/ But after this was heard, the others again stirred themselves up that there might not be a judgement and an examination of these things. But the authority of your Majesty sent away the Easterns, but commanded you ----and by 'you' I mean thine own sympathizers, them that were executing thy vengeance----to enter into Constantinople and to establish another bishop in mine own place. Where then had been the judgement? And before whom? Say, in whose presence? Although it was a farcical judgement, say, you who have written the things that took place, how was it brought about? For they were many; be ye not persuaded by any of them that [are] my own [followers], lest you say that he wrote out of human love. Lean upon your own [followers], who have written of the things that were brought about. But you cannot efface what happened thus and was written at that time.
But perhaps some one will say that whatever was brought about was clearly a farce. But it was an unscrupulous thing to bring about things which were unbelievable and in need of much indulgence. For the things which were done thus are unbelievable; but they have indeed been thus prepared not only against me but also against the faith, on account of which I was stirred up and was diligent to write and to teach the things which were taking place just as they were taking place, lest men should suppose that the judgement and the examination took place and should believe without a reason and depart from the faith. For the providence / and the judgement of |286 God have been revealed unto all men, although there are [some] that see and see not, who have arisen against me out of enmity from the beginning, though now he is willing to be the first to drive every one to evil against me who have been condemned without judgement. And at the same time he has put a barrier before all men that there might be no further return for me, and has thereby hemmed in the party of the Easterns and of the rest of the countries which had not taken part with them in what they brought about and [which] had given help unto me. Nor was I acquainted with any of the things which were taking place nor was I the first to think of rebuking and accusing them for the judgement [conducted] without justice.
And I summoned an Oecumenical Council against the Council which had been [held] incompletely, in order that it might be shown in the sight of all men for what reason they did what they did; since it was not for the faith that he was confident and enthusiastic but that his own [affairs] and mine might not be examined, while by means of letters and various other means he had corrupted those who were nigh unto the Emperor and unto the Empresses and was persuading [them] that there should not be a Council. And this was told unto the Emperor and he was much reprimanded by letters, lest he should be able to dissemble; for he ought to rejoice at a judgement, if all these things were not [uttered] in semblance, so that he might be zealous in proving to the Emperor that his purpose was straightforward and just. For this was done in such wise / that he should have no defence, as one that knoweth not the things of which he is rebuked and denies [them]; and he hindered the judgement not once nor twice but even unto death. But the Emperor had acted contrariwise toward him who was blamed by him and condemned me, even me who was honoured and praised, while many were testifying that I was injured. Thus absurdities were growing so many that they were not kept dark; but that their oppression might be revealed, he properly made even him a witness and a judge for me, so that [their] oppression might be indefensible. |287 For all of them testified that we were not found doing iniquity and that they condemned me without reason. And while I was in the same [condition] without examination and without judgement, the others worked amongst them[selves] and changed all the things that concerned me.
Concerning the things which were done when Cyril and the Easterns met together and +before+ seven of each party were sent [ to Chalcedon ].
But let us speak as in a few words: perhaps some one will ask: 'How therefore did the Eastern Council also condemn thee in such wise, that then not even a single cause of defence was left unto thee?' For by the persuasion of [his] Majesty, and by this [Council] every one is the more convinced, even so that none can hide it. For one and the same was the word concerning every one of those who were in accord with me and were accepting / me and were contending with me and [concerning every one] of those who were being accused with me and were being insulted with me, since those who were changed over with them had not a single cause to change over from me. Tell thou us the cause for which they changed over from thee; for [it is] thy boldness which was against me and thy writings and the Articles which thou hast composed. They anathematized thee and deprived thee in Ephesus; and thou canst not deny neither thou nor they, what you have done in your writings. When therefore they were doing these things, they were testifying about me in two things, both in respect to orderliness and in respect to piety; but thee on the contrary they were accusing both as a bold man and as an heretic, and they summoned thee to judgement to reprimand thee for them both and they judged that thou wast worthy of deposition. And when you were summoned by the Emperor as to judgement, they were the first to accuse thee; |288 for they were persuaded of your boldness and of your tyrannical behaviour and of all the evils which you caused in Ephesus. For in Chalcedon also you closed all the churches against them before the judgement should be [given], in order that they might not enter to pray, and you blocked the roads [leading] to the Emperor and were meeting them with stones and clubs and were driving them into narrow places as into places whence men [that were] strangers, being not acquainted with the roads, had not [any means] of escape, / since they were coming in the hope of order [being maintained] by the Emperor; and thus they were hardly rescued from those who were distressing them, until the Emperor sent the help of the soldiers to rescue them.
