Makarios 1 may have been patriarch of Antioch already in 669/670, since copies of the synodika of the patriarchs of Constantinople, Ioannes 2 and Konstantinos 3, were sent to him; they were read out at the Third Council of Constantinople (the Sixth Ecumenical Council): Riedinger II 2. 616, lines 8-9 (from Ioannes 2) and lines 15-16 (from Konstantinos 3) (= Mansi XI 576) (both passages read: τῷ τὰ πάντα ὁσιωτάτῳ καὶ ἁγιωτάτῳ ἀδελφῷ καὶ συλλειτουργῷ Μακαρίῳ). Ioannes 2 became patriarch in 669, Konstantinos 3 in 675.

Makarios 1 was bishop (patriarch) of Antioch in 678, when he sent Zacharias 2, Georgios 35, and the deacon Tiberios 7 to Constantinople to see the patriarch (Theodoros 4); the fact is attested in a report by them, dated 22 September, indiction 7 (678), which was produced at the twelfth session of the Third Council of Constantinople (the Sixth Ecumenical Council) on 22 March 681: Riedinger II 2. 526 (= Mansi XI 524) (ὁ ἁγιώτατος πατριάρχης ἡμῶν, referring to Makarios 1).

Bishop of Antioch, Makarios 1 attended the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 and 681; he was present at the first eight sessions only: Riedinger II 2. 16-260 (= Mansi XI 209-378), cf. Lib. Pont. 81. 6 (present at the Council). In the lists of those present at these eight sessions he is styled Μακαρίου τοῦ ὁσιωτάτου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Θεουπόλεως Ἀντιοχείας or similar: Riedinger II 2. 16, line 10, etc. (= Mansi XI 209, etc.). He was attended at the Council by his follower, the priest and monk Stephanos 17: Riedinger II 2. 18, lines 28-29 and passim (= Mansi XI 212 and passim) (and cf. Agatho Diac., Mansi XII 192, calling Stephanos 17 τῷ ἀββᾷ μαθητῇ Μακαρίου).

He held monothelete views and defended his beliefs during the opening sessions of the Council: Riedinger II 2. 20-24 (= Mansi XI 213-216) (citing Cyril of Alexandria), Riedinger II 2. 32-34 (= Mansi XI 221) (interpreting pope Leo II (Leo 16) with the aid of Dionysios the Areopagite). At the third session (13 November 680), after the Acts of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Ecumenical Councils were found to contain no support for the doctrine of One Will, Makarios 1 undertook to produce statements from the Fathers in its support at the next session: Riedinger II 2. 44 (= Mansi XI 228). The fourth session was in fact given over to reading documents from Rome and Makarios 1 produced his evidence at the fifth session (7 December 680); he and his supporters had prepared two volumes (κωδίκια) of evidence, which were read out to the Council: Riedinger II 2. 160-168 (= Mansi XI 315-321). They then produced a third volume of evidence from the Fathers which was read out at the sixth session (10 February 681); after the reading they declared that they had no more evidence to bring forward to the Council in support of monotheletism; the papal delegates at the Council declared that they were using corrupt texts and undertook to produce other versions supporting the anti-monothelete stance: Riedinger II 2. 176-178 (= Mansi XI 325). This they did at the seventh session, when Makarios 1, with Georgios 1 and their supporters, asked for time to consider the documents: Riedinger II 2. 188 (= Mansi XI 332).

Possibly at this point Makarios 1, convicted of lying to the Council, was forbidden by the emperor to enter the Church of Hagia Sophia or to take part in (ecclesiastical) processions ("interdicens ei processum"): Lib. Pont. 81. 8 (a detail not recorded in the Acts of the Council). At the eighth session (7 March 681) he stood firm by his belief in One Will and One Energy (ἓν θέλημα καὶ θεανδρικὴν ἐνεργείαν: Mansi XI 345) and denied the doctrine of Two Wills; his statement of faith was read out to the Council and the statements from the Fathers which he had produced were examined; he was then declared a heretic and deposed (Riedinger II 2. 242 = Mansi XI 365); he and Stephanos 17 were next faced with questioning from Theophanes 5 on the nature of Christ's Will: Riedinger II 2. 242-248 (= Mansi XI 365-369).

