(A.D. 362.)
[By Greeks and Latins on the same day, but the Greeks commemorate
especially S. Mark, and the modern Roman Martyrology only S. Cyril.
S. Mark, but not S. Cyril, was in that of Galesinius, prepared
for the use of the Roman Church, and approved by Gregory XIII.,
and Clement VIII., but was cut out by Baronius, and S. Cyril
inserted in his place. The reason he gave was "Romana Ecclesia non
recipit Marcum illum inter Sanctos, quem constat Arianum fuisse."
But the continuators of Bollandus have shown that Baronius was
without sufficient grounds for concluding that he was an Arian.
Authorities:--Theodoret, lib. iii. c. 7; Socrates, lib. ii. c. 30;
Theophanes, and the Oration of S. Gregory Nazianzen against Julian.]
Mark, bishop of Arethusa, on Mount Lebanon, was present at the council
of Sirmium (A.D. 351), which met to depose Photinus, the bishop of
Sirmium, who, in spite of former censures for heresy, had retained
his church. This was at a time when the Arian controversy was being
carried on with great vehemence, and the word "consubstantial" was
insisted upon by the orthodox, and rejected by the Arian party. A third
party of semi-Arians, as they were called, existed, which comprised
within its ranks men of two different types. On the one hand were the
prelates who desired to keep well with an Arian emperor, but who were
not disposed to surrender the Catholic faith to obtain favour, and
who were wanting in dogmatic precision. On the other hand, there was
a body of very pious and thoroughly orthodox bishops, who hesitated
about adopting a new word to define our Lord's nature, deprecated the
heat displayed by both parties, and hoped, by avoiding this burning
word, to prevent many who were passively or ignorantly heterodox,
from being forced by the fierceness, wherewith the controversy was
carried on, to side permanently with heresy. We have seen S. Cyril in
company with these men. Mark of Arethusa was another. At the council
he produced a creed, which is given by Socrates, and which it was
hoped would be accepted by the semi-Arians and Catholics together.
This creed is orthodox[92]; the only questionable passage in it is in
reference to a text in Genesis, and is so involved and obscure that it
may be incorrectly given by the historian.[93] It is as follows:--"If
anyone shall understand the words, (Gen. xix. 24.) 'The Lord rained
from the Lord,' not in relation to the Father and the Son, but shall
say that God rained from Himself, let Him be anathema: for the Lord the
Son rained from the Lord the Father. If anyone, hearing _the Lord the
Father_, and _the Lord the Son_, shall term both the Father and the Son
Lord, and saying _the Lord from the Lord_, shall assert that there be
two Gods, let him be anathema. For we rank not the Son with the Father,
but conceive Him to be subordinate to the Father. For He neither came
down to Sodom without the Father's will, nor did He rain from Himself,
but from the Lord who exercises supreme authority: nor does He sit at
the Father's right hand of Himself, but in obedience to the Father."
[92] "Sed ut eæ fidei formulæ, quibus subscripsisse Marcum habemus ex
Epiphanio, prorsus fuerunt fidei orthodoxæ conformes, et in omnibus
præter vocem consubstantialis nihil requireret: sic nec hoc quidem
certum est, an in conciliabulo Sirmiensi quidquam senserit Marcus ab
orthodoxa professione diversum." Acta SS. Martii T. iii. p. 777.
[93] "Quam enim est obscurus hujus anathematismi sensus, tam est nobis
suspecta fides adjunctæ rationis, nihil ad blasphemiam de duobus diis,
quæ sola damnari videtur, facientis, ut propterea intrusa videri possit
ab Ariano aliquo." Bollandus.--_Ibid._
But this strange passage must not be taken to deny the Lordship of the
Son, for the Creed which precedes the anathemas is very explicit on the
Eternal Godhead of Christ. "We believe ... in our Lord Jesus Christ,
who was begotten of His Father before all ages, God of God, Light of
Light, by whom all things visible and invisible, which are in the
heavens and upon the earth, were made; Who is the Word, the Wisdom, the
true Light, and the Life." Again, "If anyone says that the Son was not
with God, begotten of the Father before all ages, and that all things
were not made by Him, let him be anathema."
In the reign of Constantius, Mark had drawn down on himself the hatred
of the pagan inhabitants of Arethusa, by causing the destruction
of a magnificent temple. According to the law published by Julian
the Apostate, on his accession to the throne, he was, under these
circumstances, bound to make good the value of the temple in money, or
else to cause it to be rebuilt. Being in no condition to do the former,
and thinking he could not conscientiously do the latter; fearing, at
the same time, for his life amidst a ferocious populace, he betook
himself to flight. As others, however, were involved in danger on
his account, he turned back, and voluntarily offered himself to his
enemies. The fanatical multitude now fell upon him; he was dragged
through the streets, stripped, and scourged, then dipped in the town
sewer, and given over to the schoolboys returning from their lessons,
to mangle him with their iron pens. When the old man had almost done
breathing, they besmeared him with honey and other liquids, laid him
in a basket, in which he was swung up in the air, and left to be
preyed upon by bees and wasps. Mark shamed his cruel enemies by the
cool indifference which he exhibited under all his sufferings. The
governor, himself a pagan, represented to Julian what scandal it must
occasion if they allowed themselves to be outdone by the constancy of
a weak old man; and the emperor finally commanded him to be set free,
for it was not his wish, he said, to give the Christians any martyrs.
After, when Libanius, the heathen rhetorician, desired to restrain a
governor from indulging in the cruel persecution of a Christian who had
been accused of robbing the temples, he warned him thus: "If he is to
die in his chains, then look well before you, and consider what will
be the result. Take heed lest you bring upon us many more like Mark.
This Mark was hung up, scourged, plucked by the beard, and bore all
with constancy. He is now honoured as a god, and, wherever he appears,
everybody is eager to take him by the hand. As the emperor is aware of
this, he has not allowed the man to be executed, much as he is grieved
at the destruction of the temple. Let the preservation of Mark be a
caution to us."[94] Socrates says that the constancy of Mark converted
the people of Arethusa, and that they submitted to learn from his lips
the doctrines of Christianity.
[94] Liban. ep. 731.
In the same chapter in which Socrates relates the sufferings of Mark,
he tells how other Christians suffered from popular tumults at the
revival of paganism under Julian. "At Askelon, and at Gaza, they seized
men truly worthy of the priesthood, and women vowed to perpetual
virginity, and after having ripped open their stomachs, they threw them
to the pigs to be devoured. At Sebaste, a city of the same province,
they opened the coffin of John the Baptist, burnt his bones, and flung
away his ashes. In Heliopolis, a city near Lebanon, dwelt Cyril, a
deacon. Acting on the impulse of ardent zeal, he had there, during the
reign of Constantius, destroyed many idols. These impious men not only
killed him in revenge for this act, but after having ripped up his
stomach, ate his liver. At Dorostolis, a celebrated city of Thrace,
Emilius, an undaunted champion of the faith, was thrown into the flames
by Capitolinus, governor of the province."