But there was an assemblage of those who were practised in sedition without number,---- then was I summoned from Ephesus,----[consisting] at that time of Egyptians and of monks from Constantinople and of those who were renegade from monasticism and all those who by reason of any cause whatever had been driven out and were zealous for the work of agitators and were supposed on account of the habit of monks to be acting with enthusiasm. Then they were taking from the monasteries robes together with food and provisions, which were being given unto them as the wages of the fervour of love, and they were fattening their bodies therewith instead of [practising] continence. From the things which thou wast sending and bringing from the granaries and the stores of wine and of oil and of vegetables and all kinds of clothes, thou didst fill the monasteries which were being set apart for this and other places, in such wise that even the holy places of prayer were being encumbered, and the issues and the entries of every place which could receive [them] were full thereof. These things [it was] which were taking place before every one and thou wast paying for them with the things which |289 are called 'benedictions', which were being given instead of wages thereof, a thing which heretofore / thou hast not done nor [wilt do] hereafter. And thou wast carrying out these things so that thou mightest not be supposed to be sending these things so as to cause sedition, but that, as they were coming into the monasteries and were being received by the monasteries, the recipients might not be convicted for having indeed received them and for acting irreverently as disturbers and causers of tumult, in being supposed [to be] enthusiastic. For thou wast letting them bring about anything at all and wast doing everything that men might not believe that they were doing these things.
Tell me therefore for what reason thou wast letting these things be done and for what thou wast driving out them that were suffering these things, so that they were not even accounted worthy to be heard concerning aught whereof they were being driven out. What was their purpose about thee and what about me when they returned to the East? Indeed every one of them warned his city not to agree to what was carried out against me. For what reason was a decree sent by the Emperor, by the hand of Aristolaus, to constrain them to accept whatever was carried out against me? And was it sent unto them as unto persons who were and because they were [ inclined] toward me? For what reason was he commanding them to accept thee among the bishops? And what [was] the reason that persuaded them / to accept thee among the bishops? You saw not one another and you spoke not with one another, nor have you said nor have you heard for what cause you were divided; and it was for you to accept without judgement and without examination and without |290 a Council what you accepted not in judgement, and for the others to accept what they accepted not! But of yourself you thought that you were reconciled with the others concerning the things whereof you were justly blamed in order justly to confirm the two Councils either through fear or by patience or by partiality or by all of them together. What defence have you [to make] before those who are blaming you for having made a secret agreement in partiality and by deceitful means? 'The Emperor's command. It is the Emperor who has commanded us and who has prepared this for us.'
Say! why then dost thou ask me how they have accepted my deposition who formerly accepted it not? Ask me not, but I [will ask] thee; how hast thou accepted the faith which formerly thou didst not accept? How hast thou hidden thy Chapters on account of which thou hast been deprived? How have they accepted thee who accepted not thy [writings]? But how have they, who accepted not thine impious Chapters, accepted the deposition which was [pronounced] against me? These [questions] need asking and answering. For / the affair wherein thou wast openly judged by every one, willing and unwilling, made me not defenceless, but on the contrary it caused me to need no other defence. These things therefore cause those who are wanting to examine to know how they happened, as you too will confess with me therein. For the others deprive themselves and condemn themselves by their own judgement, since they have accepted not what was examined by the Council but what you have accepted in the participation of both of you , willing and unwilling, in the settlement, apart from the rest of the others, in such wise as not to settle in the name of the Council things which they wanted [to have settled] once for all for better or for worse but to prove that they did things pleasing unto the Emperor in accepting what was carried out against me, though formerly they were not accepting [it]; but they were zealous, however, to shun [all] mention of the Articles. And they were [attached] to these two parties, [some to one and] others [to the other] |291 against one another: thou [being inclined] to my deprivation and the others to the denunciation of thy Articles, on account of which we have accepted every burden. But I have accepted all sufferings and have not agreed nor----but let this be said with the aid of God----shall I agree until my last breath. For this reason, in that they have accepted / what formerly they accepted not, they are the causes of their own condemnation and are suppressing also the things which were carried out against me. For by the suppression of the Articles my deposition also is suppressed with them; or was it not because I accepted them not [that] my deprivation has taken place? For other cause there was not for my deposition.
