this, all the Father hath is the Son's; especially as this honour is not capable of passing from the Father to the Son, but beside this, all the Father hath is common to the Son.

Here the Marcionites catch hold of the word, and say, See, He did not become man, but was made in the likeness of man. But how can one be made in the likeness of men? by putting on a shadow? But this is a phantom, not the likeness of a man, for the likeness of a man is another man. And what wilt thou answer to John, when he says, The Word John 1, was made flesh? But this same blessed one himself also says in another place, in the likeness of sinful flesh.

And being found in fashion as a man. See, they say, both in fashion, and as a man. To be as a man, and to be a man in fashion, is not to be a man indeed. To be a man

14.

Rom. 8,

3.

2, 5-11.

1

78

Form of a servant real Humanity.

PHIL. in fashion is not to be a man by nature. See with what ingenuousness I lay down what our enemies say, for that is a glorious victory, and fully gained, when we do not conceal what seem to be their strong points. Such concealment is deceit rather than victory. What then do they say? let me repeat their argument. To be a man in fashion is not to be a man by nature; and to be as a man, and in the fashion of a man, this is not to be a man. Is then to take the form

e

God forbid! He took, say Himself with

of a servant, not to take the form of a servant? So here is 1páx" an inconsistency 1; and wherefore do you not first of all solve this difficulty, for as you think that this contradicts us, so do we say that the other contradicts you. He says not," as the form of a servant," nor " in the likeness of the form of a servant," nor" in the fashion of the form of a servant," but He took the form of a servant. What then is this? for there is a contradiction. There is no contradiction. it is a cold and ridiculous argument of theirs. they, the form of a servant, when He girded a towel, and washed the feet of His disciples. Is this the form of a servant? Nay, this is not the form, but the work of a servant. It is one thing to take the work of a servant, and another to take the form of servant. Why did he not say, He did the work of a servant, which were clearer? For no where in Scripture is form put for "work," for the difference is great; the one is the result of nature, the other of action. In common speaking too we never use 66 form" for "work." Besides, according to them, He did not even perform the work of a servant, neither girded Himself. For if all was a mere shadow, there was no reality. If He had not real hands, how did He wash their feet? If He had not real loins, how did He gird Himself with a towel? and what John13, kind of garments did He take? for Scripture says, He took his garments. As then not even the work is found to have really taken place, but it was all a deception, so neither did He wash the feet of His disciples. For if that incorporeal nature was not made manifest, it was not in a body. Who then washed the disciples' feet?

12.

Old Lat. nature.'

f This seems to be understood, and the to mean a thing,' but Lat.

opus servi esse.'

g or He. The sense is difficult. Old Lat. For if He was an incor

Our Lord wherein like, wherein unlike to men.

79

VII.

Again, what shall we say to contradict Paul of Samosata? Hoм. what did he affirm? The very same. But it is no emptying of Himself, that one of human nature, and a mere man, should wash his fellow-servants. For what we said against the Arians, we must repeat against these too, for they differ not from one another, save by a little space of time; both the one and the other affirm the Son of God to be a creature. What then shall we say to them? If He being a man washed man, He emptied not, He humbled not Himself. If He being a man seized not on being equal with God, He is not deserving of praise. That God should become man, is great, unspeakable, inexpressible humility; but what humility is there in that one, who was a man, should do the works of men? And where is the work of God ever called the form of God? for if He were a mere man, and was called the form of God by reason of His works, why do we not say the same of Peter, for he wrought greater deeds than Christ Himself? Why say you not of Paul, that he had the form of God? Why did not Paul give an example of himself, for he wrought very many servile works, and refused none. He says, For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, 2 Cor. and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

These are absurdities and trifles! Scripture says, He emptied Himself. How did He empty Himself? tell me. What was His emptying? what His humiliation? was it because He wrought wonders? But this Paul and Peter did, so that this was not peculiar to the Son. What means this which he says, Being made in the likeness of men? He had many things belonging to us, and many He had not; for instance, He was not born of wedlock. He did no sin. These things He was not what He seemed

had He which no man has.
only, but He was God also; He seemed to be a man, but He
was not like the mass of men, though He were like them in
flesh. He means then, that He was not a mere man. Where-
fore he says, in the likeness of men. For we indeed are soul
and body, but He was God, and soul and body, wherefore
he says, in the likeness. For lest when you hear that He
emptied Himself, you should think that some change, and
poreal being, He was not seen, He was
first' not,' and has and was not,' but
not in a body.' Ben. Lat. omits the without Greek authority.

4, 5.