CONCERNING ST. MARK THE CONFESSOR, BISHOP OF ARETHUSA, ST. CYRIL THE DEACON AND MARTYR, AND OTHERS IN SYRIA UNDER JULIAN.
IN THE YEAR 362.
Historical Synopsis.
Mark, Bishop of Arethusa, Confessor, in Syria under Julian (Saint)
Cyril, Deacon and Martyr, in Syria under Julian (Saint)
Others, in Syria under Julian (Saints)
Section I. The Multitude of Slaughters: and the Enormity of the Torments Inflicted both upon Sacred Virgins by the People of Gaza, and upon St. Mark by the People of Arethusa.
[1] As soon as Julian received from God the avenger the punishment of deserved death, the Christian cause everywhere began to breathe again under the Empire of Jovian. Gregory of Nazianzus inveighed against Julian But the common joy of all the churches affected the Easterners with a more profound feeling, upon whom he had concentrated his efforts especially in afflicting them. There then flourished, preeminent in the praise of eloquence, Gregory -- he who afterwards was Bishop of Sasima
Bishop, who from having administered the Church of Nazianzus for some time received the more familiar appellation of Nazianzen. He, exalting himself most loftily in the public rejoicing of the faithful, set forth and assailed in two most vehement invectives the entire life, pursuits, and vices of the Apostate, but especially the savagery exercised at his nod or by his permission by the Gentiles against the Christians; and, as if about to slay the blaspheming Philistine with his own sword, with great force of eloquence he poured out in composing them a certain boundless abundance of external and profane learning, inasmuch as he had not long before concluded his study and profession of the liberal arts. And in that age of his life (which was not confined within boyish years, as Camerarius prattles), he was especially keen and vehement, kai pyros menos pneon, "breathing the fury of fire," to use the Homeric words. So writes James Billius, the editor of Nazianzen, in the synopsis prefixed to his and Elias of Crete's commentary after the epistle to the reader, in which he excellently defends his author's name against his detractor Camerarius, and demonstrates that he was more than forty-four years old when he inveighed against Julian, recently deceased; and passing from his craftiness to his cruelty, he proposed the latter as an object of such detestation that he equally left to posterity the fortitude of those against whom it had been exercised as something to be known and admired, speaking thus:
[2] he attacks his cruelty "Although he Julian was of such a disposition and used much craftiness, he by no means persisted to the end in his purpose of depriving Christians of the glory of Martyrdom and of not openly exercising persecution against them. But just as they say the Etnean fire is hidden beneath the roots of Etna, overflowing from its base; and, held back and compressed by force, it first emits a certain dreadful sound and vomits from its summit a smoke that is an indicator of approaching evil; but then, thrust out from its bounds by the vehement heat and pouring itself out above its openings, it utterly devastates all the neighboring regions of the earth with that incredible and horrible flow -- in the same way one may find him for some time holding both himself and his sophistical decree in check, and through frauds causing harm to our affairs; but when his anger overflowed, he was unable to suppress or conceal the perversity of his soul, but assailed our pious and divine company with naked and open impiety."
[3] "For to pass over those edicts that were both publicly promulgated against sacred buildings and privately carried out, under whom the faithful were harassed in dreadful ways and the plundering of votive gifts and monies, proceeding no less from avarice than from impiety; to say nothing of the Priests and their subjects who were most bitterly tortured for these things; to be silent about the columns full of blood, encircled by the hands and embrace of these men while they were being beaten with rods; to pass over also the archers ranging through regions and cities, more fierce and cruel even than he who commanded these things -- to omit, I say, all of these: to whom, pray, is the cruelty of the Alexandrians unknown? at Alexandria the church was polluted with slaughter Who, besides many other things they perpetrated against us, immoderately abusing the license of the times (a populace in any case seditious and frenzied even at other times), are reported to have added this further crowning deed to their impieties: that they filled our most sacred temple with a double gore -- that is, of sacrificial victims and of human beings -- and to have perpetrated this under the leadership and auspices of a certain imperial philosopher, Pythiodorus, who gained the fame of his name from these deeds alone."
