The Ancient Library

Scanned text contains errors.


stantinople he was not disposed to remain quiet, but sought to unite himself more closely with the semi-Arians; in opposition to the Acacians. [AcA- cius, No. 3.] He appears to have resided in the neighbourhood of Constantinople till his death, of the date of which there is no account. Facundus asserts that he was summoned in a. d. 381 before the second oecumenical, or first council of Constantinople, at which his obnoxious tenets respecting the Holy Spirit were condemned; but this is probably a mistake, and it appears likely that he did not long survive his deposi­ tion. , :

Macedonius is known chiefly as the leader of a sect which took its name from him. The term " Macedonians " (oi MaKeSoviavoi) is applied some­what indeterminately in the ancient ecclesiastical writers. Its first application was to the less hete­rodox division of the Ariah party, commonly called the semi-Arians ('H/,uapeM«>of), who admitted and contended that the Son was (fyiotoif <rios, " homoiou-sios," of like substance with the Father, in op­position to those who affirmed that he was a^o/xotoy, '" anombios," of unlike .substance. The latter party were known as Acacians, from their leader Acacius of Caesareia [acacius, No. 3], while the former were designated from Macedonius, who was the most eminent among them in dignity, though he does not appear to have fully identified himself with them until after his deposition; and if Photius (Bill. Cod. 257) is correct, was at his election an Anomoian or Acacian. The t\yo sections came into open collision at the council of Seleuceia (a.d. 359) ; and the Acacians, though outnumbered in that council, succeeded, through the favour of Con-stantius, in deposing several of their opponents, and secured an ascendancy which, though inter­rupted in the reigns of Julian and Jovian, was fully restored under the reign of Valens, from whose time they were known simply as Arians, that de­signation being thenceforward given to them alone. Many of the semi-Arian party, or, as they were termed, Macedonians, being persecuted by the now triumphant Acacians, were led to approximate more and more to the standard of the Nicene confeission with respect to the nature and dignity of the Son ; and at last several of their bishops transmitted to pope Liberius (a. d. 367) a confession, in which they admitted that the Son was " o/jloovctlos, " ho-moousios," or " of the same substance" as the Father, and were addressed by the pope in reply as orthodox in that respect. Their growing ortho­doxy on this point rendered their heterodoxy with respect to the Holy Spirit, whose deity they denied, .and whom they affirmed to be a creature, more prominent. This dogma is said to have been broached by Macedonius after his deposition, and was held both, by those who remained semi-Arians .and by those who had embraced orthodox views on the person and dignity of the Son ; their only common feature being their denial of the deity of the Holy Spirit, on account of which they were by the Greeks generally termed IIi/et^aTOjUaxoi, " Pneumatomachi," " Impugners of the Spirit." The second general or first Constantinopolitan council (a. d. 381) anathematised the heresy of the semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi ('Hfjuapeiavooy rp/ovv Tlvev/jiaTofjidx&v)) thus identifying the two names as belonging to one great party ; from which it appears not unlikely that the same fear of per­secution which led the Macedonians, during the




Arian ascendency under Valens, to court the or­ thodox, by approximating towards orthodoxy, led them, now that orthodoxy was in the ascendant under Theodosius, to draw nearer to the Arians, in order to secure their alliance and support. The Macedonians were also sometimes called Mara- thonians, Mapadwviavoi, from Marathqnius, one of their leaders. (Socrates, H. E. ii. 6, 12, 13, 16, 22, 27, 38, 39, 40, 45, iv. 12, v. 4, 8 ; Sozom. H. E. iii. 3, 7, 9, iv. 2, 3, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, v. 14, vi. 10, 11, 12, 22, vii. 7, 9 ; Theodoret. H. E. ii. 6, v. 11; Philostorg. H. E.v. 1, viii. 17 ; Greg. Nazianz. Orat. xxxi. xli.; Athanas. Historia Arianor. ad Mondch. c. 7; Pseud. Athanas. Dialog, de Trinit. iii., and Contra Macedonidnos Dialog. i. ii.; Epiphan. Panarium. Haeres. 74 (s. ut alii, 54) ; Augustin. de Haeresibus, c. 52 ; Leontius Byzant. de Sectis. Act. iv.; Phot. Bill. L c.; Theo­ phanes, Chronograph, pp. 35—38, ed. Paris, pp. 64—70, ed. Bonn ; Tillemorit, Memoires, vol. vi. ; Ceillier, Aziteurs Sacres, vol. v. p. 594, &c.; Fabric. BiU. Graec. vol. ix. p. 247, Concilia, vol. i. col. 809, 810, 817, 818, 819, ed. Haix douin.) .

4. Of constantinople (2). Macedonius, the second patriarch of Constantinople of the name, was nephew of Gennadius I., who was patriarch from a. d. 459 to 471, and by whom he was brought up. He held the office of Sceuophylax, or keeper of the sacred vessels, in the great church at Constantinople, and, on the deposition of the patriarch Euphemius or Euthymius, was nominated patriarch by the em­peror Anastasius I., who probably appreciated the mildness and moderation of his temper. His ap­pointment is placed by Theophanes in a. m. 488, Alex. era,=496 a. d. . Though he himself pro­bably recognised the council of Chalcedon, he was i persuaded by the emperor to subscribe the He-noticon of Zeno, in which that council was silently passed over, and endeavoured to reconcile to the church the monks of the monasteries of Constan­tinople, who had broken off from the communion of the patriarch from hatred to the Henoticon ; but he met with no success, although, in order to gain them over, he persuaded the emperor to summon a council of the bishops who were then at Constanti­nople, and to confirm, by a writing or edict, several of the things which had been sanctioned by the council of Chalcedon, without, as it appears, directly recognizing the authority of the council. Mace­donius, thus baffled in his designs, still treated the monks with mildness, abstaining from any harsh measures against them. Macedonius distinguished himself by his generosity and forbearance towards his predecessor Euphemius, and towards a man who had attempted to assassinate him. But the same praise of moderation cannot be given to all his acts, if, as stated by Victor of Times, he held a council in which the supporters of the council of Chalcedon were condemned. He occupied the patriarchate for sixteen years, and was deposed by the emperor, a. d. 511 or 512. According to Theophanes, the cause of his deposition was hi& maintenance of the authority of the council of Chalcedon, and his refusal to surren­der the authentic record of the acts of that council. Anastasius urgently pressed him to disavow its authority, and when he could not prevail on him, suborned witnesses to charge him with unnatural lusts (which, from self-mutilation, he could"riot in­dulge), and with heresy. He was prevented by tho fear of popular indignation from instituting an !


About | First



page #  
Search this site
All non-public domain material, including introductions, markup, and OCR © 2005 Tim Spalding.
Ancient Library was developed and hosted by Tim Spalding of