But thou sayest: 'I have not suppressed the Articles, but I have accepted John who has confessed with me and has agreed with me on the faith as against thee.' John also has said the same: 'I have accepted thee, Cyril, who hast confessed with me on the words of the faith.' Who then [is] he that has accepted his companion? And who [is] he that has been accepted? For both of you say them and are persuading those who have separated themselves and have distinguished [themselves] from the deceptive peace which you have made: thou indeed, in that the others have accepted my deprivation which they were not formerly accepting, [and because] thou wast supposing that they accepted also these Articles which I was not accepting; and he, because he accepts not the writing of thy Articles in the deposit of the faith----men of whom thou wast determined that they should agree with thee in the things whereof men were correctly accusing them. Or did not our inquiry and our war and our strife take place that we might not accept them?
But it is [possible] to say that it was not because they were suppressed [that] they were not written in the deposit of the faith, / when an agreement had been effected, but because they had been without division and without inquiry. If all our inquiry and dispute had been for the purpose of the suppression and the refutation of these things, for no other reason were they not written when the agreement was effected, than that they had not been accepted by common opinion and |292 agreement. How then dost thou cling to them as though they were accepted, things which were not accepted in your confessions [of faith]? For in the course of coming to terms these things were not to be left alone, so that thou and thine own [followers] made not use of them as (being] orthodox nor the Easterns as [being] heretical; for that would not be any coming to terms on the faith, but disputes and divisions.
For what reason, however, was there no suppression of these things in confession [of faith] in the written documents? However, they were left alone. First indeed because they were giving way to the vehemence of [his] Majesty and men were requiring that every one so ever should make peace; after this, because they were wanting to do him the favour of not anathematizing his Articles in written documents, since it sufficed for them not to accept them and not to write in the written documents those things, which formerly he vehemently wanted to be accepted. But for what reason did he accept [the proposal] that they should be left out of the written documents, if he wished for this----as indeed [was] what he was wishing----that they / should be accepted as orthodox? In the first place indeed [it was] lest he should come to the necessity of a disputation and should fall and the Easterns should arise against him and require before everything that he should be deprived for these things, as one who was condemned----a thing which he feared, for, when he was being constrained and pressed, it was necessary for him clearly to say what he believed; since he would either seem to believe what was [written] in the Articles and in his letter or, otherwise, actually to have imagined as even the Easterns. In both [cases] he would be accused: either of saying the same things and having appeared as a wrongdoer or of clearly having revealed himself as an heretic. Yet in order that he might not suffer this, of his own will he agreed and adopted [their views] in order that they might have peace without the written documents and the Articles; and next that they might concede unto him that which concerned me, which he was demanding, that is my deprivation, in order that I might have no further [opportunity |293 of] making answer, in that all of them were come together at the same time against me, a thing for which he had been eager from the beginning. Yet notwithstanding he succeeded not, because it came about by the vehemence of [his] Majesty and not through a just judgement.
/ The letter of Cyril to Acacius, bishop of Melitene. Unto those who were blaming him for the agreement which he made with the Easterns, and how I made [ my ] defence before those who were blaming the agreement which came about.
The one indeed made [his] defence as though he [had] not accepted thy Articles but discarded them, while all of you were zealous for them. But the other says that he had not been content to anathematize them, though they were very zealous that they should anathematize the Articles. The latter however [says]: 'I have brought about what was indeed needful for you but incredible; [to wit] that they have of their [own] will accepted the deposition of Nestorius, whereby they have also accepted the Articles.' But the former denies not that he has accepted the deposition, but [it is] because thou hast accepted and confessed in written document the faith whereby the deposition is set aside; saying that thy faith is not a [matter of] dispute between thee and us in the written documents according to the certainty of our words, since thou distinguishest the natures and the divine utterances concerning both the natures. What we were all zealous to confess and thou confessedst not, has now come to pass. For he was the first to establish in every possible manner what was needful for the faith; but we have not hindered the establishment also of those things wherewith they were calumniated, but rather have we made [ready] the way.
