be traced to A. D. 457, when Leo was crowned emperor by Anatolius,
patriarch of Constantinople. Pepin was the first French monarch who was
crowned. The first coronation in England was that of Egferth king of
Mercia; and we have still the forms used in the time of the Heptarchy,
from which our coronation service (slightly modified from time to time)
is substantially derived.—See _Dr. Silver’s Coronation Service, or
Consecration of the Anglo-Saxon Kings_.
It is a form of immemorial prescription, substantially the same as that
used at the inauguration of our Christian monarchs in Saxon times, and
sanctioned by the solemn approval of all the estates of the realm, the
nobility, the clergy, and the people, assembled at its celebration. The
prayers are framed in the best spirit of antiquity, with the rhythm so
characteristic of primitive forms, and with an elevation and majesty of
sentiment unsurpassed in any part of our liturgy. The service is,
however, peculiarly valuable, as recording certain high religious and
political principles, which of course must be considered as receiving
the full sanction of the Church and nation. Thus, there is an
acknowledgment of the sovereignty of CHRIST over the whole world, and
the derivation of all kingly power from Him. “When you see this orb set
under the cross, remember that the whole world is subject to the power
and empire of Christ our Redeemer. For He is the Prince of the kings of
the earth, King of kings, and Lord of lords; so that no man can reign
happily, who derives not his authority from Him, and directs not all his
actions according to His laws.” It is declared that Christian
sovereigns, like the Jewish kings of old, are consecrated to the fulness
of their office by the religious rite of unction, and that their
function is not merely secular. “Bless and sanctify thy chosen servant
Victoria, who by our office and ministry is now to be anointed with this
oil, and consecrated Queen of this realm.” There is a strict recognition
of the prerogative of the clergy, empowered as the ministers of CHRIST,
to assert the dominion of our LORD, who exalts her to her holy dignity:
“Stand firm and hold fast from henceforth the seat and the state of
royal and imperial dignity, which is this day delivered to you in the
name and by the authority of Almighty God, and by the hands of us the
bishops and servants of God, though unworthy: and as you see us to
approach nearer to God’s altar, so vouchsafe the more graciously to
continue to us your royal favour and protection. And the Lord God
Almighty, whose ministers we are, and the stewards of his mysteries,
establish you therein in righteousness, that it may stand fast for
evermore.”—_Palmer._
CORNET. A species of horn or trumpet formerly much used in the Church
service; in the king’s chapel especially. Dr. Rimbault, in his Notes on
Roger North’s Memoirs of Music, states, that in the Statutes of
Canterbury cathedral, provision is made for players on sackbuts and
_cornets_, on high festivals. After the Restoration, as appears from
North’s Life of Guildford, the cornet was used at Durham and York
cathedrals; and Matthew Lock says, that for about a year after the
opening of the Royal Chapel, the cornet was used to supply the want of
treble voices.
Evelyn, in his Memoirs, (21 Dec. 1663,) complains of violins being
substituted in the Royal Chapel, “instead of the ancient, grave, and
solemn wind-music, accompanying the organ:” and that “we no more heard
the _cornet_, which gave life to the organ, that instrument quite left
off, in which the English were so skilful.”—_Jebb._
CORPORAL. This is the name given to the linen cloth which is spread over
the body, (_corpus_,) or consecrated bread, after the communion. It was
of common use in the Church in the fifth century, as is evident from the
testimony of Isidore of Pelusium, who observes that the design of using
it was to represent the body of our SAVIOUR being wrapped in fine linen
by Joseph of Arimathea.
The direction concerning this “fair linen cloth” in our Order of the
Holy Communion is as follows: “When all have communicated, the minister
shall return to the LORD’S table, and reverently place upon it what
remaineth of the consecrated elements, covering the same with a fair
linen cloth.” Our reformers may have been influenced in their retention
of this decent ceremony after consecration, as a protest against the
elevation of the host, and “gazing” at the sacrament.
CORPUS CHRISTI, FEAST OF. A Roman festival, instituted by Pope Urban
IV., A. D. 1264, and observed on the Thursday of the week after
Pentecost. The institution was the natural result of the acceptance of
the doctrine of transubstantiation. Hildebert of Tours was the first who
made use of the high-sounding term _transubstantiatio_. Most of the
earlier scholastics, and the disciples of Lanfranc in particular, had,
however, previously defended both the doctrine of the change of the
bread into the body of CHRIST, and that of the _accidentia sine
subjecto_; but it was not made an article of faith till the time of
Innocent III. By the institution of the Corpus Christ day, by Urban,
this doctrine was expressed in a liturgical form, and its popularity was
secured. The festival was established in honour of the consecrated host,
and with a view to its adoration. Its origin is connected with some of
those “lying wonders,” in which we read one of the marks of the
scriptural condemnation of the Church of Rome. The Romish legend states
that, in 1230, Juliana, a nun of Liege, while looking at the full moon,
saw a gap in its orb; and, by a peculiar revelation from heaven, learned
that the moon represented the Christian Church, and the gap the want of
a certain festival—that of the adoration of the body of CHRIST in the
consecrated host—which she was to begin to celebrate, and announce to
the world. In 1264, while a priest at Bolsena, who did not believe in
the change of the bread into the body of CHRIST, was going through the
ceremony of benediction, drops of blood fell on his surplice, and when
he endeavoured to conceal them in the folds of his garment, formed
bloody images of the host. The bloody surplice is still shown as a relic
at Civita Vecchia. It was in this year that Pope Urban published his
bull, and it is with such authority that the Church of Rome is
contented!
CORSNED. (See _Ordeal_.)
COUNCILS. (See _Synod_.) _General_ or _œcumenical_ councils, or synods,
are assemblies of bishops from all parts of the Church, to determine
some weighty controversies of faith or discipline. Of such councils the
Catholic or Universal Church has never received or approved more than
six, although the Romish Church acknowledges several others. This is one
of the many instances in which the Romish Church is at variance with the
Catholic Church. The first Catholic Council is that of Nice, which was
convened by the emperor Constantine, A. D. 325, to terminate the
controversy raised by Arius, presbyter of Alexandria, who denied the
Divinity of the SON of GOD, maintaining that he was a creature brought
forth from nothing, and susceptible of vice and virtue. The council
condemned his doctrine as heretical, and declared the faith of the
Church in that celebrated creed called the Nicene Creed, which is
repeated by us in the Communion Service, and which has, ever since its
promulgation, been received and venerated by the Universal Church, and
even by many sects and heretics. This council also made several
regulations in matters of discipline. The second general council was
that of Constantinople, assembled by the emperor Theodosius the Elder,
in 381, to appease the troubles of the East. The heresy of Macedonius,
who blasphemously taught that the HOLY GHOST was a creature, was herein
anathematized, and the Nicene Creed was brought into its present form by
the addition of some passages concerning the orthodox doctrine of the
incarnation, and of the real Divinity of the HOLY GHOST. The third
general council was assembled at Ephesus, A. D. 431, by the emperor
Theodosius the Younger, to determine the controversy raised by
Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who declaimed against the title of
_Theotokos_, (Mother of GOD,) which the Church had long applied to the
mother of him who was both GOD and man; and taught that the Son of man
and GOD the Word were different persons, connected only by a moral or
apparent union, contrary to the Scripture, which declared that “the Word
was made flesh and dwelt among us,” and that GOD purchased the Church
“with his own blood.” (Acts xx. 28.) By this council the Nestorian
heretics were condemned. The fourth general council was assembled by the
emperor Marcian, in 451, at Chalcedon. This council published a
confession, or definition of faith, in which the doctrine and creed of
the three preceding Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, were
confirmed, and the orthodox doctrine of the existence of two perfect and
distinct natures, the Divine and human, in the unity of the person of
our LORD JESUS CHRIST, was clearly defined. Eutyches, and Dioscorus
bishop of Alexandria, who maintained that there was only one nature in
our LORD JESUS CHRIST, after the incarnation or union of the Divinity
and humanity, were condemned as heretics by this council. The fifth
general council, commonly called the Second Council of Constantinople,
was convened by the emperor Justinian, in 553; but it is only to be
viewed as a supplement to the third general council, being engaged like
it in condemning the Nestorian heresy. The sixth council, called the
Third Council of Constantinople, was assembled in 680, by the emperor
Constantine Pogonatus. It stands in the same relation to the fourth
council that the fifth does to the third. “These are the only councils,”
says Mr. Palmer, “which the Universal Church has ever received and
approved as general.” The doctrine of these general councils, having
been approved and acted on by the whole body of the Catholic Church, and
thus ratified by an universal consent, which has continued ever since,
is irrefragably true, unalterable, and irreformable; nor could any
Church forsake or change the doctrine without ceasing to be Christian.
