is not to be a man by nature. See with what ingenuousness 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 form622 of a servant. Here then is an inconsistency; 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. 214 God forbid! it is a cold and ridiculous argument of theirs. He 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 servant? 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 a mere shadow,623 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, it624 was not in a body. Who then washed the disciples’ feet? Again, what in opposition to Paul of Samosata? 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 of men? And where is the work of God ever called “the form 622 Old Lat. “nature.” 623 [He refers to the various Docetic theories, that the body of Christ was only an appearance.—J.A.B.] 624 Or He. The sense is difficult. Old Lat. “For if He was an incorporeal 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. 380 Philippians 2:5-11