without the entity it qualifies; and an attribute is not a creating deity, whereas the Messiah, in their doctrine, is a creating deity. Their assertion, therefore, collapses under both alternatives.

Should they say, “The reality united with him is the entity that possesses the attribute,” that entity is the Father, yet the Messiah, according to them, is not the Father.

And should they say, “It is only the attribute,” an attribute never separates from the entity it qualifies, nor can it subsist in something else; an attribute neither creates nor provides sustenance, it is not the Deity, and an attribute does not sit at the right hand of its subject—whereas they claim that the Messiah ascended to heaven and sat at the right hand of his Father.

As for maintaining that he is the Father alone, namely the Essence stripped of all attributes, this is even more impossible, and none of them professes such a view.

Second aspect:
If, after the alleged union, the essence joined to the Messiah’s human nature and that human nature itself remain two distinct essences—two substances—exactly as they were before the union, then no union has in fact occurred.

If, however, it is said that the two became a single substance—as some of them contend, comparing it to fire entering iron or milk blending with water—this necessarily entails the transformation of each and a change in each one’s attribute—indeed, its very reality—just as water and milk are transformed when mixed, and fire with iron. Consequently, the divinity would have undergone transformation, its quality and reality altered; and any such transformation can take place only when one thing ceases to exist and another comes into being. This would require that something belonging to the Eternal, Self-Subsisting Being pass out of existence.