/ And the one indeed says: 'I have made them say Mother of God", which they used not formerly to accept.' |294 Moreover he prides himself and extols himself against them that were disputing against this confession. But the other has confessed that I accepted quite simply [the name] 'Mother of God'. There is then need to state the meaning, according to which the hypostatic and the natural union of God and the natural birth from a woman is excluded. For he says that we confess Saint Mary the mother of God because God the Word was made flesh and was made man from her and, since the conception, he therein united himself unto the temple which was taken. And it was not that he was born but that he was united unto the temple which was taken and was born of her. For we decline not the term 'birth' but the ' hypostatic union of God the Word'. For this reason we have caused it to be excluded. And the one indeed predicates of God the Word God whole and man whole who in ousia is both [ ousias ];and for this reason he has written, saying, 'He was born of the Father before the worlds in his divinity, but in the last days the same for us and for our salvation was born of the Virgin Mary in his humanity'. He says that the same was born of the Father and of the Virgin Mary in the humanity, here again also because he has not examined clearly with a view to establishing the things which were required or which are required, that is, one Lord Jesus Christ, whole man [formed] of a rational soul and of a body, in such wise that Christ / and the Son and Jesus are in the two ousias. And in everything he is God as well as man by nature and in everything he is by nature man in the same way as God the Word; both of them exist in ousia, [and] for this reason each of them [exists] by himself.
Because these things have been laid down without comparison he drags them in to [serve his own] purpose according to his own aim and defends [them] to his sympathizers and deceives them, there being none indeed that is not surely calumniated, and each attracts his companion to his own aim. And he accuses me of not having correctly said that which was said by the Easterns, who [according to him] say that |295 God was born of a woman, whereas I say [it] not; and he states my own words according to hearsay; for he says:
He says that God passed through the Virgin, the mother of Christ, [as] we have learned from Divine Scripture; but we learn not indeed anywhere that he was born of her. And elsewhere in his interpretation he has said: 'And nowhere therefore does Divine Scripture say that God, but Jesus and Christ and the Son and the Lord, came into being from the virgin, the Mother of Christ.' For by saying these things he divides our Lord into two sons, so that the one is uniquely Son, Son and Christ and our Lord, he that was born of God the Father, God the Word, and again the other [was] uniquely Son and Christ and Lord, he that was born of the holy virgin.
How dissemblest thou the truth? Not only does the one say this clearly, but the others / name the holy virgin the mother of God because they speak of one Son and Christ and Lord, whole in his divinity and whole in his humanity.
But add what thou hast accepted and confessed, that there has been a union of two natures and that for this reason we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. And deceive not the wise Acacius and through him the rest; for it would not escape such a man as he----in such wise as to be blamed for the faith to which he was reconciled against thee ---- that perhaps thou clingest also to these [theories] of mine or rather to those of orthodoxy, which thou hast accepted in all this trouble. For I have confessed two natures united, but thou wast denying [them]: that there is of the divinity and of the humanity one Christ and one Lord and one Son; he was not born of woman in the divinity, but in the humanity; not as he is God |296 is he one Son of two natures united, but he is one as man. Where then do I speak of two natures, one indeed solely Son and Christ and Lord, God the Word who was born of the Father, but the other solely Christ by himself [born] of the holy virgin? Thou also understandest not these sections which thou hast written down: 'We have learned from Divine Scripture that God has passed through the holy virgin, the mother of Christ', of which thou hast written / that I say them. How then proclaimest thou that I call God the Word who was born of the Father one Christ uniquely but the man who [was born] of Saint Mary another Christ? Of whom then sayest thou that I have said that God passed through her? For it is evident that [I spoke] of him who was born of the Father, [namely] of God the Word. How therefore do I call Christ any other than God the Word, him who was born of the Father? I have said that he passed through even the blessed Mary, because he derived not the origin of [his] birth from her as the bodily frame which was born of her. For this reason I have said that he who is God the Word has surely passed through but was surely not born, because he derived not his origin from her. But there both exists and is named one Christ, the two of them being united, he who was born of the Father in the divinity, [and] of the holy virgin in the humanity, for there was a union of the two natures.
