From the book
The Sophic Hydrolith, Water Stone of the Wise
Anonymous and companion authors · Diotimos Editions · 2026
Browse this book’s lexicon →Orientation
At a Glance
- The wordPerson and natures are deliberately distinguished in the main treatise’s account of Christ.
- In the Sophic HydrolithPart IV: the spiritual comparison · unit 24 first connects Christ’s wondrous birth and origin with the earlier description of the philosophical Stone.
- In this editionThe English repeatedly uses “according to” for the two natures and retains “with body and soul,” making the scope of each assertion visible.
- A place to readEternal divinity and temporal humanity with body and soul are confessed in one inseparable person.
Meaning
Person and natures are deliberately distinguished in the main treatise’s account of Christ. He is described according to two natures, divinity and humanity, while remaining one inseparable person. The divine-and-human wording does not introduce two Christs or make the human nature a mere appearance. Nor does the extraordinary origin erase the distinction between eternal divine generation and birth as a human being in time.
The access family therefore preserves both plurality and unity: “both natures” is plural, “one person” singular. Those grammatical quantities are part of the doctrine stated in the passage, not details that may be smoothed away to make the material analogy simpler.
Use in the book
Part IV: the spiritual comparison · unit 24 first connects Christ’s wondrous birth and origin with the earlier description of the philosophical Stone. It then specifies the theological content rather than leaving the comparison vague. According to divinity, the Son is true God from eternity, from the divine being of his heavenly Father. The account of a beginningless going forth belongs to that nature, not to the time of his human birth.
According to humanity, he is born in the fullness of time as a true and perfect human being with body and soul, without sinful defects. Body and soul are thus expressly included in his humanity. A reader should not infer that his divine nature substitutes for a human soul or makes the human body merely an external shell.
The concluding statement insists on an inseparable personal, divine-and-human being: true God and true man in one person, indissoluble to eternity. The author adds that he must be recognised and honoured as Almighty God. This is the passage’s confession, not an invitation to infer that human practitioners become divine persons through material perfection.
Its relationship to the preceding “addition” is consequently governed by these specifications. Human nature is genuinely united with the Son, yet the account does not reduce the union to an ordinary mixture whose parts can later be separated. The following discussion of properties and scholastic distinctions should be read alongside this compact statement.
Places to read
- Part IV: the spiritual comparison · unit 24Eternal divinity and temporal humanity with body and soul are confessed in one inseparable person.
- Part IV: the spiritual comparison · unit 22The preceding addition comparison explicitly joins human nature with the Son’s divine nature.
- Part IV: the spiritual comparison · unit 25The following paragraph disputes scholastic treatments of the union and communication of properties.
Translation
The English repeatedly uses “according to” for the two natures and retains “with body and soul,” making the scope of each assertion visible. “One person, indissoluble to all eternity” preserves the singular and its temporal force. The compound “divine-and-human” translates the source’s compound expression without inventing a third nature. These choices allow the material comparison to remain legible while the actual theological distinctions, rather than an assumed chemical model, govern its interpretation.
Attested forms
beyden Naturen; Gottheit; Menschheit; Person; Gottmenschlichen Wesens