Apparent Facts in Life of Macedonius

1. Early Accounts

Toward the end of the fourth century the name of Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, became accepted as that of a heresiarch. Jerome, writing in that city about 380, mentions him as intruded into the see by the Arian party, and says that the Macedonian heresy takes its name from him. About the same time Damasus, in his twenty-four anathemas against various heretics, pronounced one against "the Macedonians, who, coming out of the Arian stock, changed their name but not their perfidy"; and in 383 and 384 Theodosius enforced repressive measures not only against Eunomians and Arians but also against Macedonians. From this time his name was known in the West as that of a heresiarch. Rufinus relates (c. 402) that the Arians split about 361 into three groups, Arians proper, Eunomians, and Macedonians, and Augustine about the same time enumerates the eastern heretics similarly, and afterward (428) places the Macedonians, "whom the Greeks call also Pneumatomachi," in his list of heretics. The term Macedonians must have been common in Constantinople about 380-384; but it is not met in the older eastern literature - neither in Athanasius, nor in Basil, nor in the list of heretics given by Epiphanius; nor is it used by the council of 381 in the canon (i.) which condemns the "Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi." Canon vii., which deals with the reception into the Church of "Mace-

112

donians," is some eighty years later than the council. Theodoret mentions briefly that after his deposition Macedonius became "the leader of a heresy of his own"; but otherwise he names him only in quoting the anathemas of Damasus. The historians Socrates and Sozomen, writing in Constantinople, are the first to make frequent mention of him and his party, and it is through them that the Macedonians became a well-known group of heretics in the East. The definite name of Macedonians can not be shown to have been used in the East before 380.

2. Apparent Facts in Life of Macedonius

These and other similar facts can be explained only by saying that Macedonius had an importance rather for Constantinopolitan than for general church history. The circumstances of his life are not easy to trace accurately; but a glance at the indications given will be useful. According to Socrates and Sozomen, on the death of Alexander of Constantinople (c. 340), Macedonius was put up by the Arian party as their candidate in opposition to the properly elected and orthodox Paul, whom the Emperor Constantius set aside through a synod and replaced by Eusebius of Nicomedia. After Eusebius' death there was another contest between the same two candidates. Once more Constantius, at the cost of much popu lar disorder, expelled Paul, and tacitly allowed Macedonius to take possession of the see. Paul went to Rome and Julius awarded him his see, which he claimed in person, while the Arians, gath ered at Antioch, protested against the interference of Julius in eastern matters. Constantius had Paul seized and banished to Thessalonica, and Macedo nius was forcibly installed, after a riot in which many lives were lost. Constans took up the cause of Paul, but without success until, after the Council of Sar dica (347) had declared in favor of Paul, Athana sius, and Marcellus, he induced his brother by actual threats of war to restore them. When, however, Constans died in 350, Constantius reversed his action, and Paul was banished to Cucusus and strangled there. Macedonius, now in undisturbed possession, persecuted the orthodox party, but ulti mately fell into disgrace with Constantius and was deposed at a synod in Constantinople (360), after which he broke away from the Acacians and founded a sect of his own.