Dialogus de unione personali duarum in Christo naturarum secundum mentem Sacrae Scripturae, Ecclesiae, atque Augustanae Confessionis adversus eos qui genuinam horum sententiam pervertunt

ORTH. To what, therefore, do all these things tend?

ERIST. To this, that on account of this real, and not at all merely verbal, communicatio idiomatum communication of properties, it is truly possible for this Christ to be and to be called omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient (and thus God) according to both natures, not only according to the divine, but also according to the human nature. And whoever denies this concerning Christ, it is clear that he does not think rightly about the person of Christ, nor does he think that He is God in reality, but only in name. Infinite and most illustrious sayings provide us with this faith concerning the omnipotence of Christ according to his human nature. Matt. 28, Col. 2, Phil. 2, etc.

ORTH. From what foundation does the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum emanate?

ERIST. From the personal union of the two natures.

ORTH. Therefore, the personal union is prior.

ERIST. That is held as confessed.

ORTH. Whatever our union is, therefore, such is the communication. But in both cases, you confuse the natures. For there is confusion when that which is divine and human is not discerned by its own properties. But you will understand that this is a new and insolent doctrine regarding the personal union and the communicatio idiomatum if you permit the force and nature of truth to have any value for you.

ERIST. However, the most illustrious sayings of Scripture and the fathers compel us to maintain that our communication is not verbal but real, in which divine properties are altogether predicated concerning the humanity of Christ.

ORTH. These things will be answered where it is convenient; now I shall proceed with my established plan. Nor is it sufficiently plain or firm that