Volume 1

A dictionary of Christian antiquities : being a continuation of the 'Dictionary of the Bible' / edited by William Smith and Samuel Cheetham ; illustrated by engravings on wood.

Date:: [between 1890 and 1899?]

Credit: A dictionary of Christian antiquities : being a continuation of the 'Dictionary of the Bible' / edited by William Smith and Samuel Cheetham ; illustrated by engravings on wood. Source: Wellcome Collection.

1062/1096 (page 1042)

$042 dotibus.” A letter of the Egyptian bishops to pope Marcus (336) asking for copies of the Nicene canons, is addressed (if we may trust the text) “ domino sancto et Apostolici culminis vene- rando papae. And he, in replying, used a similar formula, “dominis venerabilibus fratribus.” So the epistle of the Orientals to pope Julius I, (337). In and after the time of Constantine we find many examples of this usage. St. John Chry- sostom, writing to pope Innocent (a.D. 402-417, Episc. 122, ad Innoc. Episc. Born,), superscribes his letter “ TqS Seo-Tr^Tp p.ov alSeaipuTaTCf} Kai deocpiXecrraTCf) eiriaKoiru} .... 'loduvris iv Kvpicf} f^^ct henceforward it was applied to men of high rank, both in church and state, “ pariterque caeteri principes atque nobiles turn ecclesiae turn reipublicae ” (Spel- man, Glossar. s. v. “ Lord ”). But yet the designation “ Lord” was not uni- versal in addressing bishops: many letters are found without it: and it is remarkable that St. Jerome, writing to pope Damasus, although he was his superior and patron, calls him merely “ beatissimus papa.” (The letter is curious, as being written to suggest that the Gloria Patri” and Alleluia should be added to the psalms when sung ; which had not, up to that time, been done at Rome.) Yet in the very next letter we find Stephen, ai’chbishop of Aphricae (? An- tiphra in Libya), addressing the same man in a synodical letter, as “ lord” (iJoniinus). So also this very Damasus in a letter to the bishops of Bithynia calls them “ domini^venerabiles.” The truth seems to be that whenever any one, cleric or layman, addressing a bishop, wished to be particulaidy respectful, he said “ dominus” not otherwise. By the early part of the 6th century it had become, in some parts of the church, an official style of those in high position, whether ecclesiastical or civil. The early Frank kings both received it themselves and bestowed it upon others. (Epist. Clodov. Beg. Franc, ad Syn. Aurel. F.) Compare Superscription. III. Kvpios, F'ominus, was especially a title of the emperors, both in earlier and later times, before and after the Christian era. Augustus, indeed, forbad by an edict the addressing of himself as Dominus (Suet. Vit. August, c. 53). probably from a prudent political motive; and Tiberius (Suet. Vit. Neron. c. 27) renewed the prohibition. But afterwards the use of the title became very common ; and Domitian caused himself to be styled, not only “ Dominus” but “Deus”(Suet. Vit.Dornit.c. 13). Tertullian (Apo- log. c. 34) praises the moderation of Augustus, and explains in what sense he himself employed the word ; “dicam plane imperatorem dominum, sed more communi; sed quando non cogor ut Dominum Dei vice dicam. Ceterum liber sum illi; Dominus enim mens unus est, omuipotens Deus aeternus. . .Qui pater patriae est, quomodo dominus est ? Sed et gratius est nomen pietatis quam potestatis: etiam familiae magis patres quam domini vocantur.” Arius and Euzoius, writing to Constantine about A.D. 326, call him “dominus noster.” The bishops of the Council of Rimini (a.D. 359) address Constantius as “domine, amabilis Deo Imperator.” used during this period in the sense of “saint.* (Epist. Cabilon. Cone, ad Theud.) [S. J. E.] V. Liturgical use. The word KvpLOs is applied both to the first Person of the Holy Trinity, as in St. James, c. 26 (Daniel, Codex, iv. i05), where God the Creator is invoked as Kvpn 6 &e6s; to the second, as in St. James, c. 5, where He is addressed as 6 Kvpios /cal &(bs T)p.uv 'igaovs Xpiarbs; and to the Holy Trinity itself, as in St. James, c. 10, where Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to whom the hymn is sent up, are addressed as Kup/e 6 &ehs gp.wv. A^airorgs is similarly used; in St. James, c. 21, for instance, we find it Aeairora 6 &ehs 6 irauTo- Kparaip, 6 Uar^p rod Xpiarrov aov, where God the Father is addressed; in St. James, c. 3, the Son is addressed as AeaTroro Kupte ’Igaou Xpiari. In Latin, the word Dominus is used as an appellation both of the Father to whom the prayer is addressed, and of the Son through whom it is offered. Inmost Western rites the reader, when about to recite a lection, says “ Jube, domine, bene- dicere.” It has been doubted whether this is addressed to God or to the priest. It probably, howev'er, as archdeacon Freeman (^Divine Service, i. 113) has pointed out, is a request to the priest that he would desire a blessing, and might be rendered, “ Sir, desire God to bless us” (compare Leslie’s Portiforium Sari>b. p. 5, and note, p. lii.). The corresponding Greek iorm is simply ev\6yg<Tov bicrirora, as (e.g.') in the Byzantine liturgy (Daniel, iv. 327, 329, etc.), where the bfCFirbrgs is clearly the priest. It is noteworthy, that in the East the priest responded to the request by blessing God (ivKoy-qros 6 ©eJs), in the West by blessing himself and the congrega- tion. See on this point the Begula Benedicti Commentata, note on c. 9, in Migne, Patrol, vol. Ivi. p. 272. [C.] LORD’S DAY. {g Kvpiau^ rjpepa, Dominicus or Dominica dies.) The origin of the name is un- dfiubtedly to be found in the well-known passage (Rev. i. 10), iyevbfjLrjr eV Trvev/jLaTi iu rf} Kvpi- aKTj v/uLcpa. Even if that passage stood alone, it would be difficult to accept either of the rival interpretations, one of which refers the name to the Sabbath, and the other to the “ Day of the Lord.” But taking into consideration the re- markable catena of patristic usage which, from Ignatius downwards, establishes the regular and technical use of t) KvpiaK^ for the “ first day of the week,” it is not too much to say that these interpretations may be dismissed as unworthy of .serious attention. The same usage, moreover (especially in connection with the history of the Paschal controversy), seems effectually to dis- pose of a third interpretation, which understands by the rv KvpiaKfj the annual festival of the Resurrection, or Easter day. (On these points see Dr. Hessey’s article “ Lord’s Day ” in Smith’s Dictionarv of the Bible.) We accept, there- fore, unhesitatingly the traditional interpretation which sees in this passage of St. John a reference to the weekly Lord’s day, as a well- known and established festival in the apostolic church. The more common scriptural desig- nation of that day is the ri pia or pla aa^fiarwi (Matt, xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 2; Luke xxiv. 1 ; John xxi. 19; Acts xx. 7 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 2.) In$