Fragment
III.
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 thought1735
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
1736 The
text is, διὰ
τῶν ἀνομοίων
μὲν
ύπάρχοντα.
Anastasius reads μὴ for
μέν. |
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
incarnation1737
of
God is the
omnipotent and
all-creating energy of the entire
deity1738
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
1740
Κατὰ
σύλληψιν
πάντα
περιγράφουσαν
νοῦν. |
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
1741
οὔτε
μὴν εἰς τ᾽
αὐτὸν αὐτῷ
φέρεσθαι
φύσεώς ποτε
καὶ φυσικῆς
ἐνεργείας
, ἕως ἂν
ἑκάτερον τῆς
ἰδίας ἐντὸς
μένει
φυσικῆς
ἀτρεψίας. Το φέρεσθαι we
supply again πέφυκε. |
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
1743 The
sense is extremely doubtful here. The text runs thus:
ὁμοφυῶν γὰρ
μόνων ἡ
ταυτουργός
ἐστι κίνησις
σημαίνουσα
τὴν οὐσίαν,
ἧς φυσικὴ
καθέστηκε
δύναμις,
ἑτεροφυοῦς
ἰδιότητος
οὐσίας εἶναι
κατ᾽ οὐδένα
λόγον, ἢ
γενέσθαι
δίχα τροπῆς
δυναμένην.
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. |
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH