Patriarcha, one of those first fathers who lived towards the beginning of the world, and who became famous by their long lines of descendants. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and his twelve sons, are the patriarchs of the Old Testament; Seth, Enoch, &c. were antediluvian patriarchs.
The authority of patriarchal government existed in the fathers of families, and their first-born after them, exercising all kinds of ecclesiastical and civil authority in their respective households; and to this government, which lasted till the time of the Israelites dwelling in Egypt, some have ascribed an absolute and despotic power, extending even to the punishment by death. In proof of this, is produced the curse pronounced by Noah upon Canaan (Gen. ix. 25); but it must be observed, that in this affair Noah seems to have acted rather as a prophet than a patriarch. Another instance of supposed despotic power is Abraham's turning Hagar and Ishmael out of his family (Gen. xxi. 9, &c.); but this can hardly be thought to furnish evidence of any singular authority vested in the patriarchs, as such, and peculiar to those ages. The third instance brought forward to the same purpose is that of Jacob's denouncing a curse upon Simeon and Levi (Gen. xlix. 7.), which is maintained by others to be an instance of prophetic inspiration more than of patriarchal power. The fourth instance is that of Judah with regard to Tamar (Gen. xxxviii. 24.); with regard to which it is remarked, that Jacob, the father of Judah, was still living; that Tamar was not one of his own family; and that she had been guilty of adultery, the punishment of which was death by burning; and that Judah on this occasion might speak only as a prosecutor.
On the whole, however, it is difficult to say which of these opinions are most agreeable to truth. Men who believe the origin of civil government, and the obligation to obedience, to arise from a supposed original contract, either real or implied, will be naturally led to weaken the authority of the patriarchs: and those again who esteem government to be a divine institution, will be as apt to raise that authority to the highest pitch that either reason or scripture will permit them. It cannot be denied, that authority existed in fathers, and descended to their first-born, in the first ages of the world; and it is neither unnatural nor improbable to imagine, that the idea of hereditary power and hereditary honours was first taken from this circumstance. But whether authority has descended through father and son in this way to our times, is a circumstance that cannot in one instance be asserted, and can be denied in a thousand. The real source of the dignity and of the authority of modern times seems to have been, skill in the art of war, and success in the conduct of conquests.
Jewish Patriarch, a dignity, respecting the origin of which there are a variety of opinions. The learned authors of the Universal History think, that the first appearance and institution of those patriarchs happened under Nerva the successor of Domitian. It seems probable that the patriarchs were of the Aaronic or Levitical race; the tribe of Judah being at that time too much depressed, and too obnoxious to the Romans to be able to assume any external power. But of whatever tribe they were, their authority came to be very considerable. Their principal bulwark was to instruct the people; and for this purpose they instituted schools in several cities. And having gained great reputation for their extraordinary learning, zeal, and piety, they might, in time, not only bring a great concourse of other Jews from other parts, as from Egypt and other western provinces of their dispersion, but likewise prove the means of their patriarchal authority's being acknowledged there. From them they ventured at length to levy a kind of tribute, in order to defray the charges of their dignity, and of the officers (A) under them, whose business it was to carry their orders and decisions through the other provinces of their dispersion, and to see them punctually executed by all, that some shadow of union at least might be kept up among the western Jews. They likewise nominated the doctors who were to preside over their schools and academies; and these were in process of time styled chiefs and princes, in order to raise the credit of that dignity, or to imply the great regard which their disciples were to pay to them. These chiefs became at length rivals of the patriarchs; and some of them possessed both dignities at once; an usurpation which caused not only great confusion amongst them, but oftentimes very violent and bloody contests. However, as the Jewish Rabbies have trumped up a much older era for this patriarchal dignity, and have given us a succession of them down to the fifth century, in which it was abolished, it will not be amiss to give our readers the substance of what they have written of the rise and progress of this order of men; and at the same time to show them the absurdity and falsehood of that pretended succession to this imaginary dignity.