In the act of the first of Elizabeth ... the commissioners, in their
judgment of heresies, were enjoined to adhere, in the first place, to
the authority of the canonical Scriptures; secondly, to the decisions of
the first four general councils; and thirdly, to the decision of any
other general council, founded on the _express_ and _plain_ words of
Holy Scripture. In this act, one particular deserves, and demands, very
special attention; namely, the unqualified deference paid to the first
four general councils. The latest of these councils sat and deliberated
in the year 451. A point of time, therefore, is fixed, previously to
which the Church of England unreservedly recognises the guidance of the
Catholic Church, in the interpretation of Christian verities.—_Bishop
Jebb, Appendix to Practical Sermons._
_Provincial_ councils consist of the metropolitan and the bishops
subject to him. _Diocesan_ councils are assemblies of the bishop and his
presbyters to enforce canons made by general or provincial councils, and
to consult and agree upon rules of discipline for themselves. (For an
account of the Romish councils, see _Lateran_. For the authority of
councils in the Church of England, see _Heresy_.)
COUNSEL. Besides the common signification of the word, it is frequently
used in Scripture to signify the designs or purposes of GOD, or the
orders of his providence. (Acts iv. 28, and Psalm lxxiii. 24.) It also
signifies his will concerning the way of salvation. (Luke vii. 30; Acts
xx. 27.)
This word is also used by the doctors of the Romish Church, to denote
those precepts which they hold to be binding upon the faithful, in
virtue of an implied direction or recommendation of our LORD and his
apostles. Thus the celibacy of the clergy is numbered by them among
“evangelical counsels,” which, receiving the acceptance of the Church,
they hold, heretically, to be equally binding with the commands of
canonical Scripture.
COURT CHRISTIAN. The ecclesiastical courts are so designated. In the
Church of England there are six spiritual courts.
1. _The Archdeacon’s Court_, which is the lowest, and is held in such
places where the archdeacon, either by prescription or composition, has
jurisdiction in spiritual or ecclesiastical causes within his
archdeaconry. The judge of this court is called the official of the
archdeaconry.
2. The _Consistory Courts_ of the archbishops and bishops of every
diocese, held in their cathedral churches, for trial of all
ecclesiastical causes within the diocese. The bishop’s chancellor or
commissary is the judge.
3. The _Prerogative Court_, held at Doctors’ Commons, in London, in
which all testaments and last wills are proved, and administrations upon
the estates of intestates granted, where the party dies beyond seas or
within his province, leaving _bona notabilia_.
4. The _Arches Court_, (so called because anciently held in the _arched_
church of St. Mary, in Cheapside, London,) is that which has
jurisdiction upon appeal in all ecclesiastical causes, except what
belong to the Prerogative Court. The judge is the official principal of
the archbishop.
5. The _Court of Peculiars_, of the archbishop of Canterbury,
subservient to, and in connexion with, that of the Arches.
6. The _Court of Delegates_, so called because the judges are delegated
and sit in virtue of the king’s commission, under the great seal, _pro
hac vice_, upon appeals to the king on ecclesiastical matters. The
powers of this court are now in England transferred to the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council. It remains in Ireland. (See _Delegates_,
and _Appeal_.)
COVENANT. A mutual agreement between two or more parties. (Gen. xxi.
32.) In the Hebrew the word signifies, 1. A disposition, dispensation,
institution, or appointment of GOD to man. (Hebrews ix. 16, 17, 20.) 2.
The religious dispensation or institution which GOD appointed to Abraham
and the patriarchs. (Acts iii. 25; Luke i. 72; Acts vii. 8.) 3. The
dispensation from Sinai. (Heb. viii. 9; Gal. iv. 24.) 4. The
dispensation of faith and free justification, of which CHRIST is the
MEDIATOR, (Heb. vii. 22–viii. 6,) and which is called _new_ in respect
of the _old_ or Sinai covenant, (2 Cor. iii. 6; Heb. viii. 8, 13; ix.
15,) and whence the New Covenant or Testament became the title of the
books in which this new dispensation is contained. Into this covenant we
are admitted by union with CHRIST; and into union with CHRIST all
infants, and such adults as are properly qualified by faith and
repentance, may be admitted in holy baptism. (Gal. iii. 27.) 5. The old
dispensation is used for the books of Moses containing that dispensation
by St. Paul. (2 Cor. iii. 14.)
We renew our baptismal covenant in our confirmation, and in each
faithful participation of the eucharist.
COVENANT OF REDEMPTION. This is said to be the mutual stipulation
between the everlasting FATHER and the co-eternal SON, relating to the
salvation of our fallen race, previously to any act upon the part of
CHRIST under the character of Mediator. That there was such a covenant,
either tacit or express, we may assuredly conclude, from the importance
of the work undertaken by GOD the Son, and the awful sacrifice made for
its accomplishment. All the prophecies which relate to what was to be
done by the MESSIAH on the one hand, and the benefits and rewards which
were to be conferred upon him and his people on the other, may properly
be considered as intimations of such a covenant. (1 Pet. i. 11. Compare
John xvii. 1–5, 14; vi. 37; Tit. i. 2; 2 Tim. i. 9; Rev. xiii. 8; Ps.
lxxxix. 19.)
By this covenant, the everlasting SON, who, with the FATHER and the HOLY
SPIRIT, is without beginning, GOD of God, Light of light, very GOD of
very God, undertook to become incarnate, to dwell a certain time upon
earth, subject to the law of human nature; directing his whole conduct
while he should continue here, in such a manner as most effectually to
promote the honour of his Father and the salvation of his people; that
at length he would voluntarily deliver himself to sufferings and death,
and remain for a time in the grave; thereby, in human nature, offering a
satisfaction to the law of perfect obedience to the will of the Creator,
which human nature had violated, and removing the obstacle to the
operation of Divine mercy, which Divine justice interposed; also, that,
after his resurrection and ascension into heaven, he would employ his
renewed life as the GOD-Man, and his extensive authority in the
mediatorial kingdom, to the same great purposes which engaged him to
become incarnate. (Ps. xl. 6–9; Heb. x. 5–10; Isa. lxi. 1–3; Luke iv.
18; Isa. i. 5, 6.) GOD the Father, on the other hand, stipulated to
produce a human body for his co-eternal SON, in the womb of the Virgin;
that he would strengthen his human nature by the gifts and graces of the
HOLY SPIRIT, for the extraordinary work before him; that he would raise
him from the dead, and elevate his human nature to the right hand of
power; and that he would accept the atonement when offered. It is added,
that GOD the Holy Ghost stipulated to regenerate, renew, and sanctify
those of mankind, whom GOD the Father gave to his Son. (Besides the
texts given above, see Isa. vii. 14; xi. 2, &c.; lii. 13–15; liii.
10–12; lv. 4, 5; xlix. 1–12, compared with Luke ii. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 2;
Rev. vii. 16, 17; Ps. ii. 7–9; Luke xxii. 29; John v. 22–29; Heb. xii.
2.)
