IBAS

IBAS

198

patriarch of Constantinople. To the latter thematter appeared so serious that towards theclose of 437 a.d. he wrote to John of Antioch,as the leading prelate of the East, though reallyhaving no canonical jurisdiction over Osrhoene,begging him to persuade Ibas, if innocent, toremove the scandal by condemning both publiclyin his church and by his signature certainheretical propositions chiefly drawn from Theo-dore’s writings which Proclus had annexed to a“tome,” or official letter, which he was sendingto the church of Armenia against the errors ofNestorius. The same demand was made by Proclusof all the Eastern bishops; but with only partialsuccess. The letter was received without scrupleby Ibas and the bishops generally, but they refusedto condemn Theodore’s propositions. (Labbe, v.511-514.)

But though for the present foiled, the mal-content faction at Edessa maintained the samehostile attitude to their bishop. They watchedhis words and actions with jealous vigilance, andeagerly noted everything that might swell theroll of charges they were secretly preparing tobring forward at a favourable moment. Theleaders of the cabal were four presbyters, Samuel,Cyrus, Eulogius, and Maras, acting at the insti-gation of one of Ibas’s own suffragans, Uraniusbishop of Himeria, a pronounced Eutychian.Samuel had a private grudge against his bishop,who some years before had taken him to taskfor stating in a sermon that “the Life had suffereddeath,” and had inhibited him from preaching.(Labbe, iv. 654.) Domnus, who had in 442succeeded his uncle John as bishop of Antioch,visiting Hierapolis for the enthromsation of thenew bishop Stephen, the conspirators chose thatmoment for action. Cyrus and Eulogius formallylaid before Domnus the accusation against Ibas,signed by about seventeen of the clergy of Edessa,and supported by as many as thirty. (Labbe,iv. 658.) It was asserted also that the chargewas backed by many of the leading laymenof the city and military officers. (Labbe, v. 512.)Ibas, who was on the point of starting forHierapolis to pay his respects to Domnus, onhearing of the accusation, at once summoned hiselergy, and, after pronouncing excommunicationon Cyrus and Eulogius as calumniators, warnedthe rest that he would treat in the same wayall who participated in their proceedings. Noimmediate step seemed to have followed thepresentation of the libel. The friends of peace,among whom the excellent Theodoret was everthe most prominent, laboured hard to restoretranquillity, but to no purpose (Theod. Epist.87, 111). In 445 Ibas was summoned by Domnusto the synod held at Antioch in the matter ofAthanasius of Perrha, but he excused himselfby letter. (Labbe, iv. 739.) The sympathies ofDomnus were with Ibas rather than with hispersecutors, and he shewed no readiness to enter-tain the charges brought against him. At last,in Lent 448, the four chief delators presentedtheir indictment before Domnus and the council°f the East in a manner too formal to beneglected. Domnus consequently summonedIbas to appear before him after Easter to answerto the charges. At the same time, by the adviceof Theodoret, who was then at Antioch, he re-commended him to hold off the excommunicationfrom his accusers, in order that they might not

CHRIST. BIOftR.—VOL. III.

be deprived of the Eucharist and other Christianprivileges at Easter. Ibas declined to do thishimself, but left the matter in the hands ofDomnus, who restored them to communion oncondition of their not leaving Antioch till theaffair was settled, threatening those who dis-obeyed not with excommunication only, butdeposition. (Labbe, iv. 639-643; Liberat. c. 13.;Theod. Epist. 87, 111.) After Easter the councilwas held at Antioch. It was not attended bya large number of bishops. The existing actsbear only nine signatures. (Labbe, u. s. 643.)That of Theodoret, the warm friend of Ibas, isnot among them. He was detained, to the greatchagrin of Ibas’s accusers, by the imperial pro-hibition to leave his diocese. (Theod. Ep. 87, 91,111.) Ibas in person answered the charges laidagainst him. These were eighteen in number;the greater part of a frivolous character anddestitute of proof. Among them was that hehad appropriated a jewelled chalice to his ownuse; that the wine at the Eucharist was inferiorboth in quality and quantity; the malversa-tion of sums given for the ransom of captives ;simoniacal ordinations, and the admission ofunfit persons to the ministry and even theepiscopate, especially his nephew Daniel, statedto be a scandalous person, whom he had madebishop of Charrae. The most weighty charges,however, were that he had anathematised Cyriland charged him with heresy; that he was aNestorian; and especially that at Easter 445, inthe presence of his clergy, assembled according tocustom to listen to the bishop’s paschal address,and receive the Eulogiae or Easter gifts, he haddelivered himself of the blasphemous words: “Ido not envy Christ His becoming God, for I canbecome God no less than He.” “ This is the daythat Jesus Christ became God.” (Labbe, iv. 647-654; Liberat. c. 12.) The first of these chargeshe acknowledged, the others he indignantly re-pudiated, and denounced their authors as baseslanderers. On the opening of the council onlytwo of the four accusers appeared. Samuel andCyrus had gone off to Constantinople, in defianceof the terms on which the excommunication hadbeen taken off, to lay their complaint before theemperor and the patriarch, the favourable feelingof Domnus towards the accused being too evidentfor them to hope for an impartial trial. Thequestion being one of facts, Domnus and thecouncil declined to proceed with the investigationin the absence of the chief witnesses, and itwould seem that the case was postponed in-definitely. (Labbe, iv. 642 sq.; Theod. Epist. 111.)Baulked of their prey, Eulogius and Marashastened to join their fellow conspirators atConstantinople, where they found a powerfulparty in strong hostility to the Eastern bishops,Theodoret in particular. Their faction was soonstrengthened by the arrival of Uranius, the primemover of the whole cabal, and half a dozen moreof the Edessene clergy. The emperor andFlavian, who had succeeded Proclus as patriarch,listened to their complaints, but declined to hearthem officially. The case was remitted for trialto the East, and by an imperial commission,dated Oct. 26, 448, Uranius of Himeria, Photiusof Tyre, just elected Sept. 9, a.d. 448, on thedeposition of Irenaeus, and Eustathius of Berytuswere deputed to hear it, and Damascms, thetribune and secretary of state, was despatched as

O