THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
US
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.
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 Alexan- 2. Apparent der of Constantinople (c. 340), Mace- Facts in Life donius was put up by the Arian party of Macedo- as their candidate in opposition to the nius. 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 popular disorder, expelled Paul, and tacitly allowed Macedonius to take possession of the see. Paul went to Rome and Julius awarded him bis see, which he claimed in person, while the Arians, gathered at Antioch, protested against the interference of Julius in eastern matters. Constantius had Paul seized and banished to Thessalonica, and Macedonius 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 Sardica (347) had declared in favor of Paul, Athanasius, 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 ultimately 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.
A thorough examination, however, of these statements shows that they are not reliable in several particulars; and a more trustworthy account may be made up from the acts of the Council of Sardica and the statements of Athanasius (Historia Ariarwrum, vii., and Apologia defuga, hi.), and of Jerome.
From these sources it appears that
3. Critical Paul had been banished to Pontus by
Account of Constantine, and that he had already
His Life, been bishop of Constantinople for some
time before Eusebius was set up (at latest in 338), and that Macedonius, who had once accused him in the presence of Athanasius, was then his presbyter. When Eusebius set his mind on winning the bishopric, the old charges were revived; Constantius banished him in chains to Singara in Mesopotamia, then to Emesa, and finally to
Cucusus, where his persecutors put him to deatl with the help of the Prefect Philippus. The lettei of the Council of Sardica does not mention him naming only Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas The eastern bishops there asserted that he had assented to the condemnation of Athanasius; thai he was himself condemned long before 342; that in 342 he went into exile; and that it was Maximin ol Treves who entered into communion with him and effected his restoration. Paul was, according to all the indications here given, not at Sardica, nor at the time bishop of Constantinople, but apparently in exile. The most probable conclusion from the whole difficult matter is that Paul died at the earliest in 351. In any case Macedonius was in sole possession of the see of Constantinople from 342 or 343. It is impossible to decide how much truth there is in the accounts by Socrates and Sozomen of his fierce persecution of the orthodox, though it is credible that he filled as many sees as he could reach with his partizans. The statement of Socrates and Sozomen that he adhered to the Acacian or court party until 360 is certainly wrong; Philostorgius relates that Basil of Ancyra won him to his side, Sabinus of Heraclea reckons him among the Homoiousians, Epiphanius calls him a partizan of Basil, and the letter addressed to him in 358 by George of Laodicea proves that he was all along on the Homoiousian side. With this party he supported Basil in Seleucia against the Acacians, and as a member of it he was deposed at the synod of 360. That his death followed soon afterward is a natural inference from the fact that he is not mentioned in connection with the actions of his party after 364. Thus he would scarcely have had time to found a separate sect after his deposition; and his views on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit were not peculiar to him, but were shared by all the Homoiousians. Nor was this question much debated in Constantinople and Asia Minor before 367. The development of the " Macedonian " sect, held to be heretical on this point, began in Alexandria. During his third exile (356-362) Athanasius
heard of people who regarded the Holy
4. The Ghost as a creature, and in four letters
Sect. to Bishop Serapion of Thmuis defended
the homoousia of the Spirit as the only true doctrine. To him, after his long residence in the West (where since Tertullian this doctrine had been firmly established) it could present no difficulties, and fell in easily with his general doctrine of the Trinity. But the case was different with the Homoiousians and with the so-called " young Nicene " party, brought up in Origenistic traditions. Hence it was possible for Gregory Nazianzen to say about 381: " Of the wise amongst us, some hold the Holy Spirit to be a pclrwer (energeia), others a creature, others for God, and still others are unwilling to decide, out of reverence (as they say) for the Scriptures, which do not speak plainly on the matter." The question how it came to an open breach between the supporters of the various views is impossible to answer with certainty; the decisive elements were probably the authority of Athanasius, the requirement of the Synod of Alexandria that the homoousia of the Holy Spirit should be acknowl-