COVENANT, in ecclesiastical history, denotes a contract or convention
agreed to by the Scots in 1638, for maintaining the Presbyterian
religion free from innovation. In 1581, the general assembly of Scotland
drew up a confession of faith, or national covenant, condemning the
episcopal government of the Christian Church, under the name of
hierarchy. It was signed by James VI., who was compelled to enjoin it
upon all his subjects. It was again subscribed in 1590 and 1596; and, in
1638, it was taken with an oath on the part of the subscribers, to
maintain religion in the state it was in in 1580. The oath annexed to
the confession of faith received the name of _Covenant_, and those who
subscribed it were called _Covenanters_. (See _Confession of Faith_,
_Westminster_.)
CREDENCE, or CREDENTIAL. A table or shelf near the altar, on which the
bread and wine to be used in the eucharist are placed, previously to
consecration, called in the Greek Church τράπεζα προθεσέος, _mensa
propositionis_. The table of Prothesis in the Greek Church is placed in
a side vestry; and here many prefatory prayers and ceremonies are
performed, before the priest goes into the chancel. The word _credence_
appears to be derived from the Italian “_credenzare_,” to taste meats
and drink before they were offered to be enjoyed by another; an ancient
court practice, which was performed by the cup-bearers and carvers, who
for this reason were also called in German _credenzer_. Hence also the
_credenz-teller_—credence-plate, on which cup-bearers _credenced_ the
wine; and, in general, a plate on which a person offers anything to
another: _credenztisch_, credence-table, a sideboard, an artificial
cupboard with a table for the purpose of arranging in order and keeping
the drinking apparatus therein. (See _Adelung’s German Dictionary_, word
“_Credenzen_.”) This table or shelf is used for the more convenient
observance of the rubric following the Offertory sentences, in which it
is directed: “And when there is a communion, the priest shall THEN place
upon the table so much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient.”
Where the staff of the clergy is large, the rubric can be conveniently
observed without this aid. Archbishop Laud, (_Troubles and Tryal_, ch.
33,) in his chapel at Lambeth, had a credential, (or side-table,) from
which the elements were fetched, and set reverently upon the communion
table. He defends this, by saying that both Bishop Andrewes and some
other bishops used it so all their time, and no exception taken. From
the plan of the chapel of Bishop Andrewes, in Archbishop Laud’s
possession, and adduced as evidence against him by Prynne, it appears
that the credential was placed on the south side of the communion table,
the vessels for the communion being placed upon it. There are many
credences in various churches; among others, in the collegiate and in
St. John’s churches, Manchester, and in the parish church at Ludlow,
where they have been in use from time immemorial.—_Jebb._
CREED. (See _Apostles’ Creed_, _Athanasian Creed_, _Nicene Creed_.) By
the word _creed_ (from _credo_, I believe) is meant the substance of the
Christian’s faith. There are three creeds recognised by the Catholic
Church,—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.
The Latin name for creed is _symbolum_, which signifies a watchword, or
signal in war. Ludolph of Saxony, in his Life of CHRIST, describes the
creeds of the Catholic Church thus: “There are three symbols,
(watchwords or tokens, such as are used among soldiers of a garrison, to
recognise their comrades, and to detect insidious intruders,)—the first
of the Apostles, the second of the Nicene Council, the third of St.
Athanasius; the first for instruction in the faith, the second for the
explanation of the faith, the third for defence of the faith.” Three in
name, but one in fact, and which, except a man believe faithfully, he
cannot be saved.
The cause of a gradual adoption of a series of creeds is simply this:
the truth being but one and unvarying, the plain assertion of it is, in
the first instance, all that is necessary, all that can be done for it:
and this was done by the Apostles’ Creed. Error, on the other hand, is
multiform; and consequently, as error upon error continued to rise,
correctives unthought of before were to be found to meet the exigency:
hence the Nicene Creed. Again, subsequent to that, new errors were
broached, the old were revived, clever evasions of the terms of the
existing creeds were invented, the vehemence of opponents was increased;
but all desiring still, with all their mischievous errors, to be within
the pale of the Church, it became still more imperatively necessary to
fence in the Church from such dangers; and the creed called that of St.
Athanasius, was compiled from the logical forms of expression which
prevail in his writings, and those of similar champions of the catholic
faith, and was very soon adopted by the Church as an additional bulwark
to preserve that faith in its original integrity and purity. Luther
calls this creed, “the bulwark of the Apostles’ Creed.”
It is a mistake to imagine that creeds were, at first, intended to
teach, in full and explicit terms, all that should be necessary to be
believed by Christians. They were designed rather for hints and minutes
of the main _credenda_, to be recited by catechumens before baptism; and
they were purposely contrived short, that they might be the more easily
retained in memory, and take up the less time in reciting. Creeds, very
probably, at first, were so far from being paraphrases or explications
of the form of baptism, (or of Scripture texts,) that they went no
farther, or very little farther, than the form itself, and wanted as
much explaining and paraphrasing, in order to be rightly and distinctly
understood, as any other words or forms could do. Hence it was that the
catechumens were to be instructed in the creed, previously to baptism,
for many days together. As heresies gave occasion, new articles were
inserted; not that they were originally of greater importance than any
other articles omitted, but the opposition made to some doctrines
rendered it the more necessary to insist upon an explicit belief and
profession of them.—_Waterland’s Sermons on the Divinity of Christ._
As the apostles had foretold, “false teachers” crept into the Church,
and “privily brought in damnable heresies, denying the LORD that bought
them,” even “the only LORD GOD, and our LORD JESUS CHRIST.” (2 Pet. ii.
1, and Jude 4.) As these spread their poison, it became necessary to
provide an antidote; for which purpose it was wisely ordered, that
creeds, or summaries of the Christian faith, should be drawn up, and
published for general use.—_Waldo._
As to the primitive Churches, their constant way was to enlarge their
creeds in proportion to the growth of heresies, that so every corruption
arising to the faith of CHRIST might have an immediate remedy. The
design was to keep up, as strictly as possible, the whole fabric of the
Christian faith as it stands in Scripture; and if any part came to be
attacked, they were then to bend all their cares to succour and relieve
that part, in order still to secure the whole. The sum of Christian
practice is contained in two brief rules,—to love GOD, and to love one’s
neighbour. But mistakes and perverse sentiments may arise; to correct
and remove which it may be necessary to enlarge the rule of practice,
and to branch it out into many other particulars.—_Waterland on the
Athanasian Creed._
If our creeds be found fault with for not being expressed in scriptural
terms only, let them bear the blame who, by an artful misapplication of
Scripture terms at first, made it necessary for the guardians of the
faith to express the Scripture doctrine in other terms, more explicit,
and not so liable to be perverted and abused.—_Wheatly on the Creeds._
We must ever lament that the misapplied curiosity of men should have
made it at all necessary to enlarge upon mysterious doctrines. It might
have been fortunate for the peace and tranquillity of the Christian
Church, if the Apostles’ Creed had been sufficient. But since men will
be “wise above what is written,” some remedy must be found out, which
may either satisfy or restrain their curiosity. And whoever peruses the
several parts of the Athanasian Creed will find, that, so far from
creating minute inquiries concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, it is
more especially calculated to discountenance and prevent them. Sublime
truths require modesty and caution in our expressions; and whatever
checks presumption, prepares the mind for the reception of sound and
useful doctrine. The abuse of Scriptural language first occasioned a
deviation from it in creeds, and common candour will compel all parties
to acknowledge the difficulty of finding proper words to express so much
as it was intended for us to know, and no more.—_Croft’s Bamp.
Lectures._
CREED OF POPE PIUS IV. A succinct and explicit summary of the doctrine
contained in the canons of the Council of Trent, is expressed in the
creed which was published by Pius IV. in 1564, in the form of a bull,
and which usually bears his name. It is received throughout the whole
Roman Catholic Church; every person who is admitted into the Roman
Catholic Church publicly reads and professes his assent to it. It is by
these additional articles to the Nicene Creed, that the Romish Church
cuts itself off from the Church Catholic, and becomes heretical.
