351 not even require 11. 3. his appeals to high Doctrine on ordinary Points. This is his account of the reason of the thing, and he states 1 Cor. it to make the weaker more attentive. He indeed that is faithful, as he ought, and stedfast, doth any reason or cause of those things manded him, but is content with the ordinance1 alone.ỹ xaBut he that is weaker, when he also learns the cause, then both retains what is said with more care, and obeys with much readiness. 2 βαδίσει. in c. 12. of Wherefore neither did he state the cause, until he saw the commandment transgressed. What then is the cause? The head of every man is Christ. Is He then Head of the Gentile also? In no wise. For if we are the Body of Christ, and members in particular2, and this way He is our head, He cannot be the head them who are not in the Body, who rank not among the members. So that when he says, of every man, one must understand it of the believer. Perceivest thou how every where he appeals to the hearer's shame by arguing from on high? Thus both when he was discoursing on love, and when on humility, and when on alms-giving, it was from thence that he drew his examples. [3.] But the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Here the heretics dart in upon us, with a certain declaration of inferiority, which out of these words they contrive against the Son. But they stumble against themselves. For if the man be the head of the woman, and the head be of the same substance with the body, and the head of Christ is God, the Son is of the same substance with the Father. "Nay," say they, "it is not His being of another substance, which we intend to shew from hence, but that He is under subjection." What then are we to say to this? In the first place, when any thing lowly is said, conjoined as He is with the Flesh, there is no disparagement of the Godhead in what is said, the Economy admitting the expression. However, tell me how thou intendest to prove this from the passage? "Why, as the man governs the wife," saith he, so also the Father, Christ." Therefore also as Christ governs the man, so likewise the Father, the Son. For the head of every man, we read, is Christ. And who could ever admit this? For if the superiority of the Son compared 66 .27. 352"The Head of Christ, is God," no Disparagement to the Son. HOMIL. With us, be the measure of the Father's, compared with the Son, consider to what meanness thou wilt bring Him. XXVI. 1 iğırxστέον. So that we must not try1 all things by like measure in respect of ourselves and of God, though the language used concerning them be similar; but we must assign to God a certain appropriate excellency, and so great as belongs to God. For should they not grant this, many absurdities will follow. As thus; the head of Christ is God and Christ is the head of the man, and he of the woman. Therefore if we choose to take the term, head, in the like sense in all the clauses, the Son will be as far removed from the Father, as we are from Him. Nay, and the woman will be as far removed from us, as we are from the Word of God. And what the Son is to the Father, this both we are to the Son, and the woman again to the man. And who will endure this? But dost thou understand the term head differently, in the case of the man and the woman, from what thou dost in the case of Christ? Therefore in the case of the Father and the Son, must we understand it differently also. "How understand it differently?" saith the objector. According to 2d at the occasion2. For had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection, as thou sayest, he would not have brought forward the instance of a wife, but rather of a slave and a master. For what if the wife be under subjection to us? it is as a wife, as free, as equal in honour. And the Son also, though He did become obedient to the Father, it was as the Son of God, it was as God. For as the obedience of the Son to the Father is greater than we find in men towards the authors of their being, so also His liberty is greater. Since it will not of course be said, that the circumstances of the Son's relation to the Father are greater and more genuine than among men, and of the Father's to the Son, less. For if we admire the Son, that He was obedient, so as to come even unto death, and the death of the cross, and reckon this the great wonder concerning Him; we ought to admire the Father also, that He begat such a Son, not as a slave under command, but as free, yielding obedience, and giving counsel. For the counsellor is no slave. But again, when thou hearest of a counsellor, do not understand it as though the Father were in need, but that the Son hath the same honour with Him that begat Him. Ground of the Woman's Subjection. 353 Do not therefore strain the example of the man and the COR. woman to all particulars. 11. 3. 2. 14. For with us indeed the woman is reasonably subjected to the man: since equality of honour causeth contention. And not for this cause only, but by reason also of the deceit111 Tim. which happened in the beginning. Wherefore you see, she was not subjected as soon as she was made; nor, when He brought her to the man, did either she herself hear any such thing of God, nor did the man say any such word to her: he said indeed that she was bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh2: but of rule or subjection he no where made mention? Gen. unto her. But when she made an ill use of her privilege, and she who had been made a helper was found to be an ensnarer, and ruined all, then she is justly told for the future, thy turning shall be to thy husband3. 2.23. 3 Gen. To account for which; it was likely that this sin would 3. 