According to them, the first patriarch was Hillel, surnamed the Babylonian, because he was sent for from thence to Jerusalem about 100 years before the ruin of their capital, or 30 years before the birth of Christ, to decide a dispute about the keeping of Easter, which on that year fell out on the Sabbath-day; and it was on account of his wise decision that he was raised to that dignity, which continued in his family till the said fifth century. He was likewise looked upon as a second Moses, because he lived like him 40 years in obscurity, 40 more in great reputation for learning and sanctity, and 40 more in possession of this patriarchal dignity. They make him little inferior to that lawyer in other of his excellencies, as well as in the great authority he gained over the whole Jewish nation. The wonder will be, how Herod the Great, who was so jealous of his own power, could suffer a stranger to be raised to such a height of it, barely for having decided a dispute which must in all likelihood have been adjudged by others long before that time.
However, Hillel was succeeded by his son Simeon, whom many Christians pretend to have been the venerable old person of that name, who received the divine infant in his arms. The Jews give him but a very Patriarch very obscure patriarchate; though the authors above quoted make him, moreover, chief of the sanhedrim; and Epiphanius says, that the priestly tribe hated him so much for giving too ample a testimony to the divine child, that they denied him common burial. But it is hardly credible that St Luke should have so carelessly passed over his two-fold dignity, if he had been really possessed of them, and have given him no higher title than that of a just and devout man.
He was succeeded by Jochanan, not in right of descent, but of his extraordinary merit, which the Rabbies, according to custom, have raised to so surprising a height, that, according to them, if the whole heavens were paper, all the trees in the world pens, and all the men writers, they would not suffice to pen down all his lessons. He enjoyed his dignity but two years, according to some, or five according to others: and was the person who, observing the gates of the temple to open of their own accord, cried out, "O temple, temple! why art thou thus moved? We know that thou art to be destroyed, seeing Zechariah hath foretold it, saying, 'Open thy gates, O Lebanon, and let the flames consume thy cedars.'" Upon this he is further reported to have complimented Vespasian, or rather, as some have corrected the story, Titus, with the title of king, assuring him that it was a royal person who was to destroy that edifice; on which account they pretend that general gave him leave to remove the sanhedrim to Japhne.
The Jewish writers add, that he likewise erected an academy there, which subsisted till the death of Akiba; and was likewise the seat of the patriarch; and consisted of 300 schools, or classes of scholars. Another he erected at Lydda, not far from Japhne, and where the Christians have buried their famed St George. He lived 120 years, and being asked, what he had done to prolong his life? he gave this wise answer; I never made water nearer a house of prayer than four cubits: I never disguised my name: I have taken care to celebrate all festivals: and my mother hath even sold my head ornaments to buy wine enough to make me merry on such days; and left me at her death 300 hogsheads of it, to sanctify the Sabbath.—The doctors that flourished in his time were no less considerable, both for their number and character; particularly the famed Rabbi Chanina, of whom the Bath Col was heard to say, that the world was preserved for the sake of him; and R. Nicodemus, whom they pretend to have stopped the course of the sun, like another Joshua.
He was succeeded by Gamaliel, a man, according to them, of unsufferable pride; and yet of so universal authority over all the Jews, not only in the west, but over the whole world, that the very monarchs suffered his laws to be obeyed in their dominions, not one of them offering to obstruct the execution of them. In his days flourished Samuel the Lefa, who composed a prayer full of the bitterest curses against heretics, by which they mean the Christians; and which are still in use to this day. Gamaliel was no less an enemy to them; and yet both have been challenged, the former as the celebrated master of our great apostle, the other as his disciple in his unconverted state.
Simon II. his son and successor, was the first martyr who died during the siege of Jerusalem. The people so regretted his death, that an order was given instead of 10 bumpers of wine, which were usually drunk at the funeral of a saint, to drink 13 at his, on account of his martyrdom. These bumpers were in time multiplied, they tell us, to such shameful height, that the sanhedrim was forced to make some new regulations to prevent that abuse.