The tenor of it is as follows: “I, N., believe and profess, with a firm
faith, all and every one of the things which are contained in the Symbol
of Faith, which is used in the holy Roman Church, viz.
“I believe in one GOD the FATHER Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible; and in one LORD JESUS CHRIST,
the only begotten SON of GOD, Light of light, true GOD of true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial to the FATHER, by whom all things
were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the HOLY GHOST of the Virgin Mary, and was made
man, was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was
buried, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and
ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the FATHER, and will
come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom
there will be no end; and in the HOLY GHOST, the LORD and Life-giver,
who proceeds from the FATHER and the SON; who, together with the FATHER
and the SON, is adored and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And one
holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the
remission of sins, and I expect the resurrection of the body, and the
life of the world to come. Amen.
“I most firmly admit and embrace apostolical and ecclesiastical
traditions, and all other constitutions and observances of the same
Church.
“I also admit the sacred Scriptures according to the sense which the
holy mother Church has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge
of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I
ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous
consent of the Fathers.
“I profess also, that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of
the new law, instituted by JESUS CHRIST our LORD, and for the salvation
of mankind, though all are not necessary for every one; viz. baptism,
confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony,
and that they confer grace; and of these, baptism, confirmation, and
order cannot be reiterated without sacrilege.
“I also receive and admit the ceremonies of the Catholic Church,
received and approved in the solemn administration of all the above-said
sacraments.
“I receive and embrace all and every one of the things which have been
defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent, concerning original
sin and justification.
“I profess likewise, that in the mass is offered to GOD a true, proper,
and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the
most holy sacrament of the eucharist there is truly, really, and
substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity,
of our LORD JESUS CHRIST; and that there is made a conversion of the
whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance
of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls
transubstantiation.
“I confess also, that, under either kind alone, whole and entire, CHRIST
and a true sacrament is received.
“I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls
detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful.
“Likewise that the saints reigning together with CHRIST, are to be
honoured and invocated, that they offer prayers to GOD for us, and that
their relics are to be venerated.
“I most firmly assert, that the images of CHRIST, and of the Mother of
_God_ ever virgin, and also of the other saints, are to be had and
retained; and that due honour and veneration are to be given to them.
“I also affirm, that the power of indulgences was left by CHRIST in the
Church; and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people.
“I acknowledge the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, the mother
and mistress of all Churches; and I promise and swear true obedience to
the Roman bishop, the successor of St. Peter, prince of the apostles,
and vicar of JESUS CHRIST.
“I also profess and undoubtedly receive all other things delivered,
defined, and declared by the sacred canons and general councils, and
particularly by the holy Council of Trent; and likewise I also condemn,
reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies
whatsoever condemned and anathematized by the Church.
“This true catholic faith, out of which none can be saved, which I now
freely profess and truly hold, I, N., promise, vow, and swear most
constantly to hold and profess the same, whole and entire, with GOD’S
assistance, to the end of my life. Amen.”
CRESSELLE. An instrument of wood, made use of in the Romish Church
during Passion week, instead of bells, to give notice of Divine service.
This is done in imitation of the primitive Christians, who, they
suppose, made use of such an instrument, before the invention of bells,
to call their brethren secretly to prayers. There are mysteries in the
_Cresselle_. It represents CHRIST praying on the cross, and calling
nations to his preaching; as also his humility, &c.—_Jebb._
CREST. (In ecclesiastical architecture.) An ornamental finish at the top
of a screen, or other subordinate feature.
CROSIER. A crosier is the pastoral staff of an archbishop, and is to be
distinguished from the pastoral staff of a bishop; the latter
terminating in an ornamented crook, while the crosier always terminates
in a cross. At the end of the Common Prayer Book established in the
second year of Edward VI., which is referred to as still obligatory, so
far as the ornaments of the church and of the ministers thereof are
concerned, in the rubric immediately before the Morning Prayer it is
ordered,—“Whensoever the bishop shall celebrate the holy communion, or
execute any other public office, he shall have upon him, besides his
rochet, an alb, and cope or vestment, _and also his pastoral staff in
his hand, or else borne by his chaplain_.”
CROSS. The cross was the instrument of death to our most blessed LORD
and SAVIOUR, and it has been considered in all ages by the Church as the
most appropriate emblem, or symbol, of the Christian religion. The sign
of the cross was made in the primitive Church in some part of almost
every Christian office. The Church of England, in the constitutions of
1603, has a long canon (the 30th) on this subject, wherein it is said:
“The HOLY GHOST, by the mouths of the apostles, did honour the name of
the cross, being hateful among the Jews, so far that, under it, he
comprehended not only CHRIST crucified, but the force, effects, and
merits of his death and passion, with all the comforts, fruits, and
promises which we receive or expect thereby. Secondly, the honour and
dignity of the name of the cross begat a reverent estimation even in the
apostles’ times, for aught that is known to the contrary, of the sign of
the cross, which the Christians shortly after used in all their actions;
thereby making an outward show and profession, even to the astonishment
of the Jews, that they were not ashamed to acknowledge him for their
LORD and SAVIOUR, who died for them upon the cross. And this sign they
not only used themselves, with a kind of glory, when they met with any
Jews, but signed therewith their children, when they were christened, to
dedicate them by that badge to his service, whose benefits bestowed upon
them in baptism, the name of the cross did represent. And this use of
the sign of the cross was held in the primitive Church, as well by the
Greeks as by the Latins, with one consent, and great applause. At which
time, if any had opposed themselves against it, they would certainly
have been censured as enemies of the name of the cross, and consequently
of CHRIST’S merits, the sign whereof they could no better endure. This
continual and general use of the sign of the cross, is evident by many
testimonies of the ancient Fathers. Thirdly, it must be confessed that,
in process of time, the sign of the cross was greatly abused in the
Church of Rome, especially after that corruption of Popery had once
possessed it. But the abuse of a thing doth not take away the lawful use
of it. Nay, so far was it from the purpose of the Church of England to
forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any
such like Churches, in all things that they held and practised, that, as
Bishop Jewel’s “Apology of the Church of England” confesseth, it doth
with reverence retain those ceremonies which do neither endamage the
Church of GOD, nor offend the minds of sober men; and only departed from
them in those particular points wherein they were fallen, both from
themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the apostolical Churches
which were their first founders. In which respect, amongst some other
very ancient ceremonies, the sign of the cross in baptism hath been
retained in this Church, both by the judgment and practice of those
reverend fathers and grave divines in the days of King Edward VI., of
whom some constantly suffered for the profession of the truth; and
others, being exiled in the time of Queen Mary, did, after their return,
in the beginning of the reign of our late dread sovereign, continually
defend and use the same.”
The sign of the cross is appointed to be used at baptism. After the
priest hath baptized the child, he receives it into the congregation, by
this solemnity declaring that he is by baptism made a member of the
Church. (1 Cor. xii. 13.) “We are all baptized into one body.” And when
he thus receives it, he signs it with the sign of the cross, as of old
it was wont, according to St. Augustine; and on the forehead, the seat
of blushing and shame, that he may not hereafter blush and be ashamed of
the disgraced cross of CHRIST, as St. Cyprian saith. By this badge is
the child dedicated to his service, whose benefits, bestowed upon him in
baptism, the name of the cross in Holy Scripture does represent.
