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 wordThe Latin phrase names the union of the natures and the communication of properties in Christ.
- In the Sophic HydrolithPart IV: the spiritual comparison · unit 25 accuses contemporary Aristotelian sophists of endless distinguishing, dividing and confounding over this article.
- In this editionThe aligned English explicitly translates the phrase as “the union of the natures and the communication of properties in Christ.”
- A place to readThe incarnation comparison identifies the human side as flesh, blood and human nature.
Meaning
The Latin phrase names the union of the natures and the communication of properties in Christ. It is the stated subject of a theological dispute criticised by the anonymous author. “Properties” is the relevant sense of the second part, not “idioms” as modern expressions or languages. The first part concerns the relation of divine and human natures in the one Christ.
The phrase should be read together with, but not collapsed into, the preceding statement of one person in two natures. The source invokes the article as already grounded in Scripture; it does not supply a complete catalogue of properties or a systematic explanation of every mode of their communication.
Use in the book
Part IV: the spiritual comparison · unit 25 accuses contemporary Aristotelian sophists of endless distinguishing, dividing and confounding over this article. The author’s positive claim is that the conjunction described in the chemical work offers a visible aid to understanding. Even readers unwilling to trust God’s Word, he says, could grasp something of the union through that example.
The comparison names the mercurial and solar sides of the material conjunction. Its purpose is to make a relation of unity intelligible, not to provide a literal account of divine matter or demonstrate that God can be divided into ingredients. The adjacent Christological statement is therefore an important control: according to divinity the Son is eternal, according to humanity truly human with body and soul, and in both one indissoluble person.
The earlier incarnation passage also explains the earthly side as flesh and blood, humanity or human nature. This is a real distinction within the author’s confession, not a refusal of all differentiating language. His polemic targets distinctions he considers obstructive or confounding, rather than eliminating the very natures the article names.
The passage’s attack does not identify a complete list of opponents or justify assigning the anonymous author to a precise contemporary party solely from this sentence. Its appeal to Scripture and to a chemical likeness can be described faithfully without reconstructing an unstated confessional history.
Places to read
- Part IV: the spiritual comparison · unit 22The incarnation comparison identifies the human side as flesh, blood and human nature.
- Part IV: the spiritual comparison · unit 24One indissoluble person and two natures govern the adjacent theological account.
- Part IV: the spiritual comparison · unit 25The complete Latin article is named within the polemic about conjunction and properties.
Translation
The aligned English explicitly translates the phrase as “the union of the natures and the communication of properties in Christ.” Retaining the complete Latin wording as one lookup helps readers locate the disputed article rather than finding an isolated word without its object. The English description of the material conjunction is itself syntactically compressed; the entry follows its relational point without forcing every component into a perfected technical scheme. The more detailed one-person statement is separately anchored, not silently imported as if it were written inside the Latin phrase.
Attested forms
de vnione naturarum & communicatione idiomatum in Christo