These are the patriarchs which, the Rabbies tell us, preceded the destruction of the temple; and we need no farther confutation of this pretended dignity, than the silence of the sacred historians, who not only make not the least mention of it, but assure us all along that they were the high-priests who presided in the sanhedrim; and before whom all cases relating to the Jewish religion were brought and decided. It was the high-priest who examined and condemned our Saviour; that condemned St Stephen; that forbade the apostles to preach in Christ's name; and who sat as judge on the great apostle at the head of that supreme court. The same may be urged from Josephus, who must needs have known and mentioned this pretended dignity, if any such there had been; and yet is so far from taking the least notice of it, that, like the evangelists, he places the pontiffs alone at the head of all the Jewish affairs; and names the high-priest Ananus as having the care and direction of the war against the Romans;—which is an evident proof that there were then no such patriarchs in being.
To all this let us add, that if there had been any such remarkable succession, the Talmudists would have preserved it to future ages; whereas, neither they, nor any of the ancient authors of the Jewish church, make any mention of it; but only some of their doctors, who have written a considerable time after them, as of writers to whom little credit can be given in points of this nature; especially as there are such unsurmountable contradictions between them, as no authors either Jewish or Christian have, with all their pains, been hitherto able to reconcile.
Their succession, according to the generality of those rabbies, stands as follows:
1. Hillel the Babylonian. 2. Simeon the son of Hillel. 3. Gamaliel the son of Simon. 4. Simeon II. the son of Gamaliel. 5. Gamaliel II. the son of Simeon II. 6. Simeon III. the son of Gamaliel II. 7. Judah the son of Simeon III. 8. Gamaliel III. the son of Judah. 9. Judah II. the son of Gamaliel III. 10. Hillel II. son of Judah II. 11. Judah III. son of Hillel II. 12. Hillel III. son of Judah III. 13. Gamaliel IV. son of Hillel III.
According to Gants Tzemach David, who hath reduced them to 10, they are,
1. Hillel the Babylonian. 2. Simeon the son of Hillel. 3. Rabb Gamaliel Rebona. 4. R. Simeon the son of Gamaliel. 5. Rabban Gamaliel his son. 6. R. Jehudah the prince. 7. Hillel the prince, his son. 8. Rabban Gamaliel the Old. 9. Simeon III. 10. R. Judah, Nasi or prince.
On the whole, it cannot be doubted but that their first rise was in Nerva's time, however much Jewish pride may have prompted them to falsify, and to assert their origin to have been more ancient than it really was. Nor have the Jews been faithful in giving an account of the authority of these men. They have exaggerated their power beyond all bounds, for the purpose of repelling Patriarchs repelling the arguments of Christians; for their power was certainly more showy than substantial. In time, however, they certainly imposed upon the people; and what power they did possess (which the Romans only allowed to be in religious matters, or in such as were connected with religion) they exercised with great rigour. Their pecuniary demands, in particular, became very exorbitant; and was the cause of their suppression in the year 429.
Patriarchs, among Christians, are ecclesiastical dignitaries, or bishops, so called from their paternal authority in the church. The power of patriarchs was not the same in all, but differed according to the different customs of countries, or the pleasures of kings and councils. Thus the patriarch of Constantinople grew to be a patriarch over the patriarchs of Ephesus and Caesarea, and was called the "ecumenical and universal patriarch"; and the patriarch of Alexandria had some prerogatives which no other patriarch but himself enjoyed, such as the right of consecrating and approving every single bishop under his jurisdiction.
The patriarchate has been ever esteemed the supreme dignity in the church: the bishop had only under him the territory of the city of which he was bishop; the metropolitan superintended a province, and had for suffragans the bishops of his province; the primate was the chief of what was then called a diocese (a), and had several metropolitans under him; and the patriarch had under him several dioceses, composing one exarchate, and the primates themselves were under him.