Whosoever desires to be fully satisfied concerning the use of the cross
in baptism, let him read the thirtieth canon of our Church, in the year
1603.—_Bp. Sparrow._
The Church, studious to retain this ancient and universal ceremony of
the purest primitive times, was also careful to decline all fear of
superstitious intendment; as if she thought the sacrament imperfect
without it. Therefore, whereas the primitive mode made it to usher in
baptism, our Church inverted the order, and made it come after, and so
to follow it, as she expressly first declareth, “the child to be
received into the congregation of _Christ’s_ flock, as a perfect member
thereof, and not by any power ascribed to the sign of the cross.” (Canon
30.) And further to assure all distrustful minds, that she maketh it not
of the substance of the sacrament, she hath totally omitted it in the
office of private baptism.—_L’ Estrange._
The child, being now baptized, is become a member of the Christian
Church, into which the minister (as a steward of GOD’S family) doth
solemnly receive it; and, for the clearer manifestation that it now
belongs to CHRIST, solemnly signs it in the forehead with the sign of
the “cross.” For the better understanding of which primitive ceremony,
we may observe, that it was an ancient rite for masters and generals to
mark the foreheads or hands of their servants and soldiers with their
names or marks, that it might be known to whom they did belong; and to
this custom the angel in the Revelation is thought to allude: “Hurt not
the earth, &c., till we have sealed the servants of our GOD in their
foreheads” (Rev. vii. 3): thus again the retinue of the LAMB are said to
“have his FATHER’S name written in their foreheads” (chap. xiv. 1). And
thus, lastly, in the same chapter, as CHRIST’S flock carried his mark on
their foreheads, so did his great adversary the beast sign his servants
there also: “If any man shall receive the mark of the beast in his
forehead, or in his hand,” &c. (ver. 9). Now that the Christian Church
might hold some analogy with those sacred applications, she conceived it
a most significant ceremony in baptism, (which is our first admission
into the Christian profession,) that all her children should be signed
with the cross on their foreheads, signifying thereby their consignment
up to CHRIST; whence it is often called by the ancient Fathers, the
“LORD’S signet” and “CHRIST’S seal.”—_Wheatly._
The true sense and intention of the Church of England in appointing this
sign appears from Dr. Burgess’s sense of the matter, which was accepted
by King James the First, and affirmed by the archbishop of Canterbury
[Bancroft] to be the sense of the Church. His words are these which
follow:—“I know it is not made any part of the sacrament of baptism,
which is acknowledged by the canon to be complete without it, and not
perfected or bettered by it.
“I understand it not as any sacramental, or operative, or efficacious
sign bringing any virtue to baptism, or the baptized.
“Where the book says, ‘and do sign him with the sign of the cross in
token,’ &c., I understand the book not to mean, that the sign of the
cross has any virtue in it to effect or further this duty; but only to
intimate and express by that ceremony, by which the ancients did avow
their profession of CHRIST crucified, what the congregation hopeth and
expecteth hereafter from the infant; namely, that he shall not be
ashamed to profess the faith of CHRIST crucified, into which he was even
now baptized.
“And therefore also when the 30th canon saith, that the infant is ‘by
that sign dedicated unto the service of CHRIST,’ I understand that
dedication to import, not a real consecration of the child, which was
done in baptism itself; but only a ceremonial declaration of that
dedication, like as the priest is said to make clean the leper, whose
being clean he only declared.”
The Church’s use of the sign of the cross and her expressions concerning
it, are fairly capable of this construction; and so authentic a
declaration is sufficient to satisfy any sober inquirer, that this sense
not only may be, but ought to be, received.—_Dr. Bennet._
The heathens were wont to deride the Christians, and to speak
disdainfully of them, as worshippers of a malefactor crucified. To
encounter which reproach, and to show that they “gloried in the cross of
CHRIST,” (Gal. vi. 14,) taking it to be an honour, not an ignominy; they
assumed this ceremony of signing themselves with the cross, both in
baptism, and at several other times. And this sign being significant of
a duty to be elicited by future practice, good reason had our Church to
continue it.—_L’ Estrange._
It is, in brief, a mark, by which we, as the primitive Christians did,
declare our religion, and no more than that, wherewith we conclude all
our prayers and thanksgivings, when we say through JESUS CHRIST our LORD
and SAVIOUR.—_Clutterbuck._
Upon the whole, the ceremony is exceeding proper, and very innocent;
used by most Christians; approved by all the ancients, and by some of
the most eminent reformed divines expressly; and condemned by no Church:
so that, if this ceremony be rejected by any, they ought to consider
that the fault is in themselves, not in the thing, at which offence is
taken, but none justly given, if the Church be but rightly
understood.—_Dean Comber._
CRUCIFIX. A cross upon which a sculptured or carved image of the body of
our LORD is fastened. It is much used by the Romanists and the Lutheran
Protestants, to excite in their minds a strong idea of our SAVIOUR’S
passion. It has never been used in the Church of England since the
Reformation, on the ground of its having been abused to superstition and
idolatry.
CRUSADE. A name given to the Christian expeditions against the infidels,
for the recovery of the Holy Land out of their hands, because they who
engaged themselves in the undertaking wore a cross on their clothes, and
had one in their standards. There were eight crusades. The first, in
1096, at the solicitation of the Greek emperor and patriarch of
Jerusalem. Peter the Hermit, who was the preacher of this crusade, was
made general of a great army, a thing that did not very well agree with
his profession, being a priest; and all the princes,—Hugo the Great,
count of Vermandois, brother to Philip I. king of France; Robert, duke
of Normandy; Robert, count of Flanders; Raymond, count of Toulouse and
St. Giles; Godfrey of Bouillon, duke of Lorraine, with his brothers,
Baldwin and Eustace; Stephen, count of Chartres and Blois; Hugo, count
of St. Paul, with a great number of other lords, took different ways to
meet at Constantinople. The first who marched his troops was the famous
Godfrey de Bouillon, who had a greater share than any of the rest in
this undertaking, though not the command of the whole army. He commenced
his march Aug. 15, 1096, with 10,000 horse and 70,000 foot; and before
the other princes were come to Constantinople, passing the Hellespont,
besieged Nice, which, notwithstanding the double-dealing of the Greek
emperor Alexis, after six weeks’ siege, was surrendered to him; after
which he victoriously entered Syria and took Antioch. Jerusalem was
taken in 1099, and Godfrey of Bouillon chosen king; a little after which
the Christians gained the famous battle of Ascalon against the sultan of
Egypt; which victory put an end to the first crusade; for the princes
and lords, with those who followed them, believing they had fully
accomplished the vow they had made, took their leave of Godfrey, and
returned to their respective countries.
The second crusade was in 1144, and this was headed by the emperor
Conrad III. and Louis VII. of France: the emperor’s army was either
destroyed by the enemy, or perished through the treachery of the Greek
emperor and his brother-in-law; and the second army, through the
unfaithfulness and treachery of the Christians of Syria, was forced to
quit the siege of Damascus.
The third crusade was in 1188, after the taking of Jerusalem by Saladin,
sultan of Egypt. The most distinguished persons engaged in this
expedition were the emperor Frederick Barbarossa; Frederick, duke of
Swabia, his second son; Leopold, duke of Austria; Berthold, duke of
Moravia; Herman, marquis of Baden; the counts of Nassau, Thuringen,
Meissen, and Holland, and above sixty more of the chief princes of the
empire, with divers bishops. Barbarossa, in spite of the emperor of
Constantinople, having got into Asia Minor, defeated the sultan at
Iconium, but, drawing near to Syria, sickened and died in 1190: however
his son Frederick led the army to Antioch, and joined with Guy, king of
Jerusalem, in the siege of Ptolemais, but, failing of success, he died
soon after, which proved the ruin of his army. Nevertheless, Richard,
king of England, and Philip Augustus, king of France, arriving some
months after in the Holy Land, with a great force, compelled Ptolemais
to surrender, July 12, 1191. After which, Philip returned home in
discontent, while the brave King Richard concluded a peace with Saladin,
upon these conditions,—that all the coast from Joppa to Tyre should be
left to the Christians, and that Saladin should have all the rest of
Palestine, except Ascalon, which was to belong to the party who, at the
end of the truce, obtained possession of it; and that, during the truce,
which was to last three years, three months, three weeks, and three
days, it should be lawful for the Christians to go to Jerusalem in small
companies, to pay their devotions there.
The fourth was undertaken in 1195, by the emperor Henry VI., after
Saladin’s death: his army started for the Holy Land three several ways,
and, he himself at length arriving at Ptolemais, the Christians gained
several battles against the infidels, and took many towns; but the death
of the emperor compelled them to quit the Holy Land, and return into
Germany.
