knowledge and the redemption they had experienced, above ordinary rules of morality. If we are sometimes tempted to be indulgent to Gnostic theories as the harmless dreams of well-meaning thinkers perplexed by problems too hard for them, the history of Marcus shews how these speculations became a degrading superstition. Everything elevating and ennobling in Christ's teaching disappeared; the teachers boasted of a sham science, having no tendency to make those who believed it wiser or better; the disciples trusted in magical rites and charms not more respectable than those of the heathen; and their morality became of quite heathen laxity.
Marcus appears to have been an elder contemporary of Irenaeus, who speaks of him as though still living and teaching. Irenaeus more than once tells of the resistance to Marcus of a venerated elder, from whom he quotes some iambic verses, written in reprobation of that heretic. Though we learn from Irenaeus that the Rhone district was much infested by followers of Marcus, it does not appear that Marcus was there himself, and the impression left is that Irenaeus knew the followers of Marcus by personal intercourse, Marcus only by his writings. We are told also of Marcus having seduced the wife of one of the deacons in Asia (διάκονον τινα τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ) and the most natural conclusion is that Asia Minor was the scene where Marcus made himself notorious as a teacher, probably before Irenaeus had left that district; that it was a leading bishop there who resisted Marcus; and that the heretic's doctrines passed into Gaul by means of the extensive intercourse well known to have then prevailed between the two countries. The use of Hebrew or Syriac names in the Marcosian school may lead us to ascribe to Marcus an Oriental origin.
[G.S.]
Mari. [NESTORIAN CHURCH.]
Marinus (4), a military martyr in the reign of Gallienus, at Caesarea in Palestine, under a judge named Achaeus, A.D. 262. He was distinguished by his birth, riches, and services. When Marinus was about to be made a centurion, another aspirant declared him to be a Christian and unable therefore to sacrifice to the emperors. The judge granted him three hours to choose between death and compliance. As Marinus came out of the praetorium, Theotecnus the bishop led him into the church. Placing him by the altar, be raised his cloak, and pointing to the sword by his side, and presenting him with the book of the gospels, told him to choose which he wished. Without hesitation he extended his hand and took the book. "Hold fast then—hold fast to God," said Theotecnus, "and strengthened by Him mayest thou obtain what thou hast chosen: go in peace." He was immediately executed, and buried by a Christian senator named Astyrius. The narrative of Eusebius was probably that of an eye-witness, perhaps the bishop. It is a moot question whether this martyrdom resulted from persecution or from military law. Dr. F. Görres, in an art. in Jahrb. Prot. Theologie, 1877, p. 620, on "Die Toleranzedicte des Kaisers Gallienus," suggests that Marinus could not legally have suffered under Gallienus, who had already issued his edict of toleration, but that it must have taken place by command of Macrianus, who had revolted from Gallienus and taken possession of Egypt, Palestine, and the East, and was, as we learn from Eus. vii. 10, 13, 23 (cf. Trebell. Pollio, ed. H. Peter. Script. Hist. Aug. t. ii. Gallieni duo. cc. i.–iii. xxx. Tyranni, cc. xiii. xiv.) the moral author of the Valerian persecution. When possessed of imperial authority, Macrianus vented his hate on the Christians whom Gallienus favoured. Eus. vii. 15, 16; Neander, H. E. ed. Bohn, i. 194 ; Ceill, ii. 394; Tillem. iv. 21; Pagi, Crit. i. 276, nr. x. xi.).
[G.T.S.]
Maris (2), (Mares, Magnus, Marius), bp. of Chalcedon, a prominent Arian (Le Quien, Or. Chr. i. 599), said to have been a disciple of the martyr Lucian of Antioch (Philost. H. E. ii. 14; Tillem. v. 770, vi. 253, 646). He wrote in support of Arian opinions before the council of Nicaea (Athan. de Syn. § 17; Tillem. vi. 646). At the council he joined with Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis, Ursacius, and Valens against Athanasius (Socr. i. 8, 27), and was one of five who were unwilling to subscribe on account of the term ὁμοούσιον (i. 8). Maris at length yielded (Soz. i. 211; Nicet. Chron. Thesaur. v. 8; cf. Vales. note 71, ad Soz. i. 21). He was one of 17 who held out against the council and supported Arius, according to Gelasius (Mansi, ii. 818; cf. 878 B). His name occurs among the subscribers (ib. ii. 696). Philostorgius states (in Nicet. Chon. Thes. v. 8) that Maris, Eusebius, Theognis, expressed to the emperor their repentance for having signed, stating that they had complied only through fear of him, and that the emperor indignantly banished them to Gaul. Maris assisted at the council of Tyre in 335, and was one of the commission to Mareotis (Athan. Ap. c. Ar. §§ 13, 72; Theod. H. E. 1. 28; Mansi, 11. 1125 D, 1130 B, 1143 D; Tillem. viii. 35, 42, 49). In 335 he was one of the deputies sent to Constantinople against Athanasius (Socr. i. 35; Tillem. vi. 250). He frequently wrote to pope Julius against Athanasius (Hilar. Frag. ii. § 2, in Patr. Lat. x. 632, here written Marius; Theod. H. E. ii. 6 al. 8; Tillem. vii. 270). In 341 he attended the council of Antioch and is named in the Ep. of Julius (Ap. c. Ar. § 20; Tillem. vi. 312). In 342 he was of the party who secured the appointment of Macedonius to the see of Constantinople (Socr. ii. 12; Tillem. vi. 323, 493). The same year he was one of four bishops deputed by Constantius to Constans (Socr. li. 18; Athan. de Syn. § 25; Tillem. vi. 326; Hefele, Conc. ii. 80, 83). Sozomen (iii. 10) omits Maris here. That he was present at the council of Sardica (343–344) appears certain, although his name is not among the signatures (Tillem. viii. 95, 686, 688; Hefele, ii. 92, n. 3). At the council of Philippopolis his name is again absent, and among the subscriptions occur Thelaphius as bp. of Chalcedon (Mansi, ii. 138), probably by a clerical error. In 359 he defended the doctrine of the Anomoeans against Basil (Philostorg. iv. 12; Tillem. vi. 483) and was at the council of Ariminum (Socr. ii. 41; Soz. iv. 24), and in 360 at the council of Constantinople (ib.; Hefele, ii. 271; Tillem. vi. 487). In 362 Maris, then advanced in age and blind, at an interview with Julian, severely rebuked his