And we ought to say unto thee, Acacius, that I have confessed in one Christ two natures without confusion. By one nature on the one hand, that is, [by that] of the divinity, he was born of God the Father; by the other, on the other hand, that is, [by that] of the humanity, [he was bom] of the holy virgin. How then canst thou name her 'Mother of God', when thou hast confessed that he was not born of her? For if thou hast said that in the divinity he was born of the holy virgin, she would be called the mother of God after the nature which was born of her; but if thou, even thou, confessest that |297 he was not born [of her] in the divinity, in / that thou confessest that he was not born, how dost thou confess her Mother of God? How canst thou accuse him of saying two Christs, [who said that] which thou also hast confessed----that Christ is two natures, one nature of the divinity which is called Christ and one nature of the humanity which also thou namest Christ? Either thou dost confess two Christs owing to the diversity of the natures, one indeed the humanity which was born of the holy virgin, but the other God the Word who was born of God the Father, or thou dost say, as the other says, 'one in the union' and nothing more? And on account of what hast thou brought thyself to all this and brought the others with thee to do these things against a man who was saying this?
Cyril. But God the Word who [proceeded] from the Father is not one son, while he again who [was born] of the holy virgin is not another, as was supposed by Nestorius, but one and the same. For it is made clear and explained afterwards; for he cites that which signifies God whole and man whole, him who was born of the Father before the worlds in his divinity but in the last days for us and for our salvation of the Virgin Mary in the humanity, the same consubstantial with the Father in the divinity, the same consubstantial with us in the humanity. Therefore they divide not the one Son and Christ and Lord / and Jesus, but they say that the same existed before the worlds and in the last times; but [it is] known that he who [has proceeded] from God the Father [is] God and [he who was born] of a woman in the humanity [is] man. . . . How then is he conceived consubstantial with us in the humanity since he was born of the Father, I have said, in the divinity, if the same is not conceived and called God and man? |298
Now if it [is true] that the one ousia of God the Word, which was born of the Father and of the Virgin Mary, [was] the same, for what reason dost thou confess two natures in the union and not [that] there was one belonging to the same who was born of the Father and of the Mother, as thou wantest and even constrainest us to suppose and to let thee also suppose? But they that have accepted this confession do not allow thee to lead them whither thou wantest, but constrain thee and induce thee as a deceiver to abide by the things which thou hast confessed with them.
For thou hast confessed the union of the divinity and of the humanity, since of two natures was the union. Two thou hast confessed, and thou sayest that the others have confessed one. Thy cunning [is] great: so thou hast confessed the union, and thou sayest that the others have confessed the division of the union, so that the one same ousia is divided into the two ousias, unlike one another, of the divinity and of the humanity, so that the one ousia, which is divisible into ousias unlike and of another kind / one from another, is consubstantial. For one ousia cannot be conceived as two ousias unlike and of another kind one from another, but which are alike [in the sense] that they are consubstantial one with another, as is that likeness. In which nature then is the Son consubstantial with the Father and in which [is he] consubstantial with us? For the ousia of God the Father and our own ousia are alien one to another. He therefore too would be alien unto his being and would be of two natures alien one to another. How then is it to be conceived that he is consubstantial with us ourselves in the humanity when he exists not in the ousia of the humanity? But how is he consubstantial with the Father, when he exists not in his ousia? Or how [is] the same in ousia of the ousia of God the Father and of our ousia? And [how] is it the same ousia? And [how] are two ousias alien one to |299 another one, so that each one of the ousias both is and is conceived in one ousia? But if this is impossible, [it is] also inacceptable that it should be conceived in the word of truth. It is not a nature [which is] in its nature of the ousia of the Father and of the ousia of the humanity, so as to become consubstantial with both of them; but in the ousia of God the Word only is he consubstantial with God the Father, whereas he is consubstantial with us ourselves in our ousia ; and the same both is and is named one, who [is formed] of the nature of God and of our nature, in the prosôpon indeed of the union. For in the natures he is naturally / distinct according to the diversity of the natures which participate not in one another according to the doctrine of the ousias. And thou canst not unloose aught that thou hast bound,----to wit, the union of two 'natures; and two natures are not one nature'. For a union of the diversity of the diverse natures and not of the diversities of its very own ousia is conceived and said to have taken place; for the coming into being appertains to the one ousia, while the union is the combination of the ousias.