16. have thrown our race into a state of warfare; (for her having been made out of him, would not have contributed any thing to peace, when this had happened, nay, rather this very thing would have made the man even the harsher, that she, made as she was out of him, should not have spared, no, not him who was member of herself:) wherefore God, considering the malice of the Devil, raised up a bulwark, viz. this word; and what enmity was likely to arise from his evil device, He took away by means of this sentence; and by the desire implanted in us: thus pulling down the partition-wall, (if it may be so called); i. e. the resentment caused by that sin of hers. But in God, and in that undefiled Essence, one must not suppose any such thing. 4 3.22.23. All are 1 Cor. Do not therefore apply the examples to all, since elsewhere also from this source many grievous errors will occur. For so in the beginning of this very Epistle, he said, yours, and ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's. then? Are all in like manner ours, as we are Christ's, and Christ is God's? In no wise, but even to the very simple the difference is evident, although the same expression is used of God, and Christ, and us. And elsewhere also having called the husband head of the wife, he added, 5 Even as Christ is Head and Saviour and Defender 5 Eph.5. of the Church, so also ought the man to be of his own wife. A a 23. 354 Earthly Words how applied to the Divine Nature. HOMIL. Are we then to understand in like manner the saying in the XXVI. text, as we do this, and all that after this is written to the Ephesians concerning this subject? Far from it. It is impossible. For although the same words are spoken of God and of men, yet in one way those must be understood, and in another these. Not however on the other hand all things diversely since contrariwise they will seem to have been introduced at random and in vain, we reaping no benefit from them. But as we must not receive all things alike, so neither must we absolutely reject all. : Now that what I say may become clearer, I will endeavour to make it manifest in an example. Christ is called the Head of the Church. If I am to take nothing from what is human in the idea, why, I would know, is the expression used at all? On the other hand, if I understand all in that way, extreme absurdity will result. For the head is of like passions with the body, and liable to the same things. What then ought we to let go, and what to accept? We should let go these particulars which I have mentioned, but accept the notion of a perfect union, and the first principle; and not even these ideas absolutely, but here also we must form a notion, as we may by ourselves, of that which is too high for us, and suitable to the Godhead: as that both the union is surer, and the beginning more honourable. Again, thou hearest the word Son; do not thou in this case either admit all particulars; yet neither oughtest thou to reject all: but admitting whatever is meet for God, e. g. that He is of the same substance, that He is of God; the things which are incongruous, and belong to human weakness, leave thou upon the earth. Again, God is called Light. Shall we then admit all circumstances, which belong to this light? In no wise. For to that region this light is circumscribed by darkness and by space, and is moved by another power, and is overshadowed; none of which it is lawful even to imagine of That Essence. We will not however reject all things on this account, but will reap something useful from the example. The illumination which cometh to us from God, the deliverance from darkness; this will be what we gather from it. [4.] Thus much in answer to the heretics: but we must also Covering the Head, a Token of Subjection. orderly go over the whole passage. 355 11.3, 4. For perhaps some 1 Cor. one might here have doubt also, questioning with himself, what sort of crime it was, that the woman should be uncovered, or that the men should be covered? What sort of crime then it is, learn now from hence. Symbols many and diverse have been given both to man and woman; to him of rule, to her of subjection: and among them this also, that she should be covered, while he hath his head bare. If now these be symbols, you see that both err, when they disturb the order and the disposition of God, and transgress their proper limits, both the man falling into the woman's inferiority, and the woman rising up against the man, by her outward habiliments. 22.5. For if exchange of garments be not lawful, so that neither she should be clad with a cloak, nor he with a mantle or a veil: (for the woman, saith He, shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment':) much more is it unseemly for these1 Deut. things to be interchanged. For the former indeed were ordained by men, even although God afterwards ratified them: but this by nature, I mean the being covered, or uncovered. But when I say nature, I mean God. For he it is who created Nature. When therefore thou overturnest these boundaries, see how great injuries ensue. And tell me not this, that the error is but small. For first, it is great, even of itself: being as it is disobedience. Next, though it were small, it became great, because of the greatness of the things whereof it is a sign. However, that it is a great matter, is evident from its ministering so effectually to good order among mankind, the governor and the governed being regularly kept in their several places by it. So that he who transgresseth, disturbs all things, and betrays the gifts of God, and casts to the ground the honour bestowed on him from above; not however the man only, but also the woman. For to her also that is the greatest of honours, to preserve her own rank; as indeed of disgraces, the behaviour of a rebel. Wherefore he laid it down concerning both, thus saying, Ver. 4. Every man praying or prophesying having his ▲ a 2 |