[4] "To whom is the raid of the Heliopolitans unknown? To whom the unbridled audacity of the people of Gaza? at Gaza sacred Virgins were stripped and cut apart To whom the fury of the people of Arethusa, who, though formerly obscure and ignoble, became from that time very well known and celebrated -- for not only does a glorious deed bring fame to men, but also the wickedness of depraved men surpasses glory. For they (to commemorate one thing from many, which could strike horror even into atheists) are reported to have produced into the public eye chaste virgins, superior to the world, who had scarcely ever come into the sight of men, and having stripped them of their clothing, first inflicted insult by the spectacle, and then having cut and dissected them apart (O Christ! how shall I endure your patience at that time?) partly to have devoured them, crushing them even with their own teeth, and, as befitted their execrable fury, to have gorged themselves on raw livers, and having finished that meal, to have then taken ordinary food; and partly to have inserted swine's fodder into still palpitating entrails, and having let loose the most ferocious pigs, to have presented this spectacle to them -- to watch the flesh being torn and eaten along with the barley: a mixed food, then first seen and heard of, with which he alone deserved to feed his demons, who was the architect of these crimes..."
[5] "Now, as for that deed of the distinguished man Mark and the people of Arethusa, who is so remote from our world as not to know it, and not to anticipate the narration with his memory? He, when that notable Constantius was emperor, at Arethusa, Mark was hated by the citizens for having destroyed a temple having overthrown a certain dwelling of demons by virtue of the authority then granted to Christians, and having led many Christians from pagan error to salvation, no less by the splendor of his life than by his eloquence and learning, had long been an object of hatred to the people of Arethusa -- or rather to the most impious and most devoted to demons among them. But after the affairs of Christians changed and the affairs of the Gentiles began to swell, he by no means escaped the power of the times; for a multitude, even if for the present it restrains its impulses and desires, like fire hidden in material or a dammed river, is accustomed, once an occasion is presented, to be ignited and to burst forth."
[6] "Wherefore, when he saw the populace stirred up against him, neither thinking nor threatening anything moderate, he first formed the plan of taking flight, but voluntarily coming into their power moved not so much by cowardice as by that precept by which we are commanded to flee from city to city and to yield to persecutors. For Christians, however brave and endowed with singular endurance, ought not to consider themselves alone, but also to consult for their persecutors, lest, so far as lies in them, they contribute something of themselves to hostile danger. But after he understood that many were being led away on his account, and that many also were in danger of their souls because of the cruelty of the persecutors, he could not bear to neglect others imperiled on account of his own caution. Accordingly, adopting the most excellent and most philosophic counsel, he returns from flight and voluntarily surrenders himself to the judgment of the populace, and marshals himself, as it were, in battle array against the severity of the times."
[7] "And here, what severity was absent? What was not devised of the most atrocious kind? When, namely, of those who threatened him, some contributed one thing and others another to the harmony of a single evil, harassed by every age, sex, and condition and were not moved, if by nothing else, at least by the constancy of this man; but rather were all the more inflamed on this very account, because they interpreted his return and presence not as fortitude against dangers but as contempt of themselves. And so the old Priest, a voluntary athlete, was led through the midst of the city, venerable to all except his persecutors and executioners, both on account of his age and still more on account of the probity of his life. He was led, moreover, by all of every age, condition, and fortune, all pressing equally -- men and women, youths and old men, both those who administered public affairs and those who were not endowed with honors and dignities. And this one contest was set before all: to surpass one another in the enormity of their fury against the old man; and it was considered a mark of piety by all to afflict him with as many evils as possible, and to vanquish the aged boxer fighting against the entire city."
[8] "He was dragged through the streets, pushed through the sewers, pulled by the hair and by every other part of his body (insult being, of course, mingled with cruelty) and tortured by those who in the sacred rites of Mithras are justly tormented with punishments of this kind. He was tossed as a ball from one group of boys to another, receiving that noble body with penknives and treating this tragedy as a game. His shins also were compressed by instruments of torture down to the very bones; his ears were cut off with linen threads, and indeed the thinnest and strongest ones. Finally, raised aloft in a basket and smeared on every side with honey and fat, he was stung by bees and wasps at midday, he is smeared with honey to be consumed by the heat and insects with the most burning sun shining, which on the one hand melted his flesh and on the other made the eating of those blessed (for I would not say wretched) parts more agreeable to them. And here indeed (to commit this also to writing) that old man, who was at the same time young for contests (for he had not abandoned the cheerfulness of his spirit even amid the torments, but even drew delight from the very tortures), is said to have uttered that celebrated and memorable saying: namely, that the signal pleased him, because he saw himself elevated on high, while they on the contrary were abject and lying on the ground. So far was he superior to those by whom he was held, and so far removed from pains and afflictions, as if he were present at another's dangers and regarded his own punishment as a procession, not a calamity."
