It follows that light is a substance in natural philosophy and in theosophy, not merely in logic, as demonstrated above. For no one will deny that things created through the absolute Word and decree “Let there be” are pure substances. The case differs with things created through such a word and decree as “Let the earth bring forth.”

Taking this definition of substance as given, I turn specifically to man, to touch as briefly on the remaining matters and apply it to them. Those who analyse the body distinguish two men: one heavenly and immortal, the other earthly and corruptible. The earthly man, like other lower bodies, consists, as they say, of substance and residues. That substance, together with the other man—the heavenly man or soul—constitutes one hypostasis for as long as they remain joined. It follows immediately, in natural philosophy, that “Whatever is in man is substance” is false; sin cannot in any way be regarded as substance.

Since in plants and other lower bodies the evil of corruption attaches to the residues rather than to substance, there can be no doubt that in man too the corruption called sin attaches properly and principally to that accidental part. Paul himself seems to support this when he says, “I know that in me—that is, in my flesh—nothing good dwells.” By the explanatory phrase “that is,” he expressly indicates that sin dwells in the flesh and the earthly man. I say that sin dwells in the residual flesh, since it remains firmly established that substance admits no contrariety into itself.

Sin therefore attaches properly and principally to the accidental part, and is itself an accident. For, as the Apostle testifies, sin was introduced only after God had already created man, through men themselves—our first parents—who, deceived by the devil, transgressed God’s command. Thus it is utterly false that God is the author of sin.

Yet, as stated, in other lower bodies the residue always exceeds the substance, mingles with it, and distorts its purity, so that the residue is bound to choke the substance unless the Art separates it with great diligence after putrefaction, which must precede every operation, especially in our Art. In the same way, sin clings to man and contaminates and distorts his whole substance. So long as he lives on this earthly mass, he is never free of sin and can produce no virtuous action. He is also condemned to death, both eternal and temporal, and must perish in body and soul unless he is saved by faith in Jesus Christ and his merit and cleansed of sin by his most precious blood.

It follows that after death and putrefaction our bodies will rise on the last day perfected, freed from every stain and corruption, glorious and spiritual. As Paul says: It is sown in corruption; it will rise in incorruption. It is sown in dishonour; it will rise in glory. It is sown in weakness; it will rise in power. A natural body is sown; a spiritual body will rise.

In our Art we possess a type and living image of this transmutation. Through putrefaction and separation our subject is regenerated, freed of every grossness and impurity, and brought to a new and most noble form, a spiritual essence and perfected power. Hence that anonymous author, also called the Son of Sendivogius, says: “From our stone shine forth God, Three and One, his works of creation, redemption, and regeneration, and the state of future blessedness.”

Considering these things, and especially because by God’s grace I have myself more than once seen crystals like rubies in my labours, I also agree with those who maintain that Urim and Thummim in the Old Testament were the philosophical White and Red. It seems highly probable to me that God Most High wished to answer his chosen people Israel in their affairs through this substance, purified and freed from every impurity. For it was immediately created through his substantial Word and consequently subsists; from it all things were formed, and nothing in the world, except the human soul, is more precious.

This was to signify that the same Word would come into the world, reveal to us all mysteries and his Father’s will, and answer for us upon the altar of the Cross through his purest ransom. He would deliver us from the labyrinth of sin and the devil’s bondage, free us from eternal death, and make real satisfaction for our complete redemption through the true and most perfect White and Red.

What shall I say of that great mystery, that through water and the Holy Spirit we are regenerated and adopted as children of God? It must nevertheless be known that the matter of the stone is water, and that water brought to the highest colour and fixity is the stone itself. Consider, then, how greatly our Hermetic philosophy and Art help us avoid error both in natural philosophy and in religion, and strengthen faith in the resurrection of our flesh and eternal life, and trust in God.

Finally, although you maintain that there has been no shift from one controversy to another, your discussion of God’s image—which you consider co-created and lost through the Fall—gives me occasion to say this: I recognize no distinction between the image of God itself and what was created in God’s image, as is commonly supposed. Either blessed Luther’s translation must be false—“Let us make man, an image like ourselves,” and likewise, “God created man as his image”—or that distinction is invalid.

What else does “Let us make man according to our image and likeness” mean in our language but “Let us make man, an image like ourselves”? In deliberating upon man’s creation, God decreed to create him in his image, not to co-create it. He also expressed what kind of image it should be: one that rules and has dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the beasts, and the whole earth. Hence Paul states without qualification in 1 Corinthians 11 that man is the image of God.