214 WORKS OF ST. CHRYSOSTOM. [HOMILY VII. took, say they, the form of a servant, when He girded Himself with a towel, and washed the feet of His disciples. Is this the form of a ser vant? Nay, this is not the form, but the work of a servant. It is one thing that there should be the work of a servant, and another to take the form of a servant. Why did he not say, He did the work of a servant, which were clearer? But nowhere 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 " form " for " work." Besides, according to them, He did not even take the work of a servant, nor even gird Himself. For if all was amere shadow, l 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 kind of garments did he take ? for Scripture says, " He took His garments." (John xiii. 12.) So then not even the work is found to have really taken place, but it was all a deception, nor did He even wash the disciples. For if that incorporeal nature did not appear, it 2 was not in a body. Who then washed the disciples feet? Again, what in opposition to Paul of4Samosata ? for what did he affirm? The very same. But it is no emptying of Himself, that one who is 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 ofmen? 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 do 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 a thousand servile works, and did not even refuse to say, " For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants forJesus sake." (2 Cor. iv. 5.) These are absurdities and trifles ! Scripture 1 [He refers to the various Docetic theories, that the body ofChrist was only an appearance. J. A. B.]1 Or He. The sense is difficult. Old Lat. " For ifHe was an in corporeal being, He was not seen, He was not in a body." Ben. Lat. omits the first "not," and has " and was not," but without Greek authority. says, He " emptied Himself." How did He empty Himself ? tell me. Whatwas His empty ing? what His humiliation? was it because He wrought wonders? This both Paul and Peter did, so that this was not peculiar to the Son. What then means, " 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 had He which no man has. He was not what he seemed only, but He was God also ; He seemed to be a man, but He was not like the mass of men. For He was like them in flesh. He means then, that He was not a mere man. Wherefore 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 degeneracy, and loss is here ; he says, whilst He remained what He was, He took that which He was not, and being made flesh He remained God, in that He was the Word. (John i. 14.) In this then He was like man, and for this cause Paul says, "and in fashion." Not that His nature degenerated, nor that any confusion arose, but He became man in fashion. For when He had said that " He took the form of a servant," he made bold 3 to say this also, seeing that the first would silence all objectors ; since when he says, " In the likeness of sinful flesh," he says not that He had not flesh, but that that flesh sinned not, but was like to sinful flesh. Like in what? in nature, not in sin, therefore was His like a sinful soul. As then in the former case the term similarity was used, because He was not equal in everything, so here also there is similarity, because He is not equal in everything, as His not being born of wedlock, His being without sin, His being not a mere man. And he well said " as a man," for He was not one of the many, but " as " one of the many. The Word who was God did not degenerate into man, nor was His substance changed, but he appeared as a man ; not to delude us with a phantom, but to instruct us in humility. When therefore he says, " as a man," this is what He means ; since he calls Him a man elsewhere also, when he says, " there is one God, one Mediator also between God and men, Himself man, Christ Jesus." (i Tim. ii. 5.) Thus much against these heretics. I must now speak against such as deny that He took a soul.4 If " the form of God " is " perfect God," then the " form of a servant " is " a perfect servant." Again, against the Arians. Here concerning His 3 i.e. without fear of giving countenance to the Docetae or Mar- cionites, as he had used so strong an expression of reality; or as on the next page. 4 The Apollinarian heresy.