RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Patcm Patriarch
PATON, LEWIS BAYLES: Congregationalist Biblical scholar; b. at New York City June 27, 1864. He was educated at Parsons College, Fairfield, la., New York University (A.B., 1884), Princeton Theological Seminary (1890), and the universities of Berlin (1890-92) and Marburg (Ph.D., 1897). Since 1892 he has been connected with Hartford Theological Seminary, where he has been instructor in Old- Testament exegesis (1892-93), associate professor (1893-97), and Nettleton professor of Old-Testament exegesis and criticism (since 1897). He was also director of the American School of Archeology at Jerusalem in 1902-04. In theology he belongs to the critical evangelical school. He has written The Early History of Syria and Palestine (New York, 1902); Jerusalem in Bible Times (Chicago, 1908); and Esther, the latter for the International Critical Commentary (New York, 1908); and has edited Recent Christian Progress; Studies in Christian Thought and Work during the last Seventy-five Years (1909).
PATRIARCH : A title applied in the early Church to the chief bishops, having jurisdiction over metropolitans. The name occurs in the fourth century as applied to ordinary bishops; but by degrees, as the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem gained more importance and stood at the head of large ecclesiastical provinces, it was used specifically of them. The development of the constitution of the Church involved in the creation of the patriarchates followed the analogy of the political subdivisions of the Empire. From the time of Diocletian (284-305) and Constantine (306- 337) this was divided into four prefectures, and these again into a number of dioceses, which in their turn were composed of provinces or eparchies. Thus the prefecture of the East comprised the dioceses of " the East " (Oriens), Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, whose capitals were Antioch, Ephesus, Caesarea, Cappadocia, and Heraclea. The districts of the metropolitans corresponded to the provinces, as those of bishops to the less important city districts; but ecclesiastical divisions corresponding to civil dioceses did not then exist. Early in the process of development there is evidence of efforts on the part of the metropolitans of prominent cities to extend their jurisdiction more widely and to obtain an influence over several metropolitan districts. This goal was attained by Alexandria at the beginning of the fourth century, as is recognized by the famous sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea. The wording of the canon is not altogether clear; but it is evident from the history of the Meletian Schism (see Meletitjs of Antioch and the Meletian Schism) that the following rights were claimed by the bishop of Alexandria: to issue binding regulations in questions of discipline; to hold synods representing the metropolitan districts united with him; in conjunction with such synods, to judge the bishops of the district; and in the case of a vacancy to administer the vacant diocese. Similar conditions arose by degrees at Rome and probably at Antioch. To argue back from the later system, it would seem probable that the power of the patriarch of Antioch was less than that of the patriarch of Alexandria to the extent
that he ordained the metropolitans only, and not also the bishops. The extension of the influence of the metropolitans of great cities over neighboring metropolitans, corresponding to the civil diocesan division, is the beginning of the patriarchal organization, the impetus to which may have been the example of the secular government, but doubtless the ambition of the bishops of the metropolises had its effects. The West was not affected by the process, owing to the predominant position of Rome and its claims to the primacy; but in the East the process was completed by the time of the Council of Constantinople in 381. Its second canon contemplates the recognition of five great divisions in the East: Egypt, " the East " {Oriens), Asia, Pontus, and Thrace. The provision against the overstepping of these boundaries can have been directed only against encroachments on the part of Alexandria and Antioch, which were thus strictly limited to Egypt and to " the East." That this took place in the interest of Constantinople is shown by the third canon. Constantinople had supplanted Heraclea as the head of the Thracian dioceses, nor was it long in absorbing the powers of Ephesus and Caesarea in Cappadocia, which were unable to maintain themselves on an equal footing with the others. The result of this process received canonical sanction at the Council of Chalcedon (451). This reduced the five eastern patriarchates to three; but another was added in Jerusalem, which had a certain honorary precedence as early as the Council of Nicaea (325), though with express reservation of the rights of the metropolitans of Caesarea in Palestine. At the Council of Ephesus (431) an attempt was made to render Jerusalem independent of the diocese of " the East " ; this was unsuccessful, until, with the aid of the Emperor Theodosius II., Palestine, Phenicia, and Arabia were severed from the rest of this division and made subject to the see of Jerusalem. Antioch protesting, Phenicia and Arabia were to remain with Antioch and the three eparchies of Palestine fell to Jerusalem; and this was confirmed at Chalcedon. The same council also gave Constantinople a concurrent jurisdiction on appeal, at the choice of the appellant, with the patriarchal see to which he might be immediately subject, thus rendering it virtually an archpatriarchate.
In the time of the Council of Chalcedon, patriarchs were known yet as eparchs, which term was also used as yet by the metropolitan of Sardica. When afterward the term patriarch became affixed to the titles of the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, eparch remained for the bishops of Ephesus and Caesarea; but their power was not essentially different from that of metropolitans. In the West the title patriarch was borne by the bishops of Aquileia and Grado until 1451, when the patriarchate of Grado was transferred to Venice, and that of Aquileia was abolished. Later the title was given to the bishops of Lisbon and Goa, but was merely honorary. (A. Hatjck.)
Bibliography: Bingham, Origines, II., ii. § 9, xvii (practically complete); J. C. W. Augusti, Denkivvrdinkeiten, xi. 148 sqq., Leipsic, 1830; K. Liibeck, Reichseinteilung und kirchliche Hierarchie des Orients, Minister, 1901; and the works on ecclesiastical law (Kirchenrechl) by P Hinschius, i. 538 sqq., Berlin, 1869; E. Loning, i. 424 sqq.,
Patriarchs Patristic s