The fifth crusade was published by the artifice of Pope Innocent III. in
1198. Most of the adventurers in this expedition employed themselves in
taking Zara for the Venetians, and afterwards in making war against the
Greek emperor; and those who proceeded to Palestine suffered a defeat in
1204.
The sixth crusade began in 1228, in which the Christians took the town
of Damietta, but were forced to surrender it again. The emperor
Frederick, in 1229, went to the Holy Land, and next year made a peace
with the sultan for ten years, upon these conditions—that the sultan
should deliver to the Christians the towns of Jerusalem, Bethlehem,
Nazareth, Tyre, and Sidon, but the temple of Jerusalem should be left to
the Saracens, to perform the free exercise of their law; after which the
emperor returned home. About 1240, Richard, earl of Cornwall, and
brother to Henry III., king of England, arrived in Palestine, but,
finding all efforts useless, while the Templars and Hospitallers
continued their disputes and private animosities, he, with the advice of
the duke of Burgundy, the great master of the Hospitallers, and chief
persons of the crusade, accepted the advantageous conditions the sultan
offered, whereby the Christians were to enjoy some lands in Palestine,
then in the soldan’s possession. In 1244, the Corasmins, the descendants
of the ancient Parthians, fell upon the Christians in Palestine, and
almost extirpated them.
The seventh crusade was led by St. Louis, king of France, who appeared
before Damietta, after the feast of Whitsuntide, in 1249. He took it,
but after some battles his army was at last defeated, and himself taken
prisoner; after which a truce was concluded for ten years, and the
Christians were to keep what they were in possession of, except
Damietta, which was to be delivered to the sultan for the king’s ransom,
with a great sum of money; this done, the king sailed for Syria, and
having put Acre and other sea-ports in a good condition, returned home
in 1254.
The same prince put himself at the head of the eighth crusade in 1270,
and laying siege to Tunis without success, died there: but his son,
Philip the Bold, and Charles, king of Sicily, afterwards brought the
king of Tunis to agree to a truce for ten years, upon condition that he
should set all the slaves of his kingdom at liberty; that he should give
the Dominican and Franciscan friars leave to preach the gospel in his
territories, and build monasteries, and baptize all those that should
desire it, besides a sum of money to be paid Charles yearly. About this
time, Prince Edward of England arrived at Ptolemais with a small force
of 300 men. He hindered Benzdoctar from laying siege to Ptolemais, but
was obliged soon after to quit the Holy Land on account of his father’s
death, and his consequent succession to the crown of England. In 1291
the town of Ptolemais, or Acre, was taken, and the Christians were
driven out of Syria. Since which time there has been no crusade, though
the popes have more than once attempted to stir up Christians to the
undertaking.
CRYPT. The subterranean vault under any portion of a church. The
original use of the crypt seems to have been to increase the number of
places for altars; they were also sometimes used as places of burial,
not as being set apart for that purpose, but that persons would desire
to be buried before this or that altar, or in some particular place in
the crypt, as they chose any part of the church for the same purpose.
The crypt is generally found under the east end of the church, and it is
often the oldest part of it, and, as such, full of interest to the
student of ecclesiastical architecture and antiquities. It often
contains evidence of the form and extent of the church in its original
condition, which would elsewhere be sought in vain. The most remarkable
crypts in England are those of Canterbury, Gloucester, and Rochester. At
Wrexham and Ripon portions of the Saxon remains are retained in the
crypt, and at York the size and form of the Norman choir is displayed in
the older portion of the crypt.
CULDEES. [_Kelidei_, or _Colidei_.] The name Culdee is derived from the
Gaelic Gille De, (or Irish Ceile De,) which signifies God’s servant.
There is an evident affinity between this and the _cultores Dei_ of the
Latin: and the same affinity has been remarked between many of the Latin
and Gallic words. There seems every reason for believing that the name
of Culdees was bestowed on the indigenous clergy of the country from the
time it was Christianized.—_Lyon’s Hist. of St. Andrews._
As to the Culdees, it is very certain that there was a sort of monks,
and of secular priests also, who went under that appellation, not only
among the Scots, but among the Britons and Irish, and even also among
the northern English, who were first converted by the Scots,
particularly in the cathedral of York.—_Goodall_, Preliminary Dissert.
prefixed to _Bp. Russell’s_ edition of _Keith’s Scottish Bishops_.
The Culdees were, as far as antiquarians can discover, the first order
of monks that settled in the British Isles; and wherever the Celtic
language was used, whether in Scotland, Ireland, or Wales, the name of
Culdee was given to every one, who, relinquishing the temporal pursuits
of life, joined an association of a religious character, for the purpose
of fasting, meditation, and prayer.—_Bishop Russell’s_ Supplement to the
above Dissertation.
The name was not exclusively applied to the followers of St. Columba at
Iona, but establishments of the Culdees were founded by Columba, a
native of Ireland, in 563, and for a long period remained independent of
the see of Rome, and free from the corruptions of that Church. The abbot
of Iona was their head; not that he assumed episcopal authority (for the
superiority of bishops, _quoad spiritualia_, was acknowledged even by
Columba himself, who refused to consecrate the eucharist, as we are told
by Adamnan in his Life of that abbot, in the presence of a bishop); but
because he exercised full authority over his monks _quoad civilia_.—See
_Lyon’s Hist. of St. Andrews_.
The Colidei, or Culdees in general, (as appears from the old
authorities, and from Ware,) were in fact the ancient collegiate clergy
of Ireland and Scotland; including those who led a monastic life, that
is, under vows of celibacy; yet including communities of cathedral
canons, who were frequently married, though living together near their
cathedral, with an abbot or prior at their head. In Scotland the Culdees
constituted the chapter of several cathedrals, and elected the bishop,
as Mr. Goodall shows from charters and documents still extant. At St.
Andrew’s they were the sole chapter and electors of the bishop till
1140, when canons regular were introduced, who shared the privileges of
the Culdees till 1273. Great jealousy subsisted between these ancient
communities, and the interior secular canons and monks; who in the
course of time expelled or superseded the Culdees. There was no
difference of doctrine however between them; for the Culdees, though
originally independent of Rome, adopted Roman systems, like the other
clergy. The causes of dispute were those differences in discipline, and
those jealousies which have ever prevailed among rival communities. The
Culdees had in many instances a kind of hereditary succession to their
benefices.
Ware (Antiq. of Ireland, chap. xxxvi. sect. 4, ed. Harris) states, that
there were some secular priests, called Colidei, who served in the
cathedral church of Armagh, and their president was called Prior of the
College of the Colidei; and was in the nature of a chanter to that
church: elected by Colidei, and confirmed by the archbishop. (Harris
adds, that it was a body corporate, and had considerable estates, till
these fell to the _Crown_ on the abdication of the community after the
Reformation.) Ware gives other instances in Ireland. The ministers of
York cathedral were called _Colidei_ in the time of Athelstan.
In a fine MS. Antiphonary anciently belonging to Armagh cathedral, and
now in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, there are several entries
of the obits of the _Colidei_ of Armagh.
Some derive the name from _Cylle_, which signifies in Gaelic a cell, and
_tee_, or _dee_, a house. But the derivation given above seems the most
consistent with history and tradition.
CUP. (See _Communion in one Kind_.) The sacred vessel in which the
consecrated wine in the LORD’S supper is conveyed to the communicant,
distinguished from the _flagon_, in which the wine is brought to the
altar, and in which, if more than the cup will conveniently hold is
required, it is consecrated. The rubric directs that it shall be
_delivered_ to each communicant.
Rubric. “When the priest, standing before the table, hath so ordered the
bread and wine, that he may with the more readiness and decency break
the bread before the people, and take the cup into his hands, he shall
say the prayer of consecration, as followeth.” And in the prayer of
consecration, “Here he is to take the cup into his hand,” and, “Here to
lay his hand upon every vessel (be it chalice or flagon) in which there
is any wine to be consecrated.”
