nor that she gave birth to one, just as the Melkites do not say, “The divinity was crucified and the divinity died,” even though they hold that the divinity and the humanity are united.

He goes on to argue: If they contend, “The union occurred at the moment of birth,” we reply, “Then Mary delivered the Word together with the man; and the Word, according to both us and you, is God. Consequently, Mary gave birth to God.”

Should they answer, “Yes,” we say, “If it is admissible for Him to be born, why is it inadmissible for Him to have been carried in the womb? If you concede that point, you abandon your own position; and if you refuse, then what difference is there between being born and being carried?”

If they respond, “God is not born, and the union did not exist before birth—when He would have been carried—nor in the very act of birth, when He was still an infant,” we answer: “This undermines your statement that Mary gave birth to the Messiah. For by your account the Messiah is not the man alone, while Mary, in your view, gave birth only to the man.

“Now, if the Messiah is more than mere man, and Mary delivered only the man before the union, she must have delivered something that was not the Messiah, for He became Messiah only through the union—which, by your reckoning, occurred after the birth. He therefore became Messiah only after He was born.

“If this, according to you, is untenable, and yet you insist that Mary did give birth to the Messiah, it follows that she did not give birth to the man alone. Rather, she necessarily gave birth to God together with the man—implying that the union took place before the birth.”