Cyril. But these things appear not so unto Nestorius, but [it seems to him] rather that the aim thereof tends in the opposite direction in every respect. He used then to say in the church when interpreting [these doctrines]: 'For this reason too God the Word is named Christ, because he has adhesion constantly with Christ'; and again: 'He has preserved the adhesion of the natures without confusion, and we confess God in man; we honour the man who is adored with God Almighty through the adhesion of the divinity.' Seest thou how far [from the truth] his word [is]? For it is full of great impiety; for he says that God the Word was named Christ singly, but that he has adhesion constantly with Christ. Does he not in effect speak of two Christs? Does he not confess that he honours the man who is adored with God? Do these things then, O our brother, seem to be akin to those which have been said by the former? They have not even any coherence / with one another; for he on the one hand predicates two natures in operation in him, they on the other hand one; that is, they confess |300 and adore one Son and Lord and God, the same [proceeding] from the Father in the divinity and from the holy Virgin in the humanity; [we] say that a union indeed of two natures took place but we confess clearly one Christ and one Son and one Lord.
Nestorius. We ought to say unto thee, wise Acacius: why deceivest thou us? For thou hast confessed the union of two natures unlike one another and, wherein thou accusest Nestorius himself, thou seemest to confess [the same] with him, although thou sayest not that two Christs are predicated; for Nestorius too seems not to have confessed two Christs. But, after what thou spreadest abroad concerning him, that he says so, though he confesses not that two Christs are predicated therein, thou too seemest to predicate two Christs; for thou speakest not of Christ in one nature but [sayest] that he is in two natures whole in their ousia, unlike one another; Christ exists in the divinity and in the humanity; for in that he is two, the two natures also are named two Christs by one and the same name of Christ. For when two natures, unlike one another, are named by the same name, they are called two / by homonymy. But thou sayest one in the union; this also Nestorius says: that two natures [result in] one Christ, which are self-sustaining in their natures and need not, for the support of one another, that they should be supported by |301 the union; but they have established the dispensation on our behalf. The divinity [is] not in need of the humanity, nor yet [is] the humanity in need of the divinity, because in their own nature they need naught. For it was not for the very divinity through the union with the humanity to become God without need, nor again was it for the very humanity to become man through the union with the divinity; but [it was that] from [its] creation by divinity in [its] ordinary nature, although the union also was its as a result of its creation. For the union of the divinity came about not for the completion of the one ousia but for the prosôpon of the dispensation on our behalf. Nor again [as to] the divinity, was the humanity for the completion of its nature, but for the prosôpon of the dispensation on our behalf. For they uphold the prosôpon of one another, and for this reason there makes use of the prosôpon of the one nature the other nature, as of its own. Both of them make not use of the one and the other in common nor of composition for the completion of the nature, as the soul and the body [are composed] for [the formation of] the nature of man, but there makes use of the prosôpon of the one nature the other nature [as though it were] the same as its own. And for this reason the divinity also on account of the union is named Christ after the humanity which was anointed, and there exists / of two natures, of divinity and of humanity, Christ, one Son, one Lord; through the union of the divinity and of the humanity the same is Son and Lord and God. For the things which have been called one in the union----a 'one' which exists united in nature----are indeed not predicated distinctly as things which are predicated by homonymy; yet, if thou dividest them, the 'one' is not divisible with them. For in its own nature the ousias are together and it is named after both of them owing to its own nature. Thus [it is] that the soul and the body which are united are named one living being and are not called two living beings. The soul and the body [constitute] one living being, because the |302 body lives not in its own life but in the union with the soul; and for this reason, if they are divided, the life is not divided but there is [left] only [that] of the soul, since both of them are named after its nature one living being.
Let it then be assumed for demonstration also concerning the divinity and the humanity that there is one prosôpon in two prosôpa ; that cannot be conceived [as] one without the union, but man [is] man and God God. Both of them [are] one Son, one Lord. For when they are distinguished it is not theirs that the latter should be called that which the former is; for this reason thou too confessest the union of two natures, and of two natures unlike one another; of the divinity and of the humanity, / complete divinity and complete humanity, one Christ, one Son, one Lord. Or callest thou perhaps one nature Christ and [sayest] not one Christ in two natures, and the union without confusion of the natures is superfluous? But if two natures are one Christ, thou sayest, as Nestorius, in [respect to] the union, that one is named after the other. And why hurriest thou outwardly to pursue the others, when thou makest [thy] defence on their behalf and the two [opinions] are found in thee, the former and the opposite thereof? ....