Usher, Pagi, De Marca, and Morinus, attribute the establishment of the grand patriarchates to the apostles themselves; who, in their opinion, according to the description of the world then given by geographers, pitched on the three principal cities in the three parts of the known world; viz. Rome in Europe, Antioch in Asia, and Alexandria in Africa: and thus formed a trinity of patriarchs. Others maintain that the name patriarch was unknown at the time of the council of Nice; and that for a long time afterwards patriarchs and primates were confounded together, as being all equally chiefs of dioceses, and equally superior to metropolitans, who were only chiefs of provinces. Hence Socrates gives the title patriarch to all the chiefs of dioceses, and reckons ten of them. Indeed, it does not appear that the dignity of patriarch was appropriated to the five grand sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, till after the council of Chalcedon in 451; for when the council of Nice regulated the limits and prerogatives of the three patriarchs of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, it did not give them the title of patriarchs, though it allowed them the pre-eminence and privileges thereof; thus when the council of Constantinople adjudged the second place to the bishop of Constantinople, who till then was only a suffragan of Heraclia, it said nothing of the patriarchate. Nor is the term patriarch found in the decree of the council of Chalcedon, whereby the fifth place is assigned to the bishop of Jerusalem; nor did these five patriarchs govern all the churches.
There were besides many independent chiefs of dioceses, who, far from owning the jurisdiction of the grand patriarchs, called themselves patriarchs; such as that of Aquileia; nor was Carthage ever subject to the patriarch of Alexandria. Mosheim * imagines that the bishops, who enjoyed a certain degree of pre-eminence over the rest of their order, were distinguished by the Jewish title of patriarchs in the fourth century. The authority of the patriarchs gradually increased, till about the close of the fifth century, all affairs of moment within the compass of their patriarchate came before them, either at first hand or by appeals from the metropolitans. They consecrated bishops, assembled yearly in council the clergy of their respective districts; pronounced a decisive judgment in those cases where accusations were brought against bishops; and appointed vicars or deputies, clothed with their authority, for the preservation of order and tranquillity in the remoter provinces. In short, nothing was done without consulting them; and their decrees were executed with the same regularity and respect as those of the princes.
It deserves to be remarked, however, that the authority of the patriarchs was not acknowledged through all the provinces without exception. Several districts, both in the eastern and western empires, were exempted from their jurisdiction. The Latin church had no patriarchs till the fifth century; and the churches of Gaul, Britain, &c. were never subject to the authority of the patriarch of Rome, whose authority only extended to the suburan provinces. There was no primacy, no exarchate.
(a) The word diocese was then of very different import from what it bears now. Under the article Episcopacy, it was observed, that the first founders of churches regulated their extent and the jurisdiction of their bishops by the divisions of the Roman empire into civil jurisdictions. One of these divisions was into provinces and dioceses. A province comprised the cities of a whole region subjected to the authority of one chief magistrate, who resided in the metropolis or chief city of the province. A diocese was a still larger district, comprehending within it several provinces, subject to the control of a chief magistrate, whose residence was in the metropolis of the diocese. The jurisdiction of the bishops of the Christian church was established upon this model. The authority of a private bishop extended only over the city in which he resided; together with the adjacent villages and surrounding tract of country. This district was called παροικία, though it comprehended many parishes in the modern sense of that word. Under Arcadius and Honorius the empire was divided into thirteen dioceses: 1. The Oriental diocese, containing fifteen provinces; 2. The diocese of Egypt, six provinces; 3. The Asiatic diocese, ten provinces; 4. The Pontic diocese, ten provinces; 5. The diocese of Thrace, six provinces; 6. The diocese of Macedonia, six provinces; 7. The diocese of Decia, five provinces; 8. The Italic diocese, seventeen provinces; 9. The diocese of Illyricum, six provinces; 10. The diocese of Africa, six provinces; 11. The Spanish diocese, seven provinces; 12. The Gallican diocese, seventeen provinces; 13. The Britannic diocese, five provinces. Each of these provinces comprehended many παροικίαι, and each παροικία many modern parishes. See Bingham's Origines Sacrae, Book ix. PATRIARCHAL archate nor patriarchate, owned here; but the bishops, with the metropolitans, governed the church in common. Indeed, after the name patriarch became frequent in the west, it was attributed to the bishops of Bourges and Lyons; but it was only in the first signification, viz., as heads of dioceses. Du Cange says, that there have been some abbots who have borne the title of patriarchs.