Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/526

 UAQAxan

483

MAOAEIUS

is likely enough that this is what happened, for exca- vations were begun very soon after the council, and, it would seem, under the superintendence of Macarius. The huge mound and stonework with the temple of Venus on the top, which in the time of Hadrian had been piled up over theHolySepulchre, were demolished, and ''when the original surface of the ground appeared, forthwith, contrary to all expectation, the hallowed moniunent of our Saviour's resurrection was dis- covered" (Euseb., Vit. Const., Ill, 28). On hearing the news Constantine wrote to Macarius giving lavish orders for the erection of a church on the site (Euseb., lb., Ill, 30; Theodoret, H. E., I, 16). Later on, he wrote another letter " To Macarius and the rest of the Bishops of Palestine " ordering a church to be built at Mambre, which also had been defile by a pagan shrine. Eusebius. though he gives the superscription as above, speaks oi this letter as ''addressed to me'\ thinking pMerhaps of his metropolitan dignity (Vit. Const., Ill, 51-53). Churches were also built on the sites of the Nativity and Ascension.

(For the story of the finding of the True Cross see Cross and Crucifix, I, 4.)

Ada 83., 10 March; Venabljcs in Diet. Christ. Biog., s. v.

Francis J. Bacchus.

MacariiiB Magnes, a Christian apologist of the end of the fourth century. Some authorities regard the words Macarius Magnes as two proper names, while others interpret them to mean either the Blessed Magnes or Macarius the Magnesian, but he is almost generally considered identical with Macarius, Bishop of Magnesia, who at the "Synod of the Oak" (Chal- cedon, 403), accused He*acudes, Bishop of Ephesus, of Origenism. He is the author of a work called "Apocritica", purporting to be an accoimt of a dis- pute between Macarius and a pagan philosopher, who attacks or ridicules passages from the New Testament. There are also extant fragments of an exposition of Genesis which are ascribed to Macarius. Four hun- dred years after the ** Apocritica" was written it was made use of by the Iconoclasts to defend their doc- trines. This caused an account of it to be written by Nicephorus (see **Spicilegium Solesmense", I, 305), who until then had evidently never heard of Macarius and only secured the work with great difficulty. It developed that the passage quoted by the Icono- clasts had been distorted to serve their ends, Macarius having had in mind onlv heathen idolatry.

Sul^quent to this Macarius was aeain forgotten until the end of the sixteenth century, ^en the Jesuit Turrianus quoted from a copy of the " Apocritica " which he had found in St. Mark's Library, Venice, his quotations being directed gainst the Protestant doc- trines concerning the Holy Eucharist, etc. When this copy was sought it had disappeared from St. Mark's, and it was only in 1867 that it was found at Athens. Blondel, a member of the French school at Athens, prepared it for publication, but he died prematurely, and it was published at Paris in 1876 oy Blenders friend, Foucart. In 1877 Duchesne published a dis- sertation on Macarius, to which he added the text of

Macarius's Homilies on Genesis.

Salmon in Did. Christ. Biog., s. v.; Bardenhewbr, Po^rol- ogu, tr. SuAHAN (St. Louis, 1908); Idem in Kirchenlex., a. v.; Duchesne, De Mcuxirio Magnde d scriptis ejus (Paris, 1877); Bernard, Macarius Magnes in Journal ofTheol. Studies (1901).

Blanche M. Kelly.

Macarius of Antioch» Patriarch, deposed in 681. Macarius's dignity seems to have been a purely hono« rary one, for his patriarchate lay under the dominion of the Saracens, and he himself resided at Constanti- nople. Nothing is known of him before the Sixth General Councifwhich deposed him on account of his MonotheUtism, and after the council he disappeared in a Roman monastery. But he has left his mark on ecclesiastical history by bringing about the condem*

nation of Honorius. In the first session of the counc3 the Roman legates delivered an address, in the course of which they spoke of four successive patriarchs of Constantinople and others as having "disturbed the peace of the world by new and unorthodox expres- sions". Macarius retorted, " We did not publish new expressions but what we have received from the holy and Gccumenical synods and from holy approved fathers". He then went through the namesgiven by the legates, adding to them that of Pope Honorius. In this and the following session Macarius came to grief over a passage from St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Leo, in which, after the manner of a man who sees everything through coloured glasses, he tried to find Monothelitism. In the third session some docu- ments which he produced as emanating from Mennas and Pope Vigilius were found to be forgeries, surrepti- tiously introduced into the Acts of the fifth general council. In the fifth and sixth sessions he and his adherents produced three volumes of patristic testi- monies which were sealed up for examination later on. In the eighth session he read his ecthesiSf or "profes- sion of faith", in which the authority of Honorius was appealed to on behalf of Monothelitism. In answer to questions put to him by the emperor he declared that he wotild rather be cut to pieces and thrown into the sea than admit the doctrine of two wills or operations. In this same session and the following one his patristic testimonies were found to be hopelessly garbled. He was formally deposed at the close of the ninth session. But Macarius had left the council more work to do. The papal legates seemed determined that Monothe- litism shotild be disposed of once and for all, so, when at the eleventh session the emperor inquired if there was any further business, they answered that there were some further writings presented by Macarius and one of his disciples still awaiting examination. Among these documents was the first letter of Honorius to Sergius. The legates, apparently without any reluct- ance, accepted the necessity of condemning Honorius. They must have felt that any other course of action would leave the door open for a revival of Monothe- litism. Their conduct in this respect is the more noteworthy because the Sixth General Council acted throughout on the assumption that (it is no anachron- • ism to use the language of the Vatician Council) the doctrinal definitions ot the Roman Pontiff were wre- formable. The council had not met to deHberate but to bring about submission to the epistle of Pope St. Agatho — an uncompromising assertion of papal in- fallibility — addressed to it (see Hamack, " Dogmen- gesch.", II, 408; 2nd edition). At the close of the council Macarius and five others were sent to Rome to be dealt with by the pope. This was done at the request of the council ana not, as Hefele makes it appear, at the request of Macarius and his adherents (History of Councils, V, 179; Eng. trans.). Macarius and three others who still held out were confined in different monasteries (see Liber Pontif., Leo II). Later on Benedict II tried for thirty days to persuade Macarius to recant. This attempt was quoted in the first session of the Seventh General Ck>uncil as a prece- dent for the restoration of bishops who had fallen from the Faith. Baronius gives reasons for supposing that Benedict's purpose was to restore Macarius to his patriarchal dignity, the patriarch who had succc^^ nim having just died (Annales, ann. 685). Before taking leave of Macarius we may call attention to the profession of faith in the Eucharist, in his " Ecthesis", which is, perhaps, the earliest instance of a reference to ihia doctrine in a formal creed. To Macarius the Eucharist was a palmary argument against Nestorian- ism. The flesh and blood of which we partake in the Eucharist is not mere flesh and blood, else how would it be life-giving? It is life-giving because it is the own flesh and blood of the Word, which being God is by nature life. Macarius develops this ara^%