[9] "And indeed whom would these things not have moved, even among those endowed with but slight gentleness and humanity? when not even with a single coin But this was not permitted to them by the times and by the Emperor's desire, which demanded cruelty both from the peoples and from cities and prefects. And this the steadfast and constant old man endured: that he would not cast even a single gold coin to his torturers -- from which it can be clearly understood that he endured his torments for the sake of piety. For as long as the people of Arethusa, having placed a very high valuation on the temple, demanded the entire sum of gold, or ordered him to rebuild the temple itself, he could have seemed to resist rather because he could not carry out their demands than because he was led by zeal for piety. But after by his endurance he gradually conquered them, as they kept deducting something from the valuation and at length brought the matter to the point where what was demanded of him was very small and he could most easily pay it -- and the contest between them was on equal terms, they striving to conquer, he not to be conquered; that is, they to receive even the tiniest amount of money, he would ransom the harassment he to pay nothing at all (although otherwise there were many who, partly moved by piety and partly by his unconquered and impregnable fortitude, were prepared to pay even a larger sum) -- then indeed it was clearly demonstrated that he had entered the contest not for money but for piety."
[10] "I have not yet added this: that he was one of those who had preserved and secretly spirited away that wicked and accursed person, when his entire family was in danger... On this account the man who then held the office of Hyparch, although a Gentile in religion, until the old man's constancy conquered the rage of the Pagans unable to bear the manifold torture of this man, is reported to have said boldly and freely to the Emperor: 'Are we not ashamed, Emperor, to be so far inferior to all the Christians that we could not overcome even a single old man, dragged through every kind of torment? And he whom it is no great or honorable thing to conquer -- is it not the height of calamity to have retreated from him vanquished?' So by the same deeds, the Hyparchs on the one hand were ashamed, and the Emperors on the other gloried. And the deed of the people of Arethusa went thus, so that the cruelty of Echetus and Phalaris is now a small thing
if compared with their savagery and brutality -- or rather that of him by whose authority and instigation these things were committed; for the shoots belong to the seed, and the shipwrecks to the wind."
[11] "But what other things, I ask, and how grievous? I shall be silent about Orontes and the nocturnal corpses, which he concealed together with the Emperor, how many were killed at Antioch burying them under heaps of cadavers and inflicting death secretly. I shall also pass over the recesses and most remote parts of the palace, and those mysteries of the dissected that lay hidden in pools and wells and ditches -- not only of boys and virgins for the summoning and divination of souls and unlawful sacrifices, but also of those who were called into danger for the sake of piety. Let us pardon those things, if you please, inasmuch as they themselves were also ashamed of them. But the things he perpetrated against the people of our Caesarea, those magnanimous and fervent in their zeal for piety, harassing them thus and vexing them through insults -- how much the faithful suffered at Caesarea perhaps it would not even be fair to reproach him with, for on account of the destruction of the Temple of Fortune during a time of better fortune, he seemed to have been moved by just indignation to this vengeance; since something must be conceded to prevailing injustice."
[12] "But indeed who does not know that when the promiscuous mob made a furious assault upon the Christians and, having perpetrated a great slaughter, threatened still more, the Prefect of the nation (since, treading a middle path between the times and the laws, the Prefect of the people of Gaza is punished with exile he thought that the times must be served while also moderately respecting the laws, and having removed many of the Christians, had also punished some of the Gentiles) -- when an accusation later arose, he was brought before the Emperor and underwent a trial with the greatest ignominy? And when he defended himself by the laws, by whose prescription the province of judging had been entrusted to him, nothing was nearer than that he should be dragged to death; but in the end he was punished only with exile by the clemency of the Emperor, who said: 'What harm is it, if one hand of a Gentile killed ten Galileans?' this just judge and non-persecutor of Christians Is not this manifest cruelty? Is it not a decree of persecution, and indeed much more explicit and formidable than those that are publicly proposed? because he vindicated the slaughter of the innocent For what difference does it make whether you publicly issue and promulgate danger to Christians, or openly show that you delight in the persecutors of Christians, and consider it a grave crime to use any moderation toward them?" We would believe that this last happened to the Prefect of Caesarea, if Sozomenus did not clearly report these things about the one who held the magistracy at Gaza.