After he was proved a monothelete by documentary evidence signed by himself, he refused to change his mind and was then deposed, anathematised and ejected from the Council: Lib. Pont. 81. 10-13. At the end of the ninth session (in which texts from the first of their three volumes were analysed and found not to prove their case) the Council decided not to proceed with similar analysis of the two other volumes produced by Makarios 1 and Stephanos 17 on the grounds that they were not relevant to the issues under discussion: Riedinger II 2. 276 (= Mansi XI 388). Writings by him and Stephanos 17 were discovered on an imperial property, the Domus of Philippikos, in a lodging house belonging to the monastery of Chrysopolis (Riedinger II 2. 498-500 = Mansi XI 512: ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ οἰκίᾳ τῶν Φιλίππικοῦ ηὑρέθησαν (sic), ἐν ἑνὶ μητάτῳ διαφέροντι τῇ μονῇ Χρυσοπόλεως sic) and taken to the patriarchal archive, and then brought before the eleventh session of the Council for examination; they consisted of two books (βιβλία) and a quaternion (four-page pamphlet δύο βίβλια καὶ τὸ σὺν αὐτοῖς χαρτῷον τετράδιον: Mansi XI 512; at Mansi XI 545 the text reads τὸ ἕν σὺν αὐτοῖς) written in Stephanos 17's hand and declared by the heading to be by Makarios 1 and Stephanos 17: Riedinger II 2. 498-512 (= Mansi XI 509-517).

At the twelfth session a further dossier was read out consisting of various documents which he had sent to the emperor: Riedinger II 2. 522-568 (= Mansi XI 521-549). During this session the Council sent representatives (see Ioannes 32 and Paulos 3) to him to check on the validity of those documents; they found him living in a cell (ἐν ἑνὶ κελλίῳ) in the patriarchal palace, where they showed him the documents and he acknowledged them as genuine: Riedinger II 2. 560-562 (= Mansi XI 545). He and Stephanos 17 were found to have inserted the libelli of Vigilius into copies of the Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (cf. Georgios 34); during an enquiry into the faith between him and the former patriarch of Constantinople, Theodore I (Theodoros 4), he and Stephanos 17 took a copy of the libelli from the patriarchal library and had copies made, giving one to the emperor: Riedinger II 2. 644-650, cf. also II 2. 532ff. (= Mansi XI 592-593, cf. also XI 528ff). The date of this must have been between 677 and 679, when Theodoros 4 was patriarch. The definition of the faith sent to the bishop of Rome, Agatho 1, recorded his dismissal as patriarch of Antioch because of his refusal to repent: Riedinger II 2. 889 (= Mansi XI 684-685). He is named as a former patriarch of Antioch and a monothelete in the imperial edict issued after the Council: Riedinger II 2. 834, line 18, 852, line 17 (= Mansi XI 700, 709).

He and his monothelete companions were sent by the emperor to Rome, for the pope Leo II (Leo 16) to convince them of their errors: Riedinger II 2. 896, 864 (= Mansi XI 716, 724) (letters from the emperor to Leo 16 and to the bishops of Rome), Lib. Pont. 81. 14 ("in exilio in Romana directi sunt civitate"). In his reply to the emperor, Leo 16 admitted that they had so far resisted all his efforts of persuasion: Riedinger II 2. 878 (= Mansi XI 733) (dated 7 May in indiction 10, i.e. 682; 7 May must be wrong since the messengers from the emperor had not arrived in Rome then; they only arrived back from the Council in July 682, see Riedinger II 2. 870, line 10 = Mansi XI 727-8). After the death of Leo II (Leo 16) the attempt was continued by his successor Benedict II (Benediktos 3, bishop from June 684 to May 685), who sent his consiliarius Bonifatios 2 every day for forty days to talk to him, but without success: Mansi XII 1035-1038 (told to the Seventh Ecumenical Council by the papal representative, Petros 27).

He was convicted of heresy by the Council and exiled with his followers to Rome, where they were confined in various manasteries: Lib. Pont. 82. 2-3. Named among the leaders of the monothelete heresy condemned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council: Paul. Diac., Hist. Lang. VI 4. Patriarch of Antioch and a monothelete, he was condemned at the Sixth Ecumenical Council: Zon. XIV 21. 9.

Bishop of Antioch, he was condemned as a monothelete at the Council of Constantinople with his disciples Stephanos 17 and Polychronios 3: Photius, Ep. 1, line 332 (I 12 Laourdas-Westerink). Primate of Antioch, he refused to accept the heresy of Maximos 10, the doctrine of Two Wills; he argued against it at the Council of Constantinople, basing his arguments on Cyril of Alexandria; after the Council he was sent into exile at Rome where he remained in prison until his death: Mich. Syr. II 452.

(Publishable link for this person: )