ON THE PERSONAL UNION OF THE TWO

1 Peter 4:1. Conversely, it is rightly said: The Son of man descended from heaven, He is everywhere; namely, that the man Christ is God in the divine nature. Now, it is not permitted in the Church that properties be spoken of alternately regarding the other nature in the abstract, and thus be confused. Therefore it is not rightly said: The Deity or the divine nature of Christ has suffered or been crucified; [nor] the humanity or human nature of Christ is eternal, [or] an infinite essence [that is] everywhere filling all things; because these propositions do not speak of the person, but of one nature considered by itself, which, since it has its own essential and perpetual properties, does not receive those of another. Thus, the human nature, even if after glorification it received excellent ornaments, yet it did not receive all its essential properties; otherwise, it itself would have been changed into the divine nature. For where there is no dissimilarity of properties, but the most exact agreement and equalization, there it is necessary for there to be identity of nature and essence.

All sane men understand that this is the true and perspicuous doctrine concerning the personal union and the communicatio idiomatum, taken from the Word of God, the perpetual consent of the Church, and the sentiment of the Augsburg Confession, and they rest in it with sincere hearts.

But we see that you and some who are like you doubt the certainty of this and bring forth singular and new sentiments from the present disturbance of the churches; concerning this, we shall hear from you what it is, if it pleases.

Dr. Herbrand in Compend. Theolog. ERIST. I, however, posit the communicatio idiomatum equally with you, when those things which are the properties of one nature in Christ are attributed to the other in the concrete, so that they are understood of the whole Christ and are to be interpreted as meaning that the divine nature has really communicated all communicable properties to the human nature, so that now what the Son of God has by nature, the Son of man has by grace communicated to him from the personal union. Not, however, so that conversely the human nature