(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."
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.
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."
SS. ARMOGASTES AND COMPANIONS, MM.
(ABOUT A.D. 463.)
[Usuardus, Ado, Notker, and Roman Martyrology. Authority:—Victor of Utica. De Persec. Vand. lib. i. (5th cent.)]
Genseric, the Vandal king in North Africa, had in his early youth renounced the Orthodox communion, and had become an Arian. He was exasperated to find that the Africans, who fled before him in the field, presumed to dispute his authority over their faith, and his ferocious mind was incapable of fear or of compassion. His Catholic subjects were oppressed by intolerant laws, and arbitrary punishments. The language of Genseric was furious and formidable; the knowledge of his intentions might justify the most unfavourable interpretations of his actions; and the Arians were reproached with the frequent executions which stained the palace and dominions of the tyrant.