MAXIMUS
919
MAXIMUS
translating from Eusebius, who has a brief passage re- lating to the same writer {II. E. v, 27), gives the name in the same form ; bnt it is probably incorrect. A Max- imiis, bishop of Jerusalem, lived in the reign of Antoni- nns Pius or Marcus Aurelius, or the early part of that of Commodus, somewhere between A.D. 156 and A.D. 185; another Maximus occupied the same see from A.D. 185, and the successive episcopates of himself and seven suc- cessors occupy about eighty years, the duration of each episcopate not being known. The date of this latter Maximus of Jerusalem accords sufficiently with the no- tice in Jerome respecting the writer ; but it is remarka- ble that though both Eusebius and Jerome mention the bishop (Eusebius, Chronic, and Jerome, Euseb. Chronic. Inierpretatio), 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 Histor. Eccles. (v, 27), the names of the second Maximus and his successor Antoninus do not appear. It is uncer- tain, therefore, whether the writer and the bishop are the same, though it is extremely prob.ible they were. 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 compre- hended in one treatise) was De Materia. Eusebius has given a long extract from it {Prmp. Evang. vii, 21, 22). A portion of the same extract is inserted, without ac- knowledgment, in the Dialor/us Adamantii de recta in Deum Fide, or Contra Marcionitas, sect, iv, commonly attributed to Origen, but in reality written long after his time. It is also quoted in the rhilocalia, c. 24, com- piled by Gregory Nazianzen and Basil the Great almost entirely from the works of Origen. In the inscription to the chapter they are said to be from the Prceparatio Evangelica of Eusebius; and their being contained also in the supposed work of Origen, De Recta Fide, is af- firmed in a probably interpolated sentence of the con- cluding paragraph of the chapter (Delarue, Opera Orig- enis, i, 800 sq.). This passage, apparently the only part of iVIaximus's work which has come down to us, is given in the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland (ii, 146), who iden- tities the author with the bishop, and gives his reasons for so doing in the Prolegomena to the volume, c. 6 ; see also Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 196, i, 95 ; Tillemont, Me- moires, ii, 706, note xiii on Origen.
There was a third bishop of Jerusalem of this name, besides the two previously mentioned, who lived in the reign of Constantine the Great and his sons. He suffer- ed in one of the later persecutions of the heathen em- perors, apparently under Maximian Galerius (Philostor- gius, II. £. iii, 12). His sufferings in the cause of Chris- tianity, and the great excellence of his character, so en- deared him to the people of Jerusalem, among whom he officiated as priest, that when he was appointed by Ma- carius, bishop of that city, to the vacant bishopric of Di- ospolis, the multitude would not permit his departure, and ilacarius was forced to nominate another in his place. According to some accounts, Macarius repented almost immediately of the nomination of Maximus to Diospo- lis, and readily acquiesced in his remaining in Jerusa- lem, taking him for his assistant in the duties of the episcopal office (Sozomen, Ilisf. Eccles. ii, 20). Upon the death of Macarius (some time between A.D. 331 and 335), Maximus succeeded him, and was present at the Council of Tyre, A.D. 335, when Athanasius was con- demned. Sozomen records {flisf. Eccles. ii, 25) that at this council Paphnutius, a bishop of the Thebais or Up- per Egypt, and himself a confessor, took IVIaximus 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 Maxltnus was induced, but unfairly, to subscribe to the decree condemning Athanasius. But he soon regretted this step, and, at a synod of sixteen bishops of Palestine, joyfully admitted Athanasius to communion when re- turning from the Council of Sardica, through Asia, to
Alexandria. Sozomen relates (Hist. Eccles. iv, 20) that Maximus was deposed by the influence of Acacius of Ciesarea anil Patrojihilus (A.D. 3-19 or 350), and Cyril (St. CyriUus of Jerusalem) appointed in his place ; but if there is any truth in this statement, the death of Jlaximus must have very shortly followed his deposi- tion (Socrates, Hist. Eccles. ii, 8 ; Sozomen, I. c, and iii, 6 ; Theodoret, I. c. ; Philostorgius, l. c. ; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. iii, col. 156). — Smith, Diet, of Greek and Roman Biog. vol. ii, s. v.
Maximus Philosopiius. Different parties of that name are known in ancient history.
1. A heathen eclectic-Platonic philosopher and con- juror, who was teacher to the emperor Julian, and had great influence over him.
2. -iiso a heathen, of Madaura, in Africa, is known to us by an interesting letter to Augustine. In consequence of his consciousness of the downfall of heathenism, he seeks to uphold a philosophical but impotent monothe- ism, which, in the worship of several deities, sees only the adoration of a higher or supreme deity who imparts to them their power ; but he reproaches the Christians with wishing to have that God all to themselves, and visiting the graves of the dead (martj'rs). Kegardless of the new life which Christianity awakened, or of the divine energy testified by its excliisiveness, he finally exclaims, wearily, " Trahit sua quemque voluntas." The answer of Augustine is somewhat haughty and ironical (Axigust. 0pp. ii, 25 sq., ed. Venet.).