Section II. The Butchery of the Holy Virgins, the Martyrdom of St. Cyril: the Veneration of All, and Especially of St. Mark, among the Greeks.
[13] From Nazianzen and other writers of that period, Theodoret drew whatever he narrates in book 3 of his Ecclesiastical History, chapter 6, and Sozomenus in book 5, chapter 9; whence in describing the outstanding contest of St. Mark they also extend themselves at greater length. what others have written about St. Mark Theodoret adds, moreover, that the Gentiles, finally overcome by his constancy, released him, and having changed their minds, were led to an entirely contrary manner of life; for they afterwards learned true piety from his lips. Sozomenus asserts the same but in fewer words, and the text of the Menaea agrees with them. Theophanes varies in some circumstances and, as if imputing it to Julian in person, says that he exercised dreadful torments at Arethusa against Christians, among whom was also the most holy monk Mark, who, when the army was destroying the family of Constantius, had hidden and saved Julian. "His living entrails..." -- the rest is swallowed by a lacuna. The translator, suspecting death inflicted through torments, rendered "zontos" as "while still breathing."
[14] The same Theophanes, where Theodoret also does, extends the cruelty exercised against the sacred Virgins also to the Priests, and writes that it was common to the Ascalonites together with the people of Gaza. some write that at Gaza and Ascalon there was savagery also against Priests "At Gaza," he says, "and at Ascalon they killed Priests and Virgins consecrated to God in perpetuity, and filling their opened entrails with barley, cast them to pigs to be torn apart." But Sozomenus, making the Heliopolitans the authors of the unspeakable barbarity, explains the matter differently, and from a special and peculiar hatred of virginity attributed to them, he believed they acted thus. For he, after having explained at length the savagery of the Alexandrians against George the pseudo-bishop, and of the people of Gaza against the brothers Eusebius, Nestabas, and Zeno -- Martyrs to be commemorated on the 8th of September -- about to speak of St. Mark and the Virgins, Sozomenus attributes the butchery of the Virgins to the Heliopolitans writes thus: "But those who inhabit Heliopolis, situated at Mount Lebanon, and Arethusa of Syria, seem to have far surpassed these in cruelty. For these men stripped the sacred Virgins (a thing incredible to say, unless some of those who lived at the same time had narrated the very same thing) -- those who were not at all accustomed to be seen by the populace -- of their clothing in a public place, both for the common spectacle of all who wished to gaze upon them and for the insult to the women themselves. And as soon as they had abused them in whatever way they pleased, at last they shaved their hair. They even cut them in two and provoked pigs to devour their intestines, the outer layer of the viscera being covered with the food customary to them, so that the pigs might not so easily distinguish them, but, necessarily seeking their accustomed food, would also tear apart the human flesh. committed out of hatred of chastity To this cruelty against the consecrated Virgins, as I conjecture, the Heliopolitans were driven by the fact that they had been forbidden to deliver their virgins, as their ancestral custom had previously required, to the first man they chanced to meet for deflowering, before they consorted with the men to whom they were betrothed. For Constantine, having destroyed the temple of Venus at Heliopolis, was the first to build a church among them, and had prohibited by law the commission of their customary debaucheries."
