MACEDONIUS AND MACEDONIANS. - Bishop of Constantinople from 342 to 360, from whom, beginning around 380, ecclesiastical historians derived the designation "Macedonians," then current, to indicate the Pneumatomachi.
The information concerning the life and doctrine of M. is quite uncertain, because the sources of the 4th century are scanty (Jerome, Chronicon, at the years 342 and 360 A.D. [ed. R. Helm (CB, 24, Eusebius 7), Leipzig 1913, pp. 235-47]; Athanasius, Historia arianorum, 7: PG 25, 701), while those of later historians are indeed more abundant, but often certainly inaccurate or even erroneous, so that prudence is incumbent upon the historian (Philostorgius, Hist. eccl., IV, 9; V, 1; VIII, 17; ed. J. Bidez [CB 21], Leipzig 1913; Socrates, Hist. eccl., II, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 27, 38, 42, 45: PG 67; Sozomen, Hist. eccl., III, 3, 4, 7, 9, 24; IV, 2, 3, 20, 21, 24, 26, 27; VI, 10, 11: PG 67; Theodoret, Hist. eccl., II, 6; V, 8; ed. L. Parmentier [CB 19], Leipzig 1911).
Taking into account only the principal data, here is what it seems can be affirmed with certainty about the life of M. For a long time a deacon of Constantinople, around 332-35 he was a presbyter under the orthodox bishop Paul, whose accuser he repeatedly was while the struggle between Arians and orthodox for possession of that episcopal see was raging. After Paul was exiled by the emperor Constantius and Eusebius of Nicomedia was put in his place, upon the latter's death (ca. 339) M. was elected bishop of Constantinople by the Arian party and, after the death of Paul as well (342), occupied the see without a competitor.
He also took care to raise to vacant episcopal sees men of his own opinions, among them Marathonius to the see of Nicomedia and Eleusius to that of Cyzicus. He then fell into disfavor with the emperor Constantius, probably for reasons of general ecclesiastical policy, the Emperor siding with the Homoean or Acacian party, while M. certainly belonged to the Semi-Arian or Homoeousian group. With others of his own party, such as Eleusius of Cyzicus and Eustathius of Sebaste, M. was deposed by the Acacians in a Council held at Constantinople in 360. He must have died shortly afterward. No writings of his are known.
The Homoeousianism of M. is attested by his intimate relations with figures who were certainly Homoeousian, such as Basil of Ancyra, Basil of Seleucia, Eustathius of Sebaste, as well as by the explicit statements of historians such as Philostorgius (Hist. eccl., IV, 9), Sabinus of Heraclea (v. Socrates, Hist. eccl., IV, 22), Epiphanius (Panarion, haer. 73, 23 ff.: PG 42, 445 ff.).
Was M. the founder of the Pneumatomachian heresy in that which distinguishes it from ordinary Arianism? It is certain that, from about 380, this was the common persuasion among the orthodox and that from then on the designation "Macedonians," which at that time was commonly given to the Pneumatomachi, was interpreted in this sense. Thus Jerome in his Chronicon (from about 380 to the year 342 A.D.) noted: "M., an embroiderer by trade, is made bishop by the Arians in place of Paul. From him derives the present Macedonian heresy." Didymus the Blind in his De Trinitate (II, 10: PG 39, 633, of 381-92) often speaks of the "Macedonians" and says that "the heresy" is M., ordained bishop by the Arians. The appellation "Macedonians" in the specific sense of Pneumatomachi is attested around the same time, among others, by the anathematisms of Pope Damasus (4 anath.: PL 13, 359; Theodoret, Hist. eccl., V, 11), and by the Theodosian Code, which in 383-84 struck among the heretics the "Macedonians" no less than the "Eunomians" and the "Arians" (Cod. XVI, 5, 11 ff.). Thus the tradition of M. as heresiarch of Pneumatomachism had been formed both in the East and in the West; and Socrates and Sozomen reported various particulars of it, while Theodoret (Hist. eccl., II, 6) specified that it was after his deposition that M. became "head of a particular heresy of his own."
On the other hand, before 380, special relations between Pneumatomachism and M. himself are not attested, neither by Athanasius, who makes known the first rise of the heresy in Egypt as early as 359-60 (Ep. ad Serap., I, 1: PG 26, 529 ff.), nor by the Cappadocian Fathers who combated it already before 380 in Asia Minor, nor by Epiphanius who as early as 375-77 devoted in his Panarion a special notice "against the Pneumatomachi" (Haer., 74: PG 42, 473 ff.). Indeed, Socrates makes known that Sabinus of Heraclea, a "Macedonian bishop," wrote a history of the councils up to 378 in which "he does not even mention the heresy" of M. (Hist. eccl., II, 15). Therefore no citation of M. in the most ancient notices concerning Pneumatomachism. There is not even sufficient proof that the properly Pneumatomachian question was explicitly discussed in the region of Constantinople and in Asia Minor while M. was still alive. Socrates shows a group of Homoeousian bishops adherents of M. and called "Macedonians," among whom were Eleusius of Cyzicus, Eustathius of Sebaste, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, Marcian of Lampsacus, holding councils from the time of Julian the Apostate (361-63) and still at Lampsacus in 366, without its appearing from the historian, who here explicitly cites Sabinus the "Macedonian" as his informant, that they were then interested in anything other than the question of the Son, or that they made any special mention of the Holy Spirit. Indeed he says explicitly that only shortly after the Council of Lampsacus "the dogma of M. manifested itself more openly" (Hist. eccl., II, 10; IV, 4).
All this makes it difficult to trace back to M. himself the specifically Pneumatomachian position and thus to justify the title of heresiarch given him by later history.
It is, on the other hand, beyond dispute that at Constantinople explicit Pneumatomachism flourished first precisely among those Homoeousians who had been of the circle of M. and who, according to Sozomen (Hist. eccl., IV, 27; VIII, 1), although forming a distinct party, did not succeed, principally because of the opposition of the Arians, in giving themselves an officially recognized bishop or in having churches of their own.
Around 373 the figure of head of the party is Eustathius of Sebaste, whom Basil calls "head of the heresy of the Pneumatomachi" (Ep. 263, 13; PG 32, 977). He was a friend of M. and was deposed with him in 360. A creature of M. was also that Eleusius of Cyzicus who appears as head of the Pneumatomachi at the time of the Council of 381. The designation of "Macedonians" given to the Pneumatomachi did not therefore plausibly have at first the meaning of making M. himself the properly so-called heresiarch of Pneumatomachism, but probably only that of indicating that this new heresy, in that which it had of specific that distinguished it from the common Arians, had flourished at Constantinople among the adherents of the party that had originally formed around M.