Now, with the view of explaining, by means of an illustration, what has been said concerning the Saviour, (I may say that) the power of thought [1735] which I have by nature is proper and suitable to me, as being possessed of a rational and intelligent soul; and to this soul there pertains, according to nature, a self-moved energy and first power, ever-moving, to wit, the thought that streams from it naturally. This thought I utter, when there is occasion, by fitting it to words, and expressing it rightly in signs, using the tongue as an organ, or artificial characters, showing that it is heard, though it comes into actuality by means of objects foreign to itself, and yet is not changed itself by those foreign objects. [1736] For my natural thought does not belong to the tongue or the letters, although I effect its utterance by means of these; but it belongs to me, who speak according to my nature, and by means of both these express it as my own, streaming as it does always from my intelligent soul according to its nature, and uttered by means of my bodily tongue organically, as I have said, when there is occasion. Now, to institute a comparison with that which is utterly beyond comparison, just as in us the power of thought that belongs by nature to the soul is brought to utterance by means of our bodily tongue without any change in itself, so, too, in the wondrous incarnation [1737] of God is the omnipotent and all-creating energy of the entire deity [1738] manifested without mutation in itself, by means of His perfectly holy flesh, and in the works which He wrought after a divine manner, (that energy of the deity) remaining in its essence free from all circumscription, although it shone through the flesh, which is itself essentially limited. For that which is in its nature unoriginated cannot be circumscribed by an originated nature, although this latter may have grown into one with it [1739] by a conception which circumscribes all understanding: [1740] nor can this be ever brought into the same nature and natural activity with that, so long as they remain each within its own proper and inconvertible nature. [1741] For it is only in objects of the same nature that there is the motion that works the same works, showing that the being [1742] whose power is natural is incapable in any manner of being or becoming the possession of a being of a different nature without mutation. [1743]

---

Footnotes:

[1735] logos.

[1736] The text is, dia ton anomoion men uparchonta. Anastasius reads me for men.

[1737] somatoseos.

[1738] tes holes theotetos.

[1739] sunephu.

[1740] Kata sullepsin panta perigraphousan noun.

[1741] oute men eis t' auton auto pheresthai phuseos pote kai phusikes energeias , heos an hekateron tes idias entos menei phusikes atrepsias. To pheresthai we supply again pephuke.

[1742] ousian.

[1743] The sense is extremely doubtful here. The text runs thus: homophuon gar monon he tautourgos esti kinesis semainousa ten ousian, hes phusike kathesteke dunamis, heterophuous idiotetos ousias einai kat' oudena logon, e genesthai dicha tropes dunamenen. Anastasius renders it: Connaturalium enim tantum per se operans est motus, manifestans substantiam, cujus naturalem constat esse virtutem: diversæ naturæ proprietatis substantia nulla naturæ esse vel fieri sine convertibilitate valente.