emphasis. The Eastern school, of which Antioch was originally the centre, devoted itself to the exegesis of Scripture, and just as in modern days our preoccupation with the Bible has led us again to emphasise the importance of the man Jesus, so the thinkers of the school of Antioch insisted on the reality of humanity in Jesus Christ. There was no intention of thereby doing detriment to His divinity. For them divinity and humanity were distinct "natures" (phuseis), both of which were real and both of which inhered in Jesus Christ. Popularly we may suspect that, as controversy increased, the crux of the position came to be regarded as being that Jesus was a man. There are at least indications that some Eastern Christians laid stress on that. On the other hand, the Alexandrian school, with its interest in philosophy, laid emphasis on the unity of the Incarnate Word. Their formula was "One nature (phusis) incarnate of God the Word". It will be noticed that both schools used the term "nature" (phusis), but they used it in different senses. For the Antiocheans "nature" meant an abstract quality or set of qualities. The Alexandrians were thinking rather of the concrete personality. What they insisted on was, in later phraseology, the unity of the Person of Christ. We have to remember that men were working with a theological terminology which was only in process of formation.

Conflict was ultimately provoked by the use of certain phrases of a more or less popular character. By the Alexandrians, epithets appropriate to the Divine Word were without scruple applied


to Jesus in His aspect as man. As popular piety is always impatient of fine distinctions and inclines to the unconditional assertion that Jesus is God, this habit grew, especially among the monks of Egypt and of the Syrian desert. One of the terms which came into common use in these circles was the epithet theotokos (Mother of God) applied to the Virgin Mary. From the Alexandrian point of view that seemed quite allowable, even natural. But the Easterns regarded it as suspicious if not absurd, as indeed from their point of view it was.

In 428, Nestorius, a monk from the neighbourhood of Antioch, was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople. He showed himself zealous against heretics. It was not long before he found himself accused of heresy. He had brought with him some Eastern clergy, and one of them began to preach against the use of the term theotokos. Protests were raised and Nestorius defended his subordinate. Cyrill, Patriarch of Alexandria, jealous already of Nestorius, intervened in the troubles which ensued. A Council was summoned to meet at Ephesus in 431. The Syrian bishops were delayed in their journey, and Cyrill, backed by his Egyptian contingent, and supported by the bishops of Asia Minor who were jealous of the authority of Constantinople, constituted a Council without them. Nestorius refused to attend and was condemned. The Syrians, having arrived, held a Council with Nestorius and condemned Cyrill. Cyrill, however, had won the victory. Nestorius was definitely deposed. Cyrill escaped to Alexandria and remained secure. In a few years' time an accommodation was reached.