Patriarchs (Gr. 7rarpia,famili/, and
Patriarchal "°X''"^' ^"'"'' """ '""^'°'') ^^'^ i" the Chris- Cross, tian Church ecclesiastical dignitaries, or bisliops, so called from the paternal au- thority which they are claimed to liave exercised. In the ancient Christian Church patriarchs were next in
order to metropolitans or primates. They were origi- nall}' styled arclibishops and exarchs, and were tlie bish- ops of certain great metropolitan sees, and though thej' held rank next to the metropolitans, tliey enjoyed a jurisdiction almost identical with that of the metro- politan in his own province. The territory over which they ruled was after their own office called a patriarch- ate.
The title Patriarch, which is of Eastern origin, is al- most synonymous with primate (q. v.), and is by those who use it derived from Acts vii, 8. They claim that the apostles were so called because they were regarded by the apostolic Christians as the fathers of all other churches. Baronius and Schelstraate derive it from St. Peter only, as they do the pope's supremacy [see Pope], but other Komanists assert that the patriarchs took their rise a short time previous to the Council of Nice ; and a third party, among whom is Balzamon and other Greek writers, maintain that they were first instituted b}' that council. In confutation of the last opinion, it may be stated that the evidence in favor of an earlier origin is too strong to be easily set aside ; and, further, that the words of Jerome, upon which the error is founded, refer to the canonical confirmation of those rights, titles, and privileges which custom had already established, and not to the creation of anj- new dignities. The patri- archal sees were by the sixth canon of the Council of Nice acknowledged as of "ancient custom." Originally the name patriarch seems to have been given commonly to bishops, or at least was certainly given in a less spe- cial sense than what it eventually bore. The date at which the title first assumed its now accepted use we think cannot be exactly determined. It is certain, how- ever, that even as late as the time of the Council of Nice no siqn'emaci/ was recognised in the patriarchs over the provincial metropolitans, and that the authority which the patriarchs have since exercised was arrogated by them at a later period. It was by degrees that the su- premacy of the patriarchate rose paramount to all other ecclesiastical dignities ; for we find that about the close of the 4th century the established privileges of the pa- triai-chs included, among other things, the right of con- secrating bishops, summoning district councils, appoint- ing vicars for remote provinces, invested with their own authority, and giving a decisive judgment in those cases of appeal which came before them from other courts. In short, nothing was done without consulting them, and their decrees were executed with the same regular- ity and respect as those of princes. The first time we meet with the name patriarch given to any bishop by public authority of the Church is in the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, which mentions the most holy patriarchs, particularly Leo, patriarch of great Rome. Among private authors, the first who mentions patri- archs by name is Socrates, who wrote his history about the year 440, eleven years before the Council of Chalce- don. At first each quarter of the Christian world had its patriarch — Europe, Rome; Asia, Antioch ; Africa, Al- exandria : at a later period there were two more — those of Jerusalem, as the mother of all churches, " the apos- tolical see" of St. James the First, founded by the Coun- cil of Chalcedon ; and Constantinople, by the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 451), as Byzantium was then an- other Rome and imperial city. All these were indepen- dent of one another, till Rome b_v encroachment, and Constantinople by law, gained a superiority over some of the rest. The suburdinate patriarchs nevertheless still retained the title of exarchs of the diocese, and con- tinued to sit and vote in councils. The contests between the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinojile were among the cliief causes of the Greek schism. See Greek Cm-KCii. After the (ireek schism, and particularly after the establishment of the Latin kingdom of Jerusa- lem, Latin prelates were appointed with the title and rank of patriarch in the four great Eastern sees. It was hoped that the union of the churches, effected at the Council of Florence, would have put an end to the con-
PATRIARCHS
113
PATRIARCHS
test thus created ; but that union proved transitory, and the double series of patriarchs has been continued to the present day. The Nestorian and Eutychian sections of the Eastern churches, too, have each their own ])atriarch, and the head of that portion of the former which in the lOtli century was reconciled witli the Koman see, al- tliough known by the title of CathoUcos, has the rank and authority of patriarch. See Nestokians. Besides these, which are called the Greater Patriarchates, there have been others in the Western Church knoAvn by the name of Minor Patriarchates. Of these the most an- cient were those of Aquileia and Grado. The latter was transferred to Venice in 1-151 ; the former was suji- pressed by Benedict XIV. France also had a patri- arch of Bourges; Spain, for her colonial missions, a patriarch of the Indies, and Portugal a patriarch of Lisbon. These titles, however, are little more than hon- orary. The Armenians likewise have their own patri- arch at Jerusalem.