[15] Elias of Crete, in his commentary on the cited oration of St. Gregory, imputes to the same Heliopolitans the butchery of three brothers whom others write were killed at Gaza. the same people tore Cyril apart More certain from Theodoret is that the cruel death of Cyril the Deacon must be imputed to them; for he writes thus, and has Theophanes in agreement: "Who, I ask, can commemorate without tears the crime committed by those Gentiles in Phoenicia? For at Heliopolis, a city near Lebanon, those execrable Gentiles, remembering the deed of Cyril the Deacon, they eat his entrails who, when Constantine reigned, inflamed by a certain divine zeal, had broken many images that were worshipped in that city -- not only killed him, but also, having cut open his belly, did not shrink from tasting his liver. But they could not hide this from God who contemplates all things, and they paid the due penalties for their crime: for all who were stained with the guilt of that sin first lost their teeth, which all alike fell out to the last one; then they lost their tongues, which, consumed by putrefaction, flowed out of their mouths; and are divinely punished finally they were deprived of their eyes -- by whose calamities the power of true piety was clearly proclaimed." More briefly, Theophanes: "Cyril the Deacon, because under Constantine of blessed memory he had overthrown the idols, the Heliopolitans in Phoenicia put to death, and from his liver they made a feast. He who then tore the Deacon apart and feasted on his liver afterwards suffered this: he vomited forth his tongue in putrefaction, spat out his teeth, and finally, blinded in his eyes and tormented in a pitiable manner, ended his life." Where perhaps in place of the article "ho" (who), "hostis" (whoever) should more correctly be read, so that it may be established from Theophanes also that the punishment was not of one but of all the criminals.
[16] It would now be superfluous to wish to append the words of the Menaea as well, which differ in no way in sense from these. It suffices to say that in most manuscript Synaxaria the same things are found concerning Mark, Mark, surviving the torments, converts the people of Arethusa Cyril, and the holy Virgins; and that in the beginning the zeal of St. Mark under the empire of Constantine in overthrowing the altars or idolatrous temple is commended; and then that in the manuscript Menologion of Basil at Grottaferrata his eulogy is concluded with these words: "But when they saw him unconquerable, having changed their minds they ceased from tormenting him and thereafter had him as their teacher, regarding his constancy as a great miracle and seeking his forgiveness. Then surviving and governing his flock excellently for the rest of his life, he rested in extreme old age." To which this distich prefixed to the eulogy refers:
"Epagrypnesas prota pollais aikeiais, Hypnose Markos theion eirenes hypnon."
"First keeping vigil through many cruel injuries, Mark fell asleep in the divine sleep of peace."
[17] Moreover, the Greek Office for this day thus leaves the first place to St. Mark, Cyril, and the many others and with his companions is venerated in the first place among the Greeks who suffered at the same time in a similar cause, so that in the Typicon only they are named, while in the Menaea first the antiphons about them, and then those about SS. Jonas and Barachisius, are set. After these, Odes composed about both groups follow in the same order. Of these, those that are entirely about St. Mark have a certain George as their author -- perhaps the one who in the Ambrosian and Claremont manuscript Synaxaria is enrolled among the saints at the 30th of December, by odes composed by George named Bishop of Nicomedia and "poietes ton kanonon" ("composer of canons"). We shall know more about him when Leo Allatius's collection on the Melodists of the Greeks appears, which he promises in his dissertation on their books, enumerating seventy-one Hymnographers of the Greek Church. In these odes, moreover, this is peculiar and different from those of other authors: that all begin with an invocation of the Godhead; but in common with the rest, each one ends in the praise of the Mother of God. eminently praised The eulogies attributed to St. Mark are indeed illustrious: he is called a splendid lamp of the Church of Christ, a pure minister of God, restored and increased in the spiritual meadow of the Christian faith; a Colleague of the Martyrs having Christ as his Leader, who with the wakeful eye of the mind, fixed upon his flock, guarded it unharmed; who cast down the heads of error, idolatry, and atheism; and preached the truth to men.
Section III. That St. Mark Had Been Separated from the Party of the Heretics When He Suffered for the Religion of Christ.
[18] Since matters stand thus, and by the consensus of the entire Greek Church Mark, Bishop of Arethusa, is proclaimed and venerated as a Saint, the veneration of St. Mark is also approved by the Latin Church Molanus rightly inserted his commemoration, as well as that of Cyril the Deacon and the others who fought under the tyrant Julian, in his additions to Usuard in the Martyrology; Galesinnius also rightly inscribed him alone in his Martyrology -- as the chief among Syrians from that entire persecution -- which he composed for the use of the Roman Church and offered to Gregory XIII, with a lengthy eulogy borrowed from the Greeks. Moreover, the successor of Gregory, Clement VIII, in the year 1598 approved and granted to Greeks impeded from attending choir the use of the new Anthologion or Breviary collected by Arcudius from the major Menaea, and examined by several Bishops and other ecclesiastics versed in both languages, in which the eulogy of Mark alone is proposed for recitation. Wherefore his veneration must be judged approved not only by the Greek but also by the Latin Church.
