or of JERUSALEM, of which city he was bishop, a Greek
ecclesiastical writer of the latter part of the second century. Jerome (De
Vitris Illust. 100.47) mentions Maximus, an ecclesiastical writer who wrote on the
questions of the origin of evil and the creation of matter, as having lived under the emperors
Commodus (De Scriptor. Eccles. 1.47), extracting from Jerome,
reads the name Maximinus; and Rufinus, translating from Eusebius, who has a short passage
relating to the same writer (H. E. 5.27), gives the name in the same
form; but it is probably incorrect. There was a Maximus bishop of Jerusalem in the reign of
Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius, or the earlier part of that of Commodus, i.e. somewhere
between Chronic. and Hieron. Euseb. Chron.
Interpretatio). they do not either of them identify the writer with him; and it is
remarkable that in the list given by Eusebius of the bishops of Jerusalem in his
The title of the work of Maximus noticed by Jerome and Eusebius (for the two questions of
the origin of evil and the creation of matter appear to have been comprehended in one
treatise) was
Beside the two bishops of Jerusalem of this name already noticed, there was a third in the
reign of Constantine the Great and his sons. He suffered in one of the later persecutions of
the heathen emperors, apparently under Maximian Galerius. (Philostorg. H.
E. 3.12.) He suffered the loss of his right eye, and some infliction, possibly
ham-stringing, in his right leg. (Theodoret. H. E. 2.26.) His sufferings
in the cause of Christianity and the general excellence of his character so endeared him to
the people of Jerusalem, among whom he officiated as priest, that when he was appointed by
Macarmus, bishop of that city, to the vacant bishopric of Diospolis, the multitude would not
allow him to depart; and Macarius was obliged to forego the appointment, and nominate another
in his place. According to some accounts, Macarius repented almost immediately of the
nomination of Maximus to Diospolis, and readily consented to his remaining at Jerusalem,
taking him for his assistant in the duties of the episcopal office, and his intended
successor, fearing lest Eusebius of Caesaraea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis should procure
the election of a favourer of Arianism. (Sozomen, H. E. 2.20.) On the
decease of Macarius some time between H. E. 2.25) that at this
council Paphnutius, a bishop of the Thebais or Upper Egypt, and himself a confessor, took
Maximus by the hand, and told him to leave the place: "For," said he, "it does not become us,
who have lost our eyes and been hamstrung for the sake of religion, to join the council of
the wicked." This appeal was in vain, and Maximus was induced by some unfairness to subscribe
the decree condemning Athanasius. However, he soon repented of this step, and at a synod of
sixteen bishops of Palestine joyfully admitted Athanasius to communion when returning from
the council of Sardica, through Asia, to Alexandria. Sozomen relates (H.
E. 4.20) that Maximus was deposed by the influence of Acacius of Caesaraea and
Patrophilus, CYRILLUS, T., of Jerusalem] appointed in his place; but if there is any truth in this
statement, of which Jerome, in his Chronicle, does not speak, the death of Maximus must have
very shortly succeeded his deposition.
Socrat. H. E. 2.8; Sozom. ll. cc., and 3.6;
Theodoret, l.c.; Philostorg. l.c.; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. iii. col. 156, &c.