“The minister that delivereth the cup to any shall say, THE BLOOD OF OUR
LORD JESUS CHRIST,” &c.
Article 30. “The cup of the LORD is not to be denied to the lay people;
for both the parts of the LORD’S sacrament, by CHRIST’S ordinance and
commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.”
This article is directed against the Romish custom of denying the cup to
the laity, concerning which it may be enough to say, that it is clearly
and confessedly contrary to the custom of the Church; that for twelve
centuries there was no instance to be adduced of any receiving in one
kind at the public celebration of the eucharist; and that it was even
accounted sacrilege to deprive any of either part of our blessed LORD’S
ordinance.—See _Bingham_, xv. 5, and xvi. 6–27.
It appears from the unanimous testimony of the Fathers, and from all the
ancient rituals and liturgies, that the sacrament of the LORD’S supper
was, in the early ages of the Church, administered in both kinds, as
well to the laity as to the clergy. The practice of denying the cup to
the laity arose out of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The belief
that the sacramental bread and wine were actually converted into the
body and blood of CHRIST, naturally produced, in a weak and
superstitious age, an anxious fear lest any part of them should be lost
or wasted. To prevent anything of this kind in the bread, small wafers
were used, which were put at once into the mouths of the communicants by
the officiating ministers; but no expedient could be devised to guard
against the occasional spilling of the wine in administering it to large
congregations. The bread was sopped in the wine, and the wine was
conveyed by tubes into the mouth, but all in vain; accidents still
happened, and therefore it was determined that the priests should
entirely withhold the cup from the laity. It is to be supposed that a
change of this sort, in so important an ordinance as that of the LORD’S
supper, could not be effected at once. The first attempt seems to have
been made in the twelfth century; it was gradually submitted to, and was
at last established by the authority of the Council of Constance, in the
year 1414; but in their decree they acknowledged that “CHRIST did
institute this sacrament of both kinds, and that the faithful in the
primitive Church did receive both kinds; yet a practice being reasonably
introduced to avoid some dangers and scandals, they appoint the custom
to continue of consecrating in both kinds, and of giving to the laity
only in one kind,” thus presuming to depart from the positive commands
of our LORD respecting the manner of administering the sign of the
covenant between himself and mankind. From that time it has been the
invariable practice of the Church of Rome to confine the cup to the
priests. And it was again admitted at the Council of Trent, that the
LORD’S supper was formerly administered in both kinds to all
communicants, but it was openly contended that the Church had power to
make the alteration, and that they had done it for weighty and just
causes. These causes are not stated in the canon of the council. The
reformed churches, even the Lutheran, which maintains the doctrine of
consubstantiation, restored the cup to the laity. In a convocation held
in the first year of Edward the Sixth’s reign, it was unanimously voted
that the sacrament of the LORD’S supper should be received in both kinds
by the laity as well as the clergy; and therefore it is remarkable that
there was nothing on this subject in the articles of 1552: both this and
the preceding article [the 29th] were added in 1562.—_Bp. Tomline._
Wherever the institution of the Lord’s supper is mentioned, there is not
the least hint that the clergy are to receive it in one manner, and the
laity in another. And if one part of this sacrament be more necessary
than the other, it seems to be the cup; since it represents the blood of
CHRIST, to which remission of sins and our redemption are more often
ascribed in Scripture than to his body. It is trifling in the Romanists
to say that the blood is with the body: since in the eucharist we
commemorate, not the life of our LORD, but his death, in which the blood
was separated from his body; (see 1 Cor. xi. 26; Luke xxii. 19, 20;) and
to represent his blood, thus separated from his body, the cup was
consecrated apart by him. CHRIST himself also seems to have guarded
designedly against this piece of sacrilege of denying the cup to the
laity, by commanding that “all” should drink of the cup. (Matt. xxvi.
27.) And in Mark xiv. 23, it is said, that “_all_ drank of it;” which is
nowhere expressly said of eating the bread. See also 1 Cor. xi. 26–28,
in all which verses the Corinthians in general are expressly required to
“drink of that cup.”—_Archdeacon Welchman. Veneer._
There is not any one of all the controversies that we have with the
Church of Rome, in which the decision seems more easy and shorter than
this. And, as there is not any one in which she has acted more visibly
contrary to the gospel than in this, so there is not any one that has
raised higher prejudices against her, that has made more forsake her,
and has possessed mankind more against her, than this. This has cost her
dearer than any other.—_Bp. Burnet._
For the material of the cup, see _Chalice._
CURATE. The person who has the cure of souls in a parish. In this sense
the word is used in the Prayer Book, “all bishops and curates,” as the
word is still employed in France, Spain, &c.
The word is, in common parlance, used to denote the minister, whether
presbyter or deacon, who is employed under the spiritual rector or
vicar, as assistant to him in the same church, or else in a chapel of
ease within the same parish, belonging to the mother church. Where there
is in a parish neither spiritual rector nor vicar, but a clerk employed
to officiate there by the impropriator, this is called a _perpetual
curacy_, and the priest thus employed the _perpetual curate_. The
impropriator, by the terms of his sacrilegious gift, is bound to
“_maintain_” the priest: how far this is complied with by those lay
impropriators who allow the same stipend now that was given 200 or 300
years ago, we need not wait to inquire. The appointment of a curate to
officiate under an incumbent, in his own church, must be by such
incumbent’s nomination of him to the bishop. To every one of these
several kinds of curates, the ordinary’s licence is necessary before he
shall be admitted to officiate.
For by Canon 41, “No curate or minister shall be permitted to serve in
any place without examination and admission of the bishop of the
diocese, or ordinary of the place having episcopal jurisdiction, under
his hand and seal, having respect to the greatness of the cure, and
meetness of the party.”
And by the same canon, “If the curates remove from one diocese to
another, they shall not be by any means admitted to serve without
testimony in writing of the bishop of the diocese, or ordinary of the
place having episcopal jurisdiction, from whence they came, of their
honesty, ability, and conformity to the ecclesiastical laws of the
Church of England.”
By Canon 36, “No person shall be suffered to preach, to catechize, or to
be a lecturer, in any parish church, chapel, or other place, except he
be licensed either by the archbishop or by the bishop of the diocese,
and except he shall first subscribe to the three articles specified in
the said canon, concerning the king’s supremacy, the Book of Common
Prayer, and the Thirty-nine Articles of religion.”
And by Canon 37, “None who hath been licensed to preach, read, lecture,
or catechize, and shall afterwards come to reside in another diocese,
shall be permitted there to preach, read, lecture, catechize, or
administer the sacraments, or to execute any other ecclesiastical
function, by what authority soever he be thereunto admitted, unless he
first consent and subscribe to the three articles before mentioned, in
the presence of the bishop of the diocese wherein he is to preach, read,
lecture, catechize, or administer the sacraments as aforesaid.”
He must also, within two months, or at the time when he reads the
morning and evening prayers as aforesaid, (on the like pain of
deprivation _ipso facto_,) read and assent to the Thirty-nine Articles,
if it be a place with cure. (13 Eliz. c. 12. 23 Geo. II. c. 28.)
A curate not licensed may be removed at pleasure; but, if licensed, he
can be removed only by the consent of the bishop, or where the rector or
vicar does the duty himself.
By the 76th section of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, it is enacted as follows:
“And be it enacted, that in every case where a curate is appointed to
serve in any benefice upon which the incumbent either does not reside,
or has not satisfied the bishop of his full purpose to reside during
four months of the year, such curate shall be required by the bishop to
reside within the parish or place in which such benefice is situate, or
if no convenient residence can be procured within such parish or place,
then within three statute miles of the church or chapel of the benefice
in which he shall be licensed to serve, except in cases of necessity, to
be approved of by the bishop, and specified in the licence, and such
place of residence shall also be specified in the licence.”