[19] And so one may wonder how Cardinal Baronius, when, having related the martyrdom of Cyril, he passed over Mark, and indicated
in his annotations on this day that Cyril was joined to Mark of Arethusa by the Greeks, although indeed he had adhered to the Arians he wished to censure him with a more severe judgment and said: "But the Roman Church does not receive that Mark among the Saints, who is known to have been an Arian and a leader of the Arians." We frankly confess that we do not yet see by what indication the Roman Church has declared that he is not received by her. But that he once followed the party of those who, standing midway between the Arians and the followers of Athanasius, considered the word "consubstantial" to be a novelty and a cause of discord that should be kept silent, and yet confessing the Son to be in all things like the Father, are called Semi-Arians by Epiphanius in his heresy 73 -- this we do not wish to deny. But just as those formulas of faith to which we know from Epiphanius that Mark subscribed were entirely in conformity with the orthodox faith, and in which you would find nothing wanting except the word "consubstantial," so neither is it certain whether in the council of Sirmium Mark held any opinion different from the orthodox profession. and Semi-Arians For the first confession of faith that the Arians issued after commonly condemning Photinus along with the Catholics, written by Mark of Arethusa and subscribed by Pope Liberius, is, as recited in Socrates, book 2, chapter 25, again Catholic -- except that among the anathemas, perhaps later interpolated, there is one: "If anyone, when he hears that the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and calls the Father Lord and the Son Lord, it is not established, however, that he taught heresy and when one says 'the Lord from the Lord,' asserts two Gods, let him be anathema; for we do not place the Son in the same rank as the Father, but make him subject to the Father." For as obscure as the sense of this anathema is, so suspect to us is the reliability of the appended reason, which has nothing to do with the blasphemy about two gods -- which alone seems to be condemned -- so that on that account it could appear to have been intruded by some Arian.
[20] Then there was published in the same place in Latin, and afterwards translated into Greek, another formula of faith in which silence is imposed on the word "consubstantial," and the Father is declared greater and the Son lesser, to which Hosius was compelled by torture to subscribe. But those who assert that Mark was the translator of this, let them not vainly cite Socrates in support of their opinion; for he speaks thus: "These Bishops, staying for a time at Sirmium, sanctioned other Acts; for they began to condemn their old decrees concerning the faith and to compose new formulas of faith: not even at the Council of Sirmium one which Mark, Bishop of Arethusa, wrote in the Greek language, and two others in the Latin language, which agreed neither in words nor in composition and meaning either with themselves or with the one which the Arethusian had written in Greek. Nevertheless, one of those composed in Latin I shall here append to that formula published in Greek by Mark, and the other I shall weave in elsewhere" -- for it is to be understood that both were translated into the Greek language. "The formula of faith composed by Mark is this: We believe," etc. Behold, not a word in these about a translation made by Mark. Nevertheless we do not dare to assert that he was then stronger than Hosius, or that he openly separated himself from the Arians, since it suffices for us at present to have declared that the impiety at that time was not so manifest that it could not deceive even pious and otherwise holy men under the appearance of piety and concord -- men who, in the course of time, being better taught the truth, completely separated themselves from the heretics, as we saw in the case of St. Cyril on the 18th of March.
[21] "But we have no testimony," says Baronius, "that this Mark returned to the Catholic Church; indeed, the contrary seems rather to be the case; for in the Council of Antioch, held after the death of Julian in the times of the Augustus Jovian, and it is proved that he finally passed openly to the Catholics in which the leaders of the Arians, according to their custom, changing their faith along with the Prince, sang their recantation -- no mention whatsoever is made of Mark of Arethusa in that list of Bishops which Socrates reviews in book 3, chapter 21, and Sozomenus in book 6, chapter 4." But if those who are recorded as having joined Meletius -- recently brought over from their party to the faith of the homoousios -- at the Antiochene Synod were all Acacians, that is, fully Arian, as indeed the cited authors say they were, how could Mark have been among them, since he was listed by Epiphanius at that time among the Semi-Arians, who were then clearly manifested enemies of the Arians? because he is then named among neither group of heretics And since he is not even named among the latter in the document that Basil with his associates presented to Jovian, requesting that those who asserted the Son to be unlike the Father should be expelled from the Church and that they themselves should be appointed in their places -- is not this sufficient argument that Mark was at that time already separated from the assembly of the Semi-Arians as well, and should be considered entirely and manifestly Catholic? Especially since his decrepit age removed him from the pursuit of controversy, and his outstanding confession, approved by the people of Arethusa, inflamed him to devote himself solely to the preaching of the same Christ.
