Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 2.djvu/894

B80 MACEDONIUS. lasted only a year (b. c. 106 — 105). [Aristo- BULUS, No. 1.] He was succeeded by his brother, 6. Alexander Jannaeus, who reigned b. c, 105 — 78. [Alexander Jannaeus, Vol. I. p. 117.] He was succeeded by liis widow, 7. Alexandra, who appointed her son Hyr- canus II. to the priesthood, and held the supreme power B. c. 78 — 69. On her death in the latter year her son, 8. Hyrcanus II., obtained the kingdom, B. c. 69, but was supplanted almost immediately after- wards by his brotiier, 9. Aristobulus II., who obtained the throne B. c. 68. [Aristobulus, No. 2.] For the re- mainder of the history of the house of the Mac- cabees see Hyrcanus II. and Herodes 1. MA'CEDON (MaKedciu), a son of Zeus and Thyia, and a brother of Magnes, from whom Macedonia was believed to have derived its name. (Steph. Bvz. s. V. MaKeSovia.) [L. S.] MACEDO'NICUS, an agnomen of Q. Caecilius Metellus, consul B.C. 143. [Metellus.] MACEDO'NICUS CE'STIUS. [Cest 8, No. 2.] MACEDO'NIUS (MaKeSoVtos). ]. Of An- TIOCH. [No. 6.] 2. Of Antioch. Macedonius, a Monothelite, was patriarch of Antioch from a. d. 639 or 640, till 655 or later. He was appointed to the patri- archate by the influence, if not by the nomination, of Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, by whom also he was consecrated. The j'^ear of his death is not certain. Macarius, who was his successor (though perhaps not immediately), stated in his Eocpositio Fidei, read at the sixth general council, A. d. 681 [Macarius, No. 4], that Macedonius was present at a synod held while Peter was patriarch of Con- stantinople, i. e. some time from a. d. 655 to 666, which shows he could not have died before 6oo. Macedonius appears to have spent the whole of his patriarchate at Constantinople, Antioch being in the power of the Saracens. (Le Quien, Oriens Ckristian. vol. ii. col. 740, 741 ; Bolland. Acta Sanctor. Julii^ vol. iv. Tractat. Praelim. p. 109.) 3. Of Constantinople (1). On the death of Eusebius, patriarch of Constantinople, better known as Eusebius of Nicomedeia [Eusebius of Nicomedeia], a. d. 341 or 342, the orthodox, which appears to have been the popular party, restored the patriarch Paul, who had been deposed shortly after his election (a. d. 339) to make room for Eusebius ; while the leaders of the Aiian party elected Macedonius, who had been deacon, and perhaps priest, of the church of Constantinople, and was already advanced in years. Jerome, in his additions to the Chronicon of Eusebius, says that Macedonius had been an embroiderer, " artis plumariae," an art which Tillemont supposes he might have carried on while in his office of deacon or priest, but which Scaliger supposed to be attri- buted to him, by Jerome's mistaking the meaning of the term TroiKiKdnxvos, which perhaps some Greek writer had applied to Macedonius. Accord- ing to the account of the orthodox party, Alexander the patriarch had described Macedonius as a man having the exterior of piety, and possessing much address in secular affairs ; but, according to the Arians, Alexander had commended his piety. He had been one of the adversaries of Paul during the first patriarchate of that prelate. Upon tiie election of Macedonius great tumults, MACEDONIUS. accompanied by bloodshed, were excited either hy his partisans or those of Panl ; and the attempt to put these down by Hermogenes, magister equitum, who had been ordered by the emperor Constantins II. to expel Paul, led to still further seditions, and to the murder of Hermogenes. These events com- pelled Constantius, then at Antioch, to return to Constantinople, and an end was put to the disturb- ances by the banishment of Paul. Constantius was, however, much displeased at the unauthorized election of Macedonius, and delayed to recognize him as patriarch, but he was allowed to officiate in the church in which he had been ordained. These events occurred in A. n, 342. On the departure of Constantius Paul returned, but was soon again banished, and Macedonius and his partisans were then by the imperial officers put in possession of the churches, though not without the loss of several hundred lives, through the resistance of the multitude. Macedonius retained possession of the patriarch- ate and the churches till a. d. 348, when the interposition and threats of Constans obliged Con- stantius to restore Paul, whose title had been confirmed by the council of Sardica (a. d. 347), and Macedonius was only allowed to officiate in one church, which appears to have been his own private property ; but in A. D. 350, after the death of Constans, he regained possession of his see, and commenced a vigorous persecution of his opponents, chased them from the churches in his patriarchate, and banished or tortured them, in some instances to death. On the re-establishment of orthodoxy these unhappy persons were reverenced as martyrs, and their memory is still celebrated by the Greek and Latin churches on the 30th March and the 25th Oct. respectively. By these cruelties Macedonius became hateful even to his own party, and an unexpected event increased the odium in which he was held. He removed the body of the emperor Constantine the Great from the Church of the Apostles, in which it had been buried, and which (though built only twenty years before) was in a very dilapidated state. The removal was made in order to prevent the corpse being injured by the apprehended fall of the church ; but it led to a tumult, in which the people appear to have been influenced by hatred of Macedonius, and many persons were killed in the church to which the body had been removed. Constantius was very angry with Macedonius, both for his removing the body without orders and for the serious consequences to which his act had led ; and the emperor's displeasure prepared the way for his downfal. At the council of Seleuceia (a. d. 359), where the Acacian or pure Arian party and the semi-Arians were openly divided and seceded from each other, some charges against him, ap- parently of cruelty, are said to have been contem- plated. He did not appear at the first sitting of the council, alleging sickness, but he was present afterwards ; and if any hostile proceedings were contemplated, no steps appear to have been openly taken against him. In a. d. 360, however, in a council held at Constantinople, he was deposed by the Acacians, who were favoured by Constantius, on the plea that he had been the occasion of many murders, and because he had admitted to com- munion a deacon convicted of adultery ; but in reality to gratify Constantius, who was irritated against him, and perhaps also because he would not adopt their views. Though expelled from Con-