By the 81st section of the same act it is enacted as follows: “And be it
enacted, that every bishop to whom any application shall be made for any
licence for a curate to serve for any person not duly residing upon his
benefice, shall, before he shall grant such licence, require a statement
of all the particulars by this act required to be stated by any person
applying for a licence for non-residence; and in every case in which
application shall be made to any bishop for a licence for any
stipendiary curate to serve in any benefice, whether the incumbent be
resident or non-resident, such bishop shall also require a declaration
in writing, to be made and subscribed by the incumbent and the curate,
to the purport and effect that the one _bonâ fide_ intends to pay, and
the other _bonâ fide_ intends to receive, the whole actual stipend
mentioned in such statement, without any abatement in respect of rent or
consideration for the use of the glebe house, and without any other
deduction or reservation whatever.”
By the 83rd section of the same act it is enacted as follows: “And be it
enacted, that it shall be lawful for the bishop of the diocese, and he
is hereby required, subject to the several provisions and restrictions
in this act contained, to appoint to every curate of a non-resident
incumbent such stipend as is specified in this act; and every licence to
be granted to a stipendiary curate, whether the incumbent of the
benefice be resident or non-resident thereon, shall specify the amount
of the stipend to be paid to the curate; and in case any difference
shall arise between the incumbent of any benefice and his curate
touching such stipend, or the payment thereof, or of the arrears
thereof, the bishop, on complaint to him made, may and shall summarily
hear and determine the same, without appeal; and in case of wilful
neglect or refusal to pay such stipend, or the arrears thereof, he is
hereby empowered to enforce payment of such stipend, or the arrears
thereof, by monition, and by sequestration of the profits of such
benefice.”
The following papers are to be sent to the bishop by a curate applying
to be licensed:—
1. A nomination by the incumbent.
The following form of nomination is intended to serve where the
incumbent is non-resident.
“To the Right Reverend —— Lord Bishop of ——.
“I, G. H. of ——, in the county of ——, and your lordship’s diocese of ——,
do hereby nominate E. F., bachelor of arts, (_or other degree_,) to
perform the office of a curate in my church of —— aforesaid; and do
promise to allow him the yearly stipend of ——, to be paid by equal
quarterly payments, [_as to amount of stipend, see_ 1 & 2 Vic. c. 106,
and the latter part of this article,] with the surplice fees, amounting
to —— pounds per annum, (_if they are intended to be allowed_,) and the
use of the glebe house, garden, and offices which he is to occupy (_if
that be the fact; if not, state the reason, and name where and at what
distance from the church the curate purposes to reside_): and I do
hereby state to your lordship, that the said E. F. does not serve any
other parish, as incumbent or curate; and that he has not any cathedral
preferment or benefice, and does not officiate in any other church or
chapel (_if however, the curate does serve another church as incumbent,
or as curate, or has any cathedral preferment, or a benefice, or
officiates in any other church or chapel, the same respectively must be
correctly and particularly stated_): that the net annual value of my
said benefice, estimated according to the act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, ss. 8
& 10, is ——, and the population thereof, according to the latest returns
of population made under the authority of parliament is ——; that there
is only one church belonging to my said benefice (_if there be another
church or chapel, state the fact_); and that I was admitted to the said
benefice on the —— day of ——, 18—.
“Witness my hand this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and ——
[_Signature and address of_] G. H.”
_Declaration to be written at the foot of the Nomination._
“We the before-named G. H. and E. F. do declare to the said Lord Bishop
of ——, as follows: namely, I the said G. H. do declare, that I _bonâ
fide_ intend to pay, and I the said E. F. do declare that I _bonâ fide_
intend to receive, the whole actual stipend mentioned in the foregoing
nomination and statement, without any abatement in respect of rent, or
consideration for the use of the glebe house, garden, and offices,
thereby agreed to be assigned, and without any other deduction or
reservation whatsoever.
Witness our hands this —— day of ——, one thousand eight hundred and ——.
[_Signatures of_] G. H. and E. F.”
The following form of nomination is proposed where the incumbent is
resident.
The same form as the preceding, so far as “quarterly payments;” then
proceed as follows: “And I do hereby state to your lordship, that the
said E. F. intends to reside in the said parish, in a house (_describe
its situation so as clearly to identify it_) distant from my church ——
mile (_if E. F. does not intend to reside in the parish, then state at
what place he intends to reside, and its distance from the said
church_); and that the said E. F. does not serve any other parish as
incumbent or curate; and that he has not any cathedral preferment or
benefice, and does not officiate in any other church or chapel (_if,
however, the curate does serve another parish, as incumbent or as
curate, or has any cathedral preferment or a benefice, or officiates in
any other church or chapel, the same respectively must be correctly and
particularly stated_).
Witness my hand this —— day of ——, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and ——.
[_Signature and address of_] G. H.”
_Declaration to be written at the foot of the Nomination._
The declaration to be signed by the incumbent and curate is to be in the
same form as that given above, so far as the word “statement;” after
which, proceed as follows: “Without any deduction or reservation
whatsoever.
Witness our hands this —— day of ——, one thousand eight hundred and ——.
[_Signatures of_] G. H. and E. F.”
2. Letters of orders, deacon and priest.
3. Letters testimonial to be signed by three beneficed clergymen, in the
following form:
“To the Rt. Rev. ——, Lord Bishop of ——.
“We, whose names are here under written, testify and make known that A.
B., clerk, bachelor of arts, (_or other degree_,) of —— college, in the
university of ——, nominated to serve the cure of ——, in the county of
——, hath been personally known to us for the space of[A] three years
last past; that we have had opportunities of observing his conduct; that
during the whole of that time we verily believe that he lived piously,
soberly, and honestly, nor have we at any time heard anything to the
contrary thereof; nor hath he at any time, as far as we know or believe,
held, written, or taught anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline
of the United Church of England and Ireland; and, moreover, we believe
him in our consciences to be, as to his moral conduct, a person worthy
to be licensed to the said curacy.
In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands this —— day of ——, in
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ——.
[4]C. D. rector of ——.
E. F. vicar of ——.
G. H. rector of ——.”
To be countersigned, if all or either of the subscribers to the
testimonial are not beneficed in the diocese of the bishop to whom it is
addressed, by the bishop of the diocese wherein their benefices are
respectively situate.
On receipt of these papers, the bishop, if he be satisfied with them,
will either appoint the clergyman nominated to attend him, to be
licensed, or issue a commission to some neighbouring incumbent.
Before the licence is granted, the curate is to subscribe the
Thirty-Nine Articles, and the three articles in the 36th canon; to
declare his conformity to the liturgy of the United Church of England
and Ireland, and to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and of
canonical obedience:—
“I, E. F., do swear that I will pay true and canonical obedience to the
Lord Bishop of —— in all things lawful and honest. So help me God.”
The licence will be sent by the bishop to the registry-office, and from
thence it will be forwarded to the churchwardens.
Within three months after he is licensed, the curate is to read in the
church the declaration appointed by the Act of Uniformity, and also the
certificate of his having subscribed it before the bishop.
By the 106th section of the Residence Act, (1 & 2 Vict. c. 106,) it is
enacted that no spiritual person shall serve more than two benefices in
one day, unless in case of unforeseen and pressing emergency, in which
case he shall forthwith report the circumstance to the bishop.
The directions as to notices to be given for the curate to give up the
cure, are contained in the 95th section of the said act, and for his
quitting the house of residence in the 96th section; and as to notice of
the curate’s intention to relinquish the cure, in the 97th section; and
power is given to the bishop, by the 98th section, to revoke any licence
to a curate, (after having given him sufficient opportunity to show
reason to the contrary,) subject to an appeal to the archbishop of the
province within one month after service of revocation.
(1.) FORM of notice by a _new incumbent_ to a curate to quit curacy,
or to give up possession of house of residence.
“I, A. B., clerk, having been duly admitted to the rectory of ——, in the
county of ——, and diocese of ——, do hereby, in pursuance of