[22] But there is no need for conjectures; as an evident testimony of his orthodoxy, the authority of Nazianzen suffices for Mark -- choosing him alone from all, and is so excellently praised by Nazianzen to propose and praise him as an example of Christian fortitude assailed by the full ingenuity of idolatrous cruelty. By which authority, we certainly shall not say that some have been deceived, as if that holy Doctor of the Church and most fierce champion of the Catholic faith against the Arians cared nothing whether those he praised were orthodox or not, provided they were among those whom Julian had persecuted out of hatred for Christ, and the Gentiles at his behest. For that would have some semblance of truth if he had brought forward many examples without discrimination, and if among the brothers of Gaza, Theodoretus of Antioch, Cyril of Heliopolis, and other Catholic Martyrs of this kind, not indiscriminately commemorating any Christians harassed by Julian there also appeared either Patrophilus of Scythopolis, whose relics, dug from the earth, the Gentiles partly scattered here and there and partly hung up his skull in mockery; or George of Alexandria, suddenly seized by force and killed, whose cadaver they placed on a camel to be subjected to mockeries through impiety and led through all the streets of the city, and finally, mingled with the bones of dead beasts, they consumed with fire and dispersed the remains to the wind, as Theophanes describes.
[23] If, I say, Gregory had also commemorated and praised these certainly heretical persons, or similar others, alongside those I have named and other Christians, there would indeed be some room for this objection; yet even then the distinction between the two would appear enormous: for upon those heretics, even after death, only insult was inflicted, but bringing forward this one alone from all or if they also suffered death, it was inflicted upon them with such sudden fury that it was not in their power to choose whether or not they wished to suffer for the profession of the Christian name. But the martyrdom of Mark, as Nazianzen himself carefully explains, was true and in every way manifest: he both voluntarily placed himself in the hands of his persecutors, out of love for his brethren, and so steadfastly endured the torments that, when he could have, he was unwilling to free himself from them even with a single coin. Nazianzen also praised Constantius, and seemed almost to exalt him to heaven by comparison with Julian; but just as his reason for excusing the heretical Emperor was that he had sinned more through a misguided zeal for concord than through hatred of the orthodox, being deceived by the frauds of the Arians, while remaining meanwhile a most zealous champion of the Christian name -- by whom Julian, elevated to the Empire, had shown himself utterly unlike him -- so no plausible reason can be devised why either Nazianzen himself would have wished to take up the case of an old man persisting in Arian or Semi-Arian heresy as the sole subject of his praise, or God would have bestowed such strength of soul in the cause of true piety upon a man who was even then a heretic.
[24] And on account of these things, more maturely considered, we believe that Baronius changed his opinion about Mark in volume 4 of the Annals at the year 362, number 153, where, having described his contest for which reason Baronius also is believed to consider him Orthodox and indicated that he had previously manifestly stood with the Arian party even after the recantation chanted at the Council of Nicaea (which however we do not know on what basis is said, since in what we have about the Council of Nicaea, neither is Mark named among the followers of Arius, nor among those Bishops who subscribed to the Nicene faith after Hosius), he says: "Moreover, since all the historians, when they narrate his outstanding constancy in suffering, proclaim him a man distinguished for piety; and moreover (which should be esteemed most highly) Gregory Nazianzen himself calls him an outstanding man and a most venerable old man, it is fitting to believe that after so great a conflict of dogmas, he transferred himself to the camp of the faithful orthodox, defecting from the heretics." By which words, the censure that the same Baronius had pronounced against Mark in the aforesaid annotations should be considered sufficiently revoked; so that it is not surprising if, notwithstanding it, Ferrarius inserted Mark in his General Catalogue of Saints -- which before him, and indeed before Baronius, Canisius had done in his German Martyrology, and Felicius in his Historical Calendar.