HOMILY VII.] HOMILIES ON PHILIPPIANS. 213 dares not lay aside, from fear lest it perish, and fall from his possession, but he keeps hold of it continually. He who possesses some 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 and hide the matter, for if he once hide it, straightway it is gone. Let us also take another example ; if a man takes anything violently, he keeps firm hold of it continually, for if he lay it down, he straightway loses it. And generally speaking, they who have aught by rapine are afraid to lay it by, or hide it, 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 ; but they are inherent in the nature of God. What does one say then? That the Son of God feared not to descend from His right, for He thought not Deity a prize seized. He was not afraid that any would strip Him of that nature or that right, Wherefore He laid it 1 aside, being confident that He should take it up again. He hid it, knowing that He was not made in ferior by so doing. For this cause, Paul says not, " He seized not," but, " He counted it not a prize " ; He possessed not that estate by seizure, but it was natural, not conferred,- it was endur ing and safe. Wherefore he refused not to take the form of an inferior.3 The tyrant fears to lay aside the purple robe in war, while the king does it with much safety. Why so? because he holds his power not as a matter of seizure. 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 hid it. This equality with God He had not by seizure, but as his own by nature. Wherefore " He emptied Himself." Where be they who affirm, that He underwent constraint, that He was sub jected? Scripture says, " He emptied Himself, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death." How did He empty Himself? By tak ing " the form of a servant, being made in the 1 The word is neuter, and refers only to " right" (afico/na). Some copies omit " nature." - SfSonevyv, which would imply an " act" of giving. 3 vn-ao-7rioTu>i , a soldier of the ranks, who attended on an officer. Herod, v. in. Xen. Anab. iv. 2, 21. likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man." It is written, " He emptied Himself" in reference to the text, " each counting other better than himself." Since had He been sub jected, 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 action, then would He not have known the sea son. But if He both knew that so it must be, and when it must be, wherefore should He sub mit to be subjected? To show, they say, the superiority of the Father. But this shows not the superiority of the Father, but His own infe riority. For is not the name of the Father suf ficient to show the priority of the Father? For apart from Him, the son has all the same things. For this honor is not capable of passing from the Father to the Son. What then say the heretics? See, say they, He did not become man. The Marcionites, I mean. 4 But why ? He was " made in the like ness of man." But how can one be " made in the likeness of men "? by putting on a shadow? But this is a phantom, and no longer 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 became flesh"? (John i. 14.) But this same blessed one himself also says in another place, " in the likeness of sinful flesh." (Rom. viii. 3.) " 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 in fashion is not to be a man by nature. See with what in genuousness I lay down what our enemies say, for that is a brilliant victory, and amply gained, when we do not conceal what seem to be their strong points. For this 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. So then to take the form of a servant, is not to take the form 5 of a servant. Here then is an in consistency ; 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. God forbid ! it is a cold and ridiculous argument of theirs. He [These dramatic and characteristic utterances are smoothed down in the altered text. J. A. B.] 3 Old Lat. " nature."