Now, since they themselves concede that Mary gave birth to God, and that the one whom she bore—the Messiah, a single title that in their usage embraces the two essences, the divinity and the humanity—actually died, were the birth, the death, and all the other events the Christians narrate as having befallen the Messiah directed at anything other than those two essences together?

How, then, can any rational person justify worshipping one who was born of a human woman, who died, and who was subject to illnesses and defects?

I say: One of the clearest proofs of their inconsistency is their claim that the Messiah—comprising both the divine and the human—is one person, one hypostasis, while also asserting that the two are distinct essences, each with its own nature and will; yet they assign to these two essences only one hypostasis.

They further maintain that he is one person. Then they declare that the Lord of the worlds is one God, one hypostasis, one essence—and at the same time three hypostases. Thus they attribute three hypostases to a single essence, but only one hypostasis to two united essences. Moreover, in their scheme the will of the three hypostases is one, whereas to the humanity and the divinity they ascribe two wills and two natures; still, these two are, in their view, one person, one hypostasis. This entails the height of contradiction, no matter whether they interpret hypostasis as “attribute,” “person,” “essence together with attribute,” or anything else they may propose.

All of this shows that those who have spoken in this manner have not even conceived of what they themselves are saying.