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

DE VNIONE PERS. DVARVM

ORTH. I judge this statement to be Arian, Mahometan, and blasphemous.

ERIST. Yet this is your position.

ORTH. This is truly not our position at all.

ERIST. Certainly, he who denies that the man Christ, according to his human nature, is both God, and omnipotent, and omnipresent, and who contends that he is circumscribed somewhere by his body, does he not strip the divine majesty from Christ and make a powerless man out of Christ, and in this way dissolve the person, since he affirms that his humanity is not everywhere with the divinity?

ORTH. We believe with our whole heart that the man Christ is both eternal God and omnipresent, but we deny, along with Holy Scripture and the true Church, that his humanity or flesh is either God, or omnipotent, or everywhere. For "humanity or the flesh of Christ" and "the man Christ" do not signify the same thing. Nor are "the man Christ" and "Christ according to his human nature" the same thing, just as we confess that the whole Christ, indeed God himself, suffered for us, even though he underwent death not according to his divine nature, but according to his human nature.

ERIST. I, for my part, confess and believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is both the son of God and of Mary, true God and true man.

ORTH. We confess and believe exactly the same thing.

ERIST. Furthermore, we contend that he is, not only according to his divine nature but also according to his human nature, (though by grace) God omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-quickening.

ORTH. This, however, overturns what you said before, when you confessed that Christ is a true man. But from where do you think this opinion can be established?

ERIST. The Word of God, which cannot deceive, testifies to this.