fined to the northern part of the civil diocese of the Orient and the countries outside of the Roman Em- pire. The title given to the Bishop of Antioch on account of this hicher jurisdiction was that of "Patriarch", which lie held in conunoi with other dignitaries of a similar rank. His jurisdiction could be exercised not only with regard to the faithful within his territory, but also over the ordinary and the metropolitan bishops of his patriarchate. It seems worthy of mention here that early in the fourth century the Roman Church possessed at Antioch both urban and rural properties, both in the old and the "new" parts of the city, and even in the Jewish quarter. (Liber Pontif. , ed. Duchesne, I, 177, 195; of. cxlix sq.) The patriarchate of Antioch lost much of its importance after the middle of the fifth century owing to many adverse circumstances. The Bishops of Constantino|ile (ck v.), who aspired to the first rank in the Eastern Church, acquired gradually, and long niaintainod, a controlling influence over the Church of Antioch. In the latter part of the fifth century the Monophysites, under Peter Fullo, en- deavoured to take possession of the patriarclial see. After the death of their leader Severus (53!)) they elected their own patriarchs of .\ntioch. During the centuries that followed the con(juest of .Antioch by the Saracens (G38), the succession of orthodox incumbents of the patriarchal see was irregular, and they had to suffer much from the new conquer- ors of the city, who showed a markeil preference for the Monopliysite patriarchs (see Moha.mmkdanism). When the Greek scliisin (q. v.; was consuniniateU in the eleventh century, the orthodox patriarchate of Antioch, owing to traditional Byzantine influence, was drawn into it, and remained schismatic despite re- peated efforts of the Apostolic See for a reunion. At present the Clreek patriarch resides in Damascus, the city of Antioch having long since lost all political importance. It was not only the Monophysites who dismembered thus early the (jatriarchate of Antioch. The Nestorians who emigrated into Persia after their condemnation at Epliesus (431) soon became so strong that at the end of the fifth century their bishop, Baba-us of Selcucia, made himself independ- ent of Antioch, and established a new patriarchate with its centre in .Seleucia, afterwards in Bagdad. Those SjTians who remained united with Rome (now- known as the Chaldanins) continued to acknowledge a patriarch of their own. He is called Patriarch of Babylonia and lives in Mosul. Among the other oriental communities united with Rome there are three which have all their patriarchs of Antioch, viz. the Maronites, the Melchites, and the Catholic Syrians (see Greek Church, Uni.\t).
IV. Latin- Patriarchate of Antioch. — When the crusaders stook possession of Antioch in 1098, they reinstated at first the Greek patriarch, then John IV. About two years aftenvards the said dignitary found that he was unfitted to rule over Western Christians, and withdrew to Constantinople. Thereupon the Latin Christians elected (1100) a patriarch of their own, an ecclesiastic by the name of Bernard who had come to the Orient with the crusaders. From that time Antioch had its Latin patriarchs, until in 1268 Christian, the last incum- bent, was put to death by the Sultan Bibars, during the conquest of the city. The Greeks al.so continued to choo.se their patriarchs of Antioch, but these lived
fenerally in Constantinople. The jurisdiction of the ,atin patriarchs in Antioch extcntled over the three feudal principalities of Antioch, Ede.ssa, and Tripolis. Towards the end of the twelfth century the island of Cyprus was added. In practice they were far more dependent upon the popes than their predecessors, the Greek patriarchs. After the fall of Antioch (1268) the popes still appointed patriarchs, who, however, were unable to take possession of the sec.
Since the middle of the fourteenth century they have been only titular dignitaries. The title of Latin Patriarch of Antioch is yet conferred; but the re- cipient resides in Rome and is a member of the chai>- ter of the basilica of St. Mary Major.
V. Syxods op Antioch. — Owing to the special position of Antioch many synods were held there. A belief, that some find expressed for the first time by Pope Innocent I (407-117; .Mansi, Cone, III, 1055) but that others locate about 7.S7 (Ilerder, K. L., I, 112), was current in the past that the Apostles held a council in .\ntioch (see Cano.ns, Apo.stolic). \Ve are informed by this text (Pitra, Jur. Eccl. Gr. Hist., I, 90-93) that the name of Christians was formally assigned to the followers of the Saviour by the Apostles, and that s|»cial instructions were given to the Apostolic missionaries and to their converts. These canons, according to Cardinal HergenriJther (Herder, K. L., 1. c), are apocryphal, "a mere com- pilation from the data of the (canonical) Acts and from other writers". About the year 251 a council was held, or i)laniied to be held, at Antioch, on the subject of rsovatianisni (q. v.) to which Kabius, Bishop of Antioch, was inclined. The bishops chiefly interested in it, apart from Fabius, were Helenus of Tarsus, Firmilian of Cipsarea in Cappa- docia, and Theocritus of Ca-sarea in Palestine, who invited ahso Dionysius of Alexandria. The matter had no further con.se(iuence, since Fabius died shortly afterwards and wa.s succeeded by Denietrian, whose views on the reconciliation of the apostates were less extreme. Between the years 264 and 208 three different synods were held on account of erro- neous doctrines on the nature of Jesus Christ and His relation to God, attributed to Paul, Bishop of Antioch, and a native of Samosata. Bishops from Syria, Palestine, Arabia, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Pontus, and Lycaonia took part in these deliberations. Finally, in the third synod, they deposed Paul, con- victed him of heresy, and elected Domnus in his place. Under the protection of the Princess Zenobia of Palmyra, Paul was able to maintain himself for some time. He was expelled in the end (272) by a decree of the Emperor Aurelian (270-275).
Mo.st of the .synods held during the fourth century reflected the struggles that followed upon the Arian controversy. The council of 330 deposed the ortho- dox Eustatliius, Bishop of Antioch; and for a long time the .see was in pos.se.ssion of the Arians. In the coun- cil held in 340 Athanasius of Alexandria was deposed, and a certain Greeorj-, from Cappadocia, was conse- crated in his .stcacT The intruder could take pos.ses- sion of his see only under a military escort. The deposition of Athanasius was ratified in the sjniod of the foUowiiiE year (341), which was held on the occasion of the dedication of the "great", or "golden" church mentioned above as built by Constantine. The twenty-five disciplinarj' canons passed by this council were afterwards received by the universal Church. The four creeds adopted, though not heretical, still depart from the symbol of faith made at Nica-a. Several other synods were held in quick succession. In that of 344 the Arian bishop, Stephen of Antioch, was deposed for misconduct. In the symlx>l of faith adopted by this council the Semi-.\rian views found expression; at the same time it was di- rected against the Arians, the Sabellians, but also against St. Athanasius. The synods of 358, 361, and 362 revealed and asserted the predominance of the Arians. The Bishop Eudoxius condemned both the orthodox and the .Semi-Arian views. A new bishop was elected in the person of Meletius, who was thought by many to be on the side of Arianism, and the .\rians proclaimed their loyalty to the party in spite of defections. At the accession of the Emperor Jovian (.363) a council was held in Antioch, at which the bishops agreed to the Nicene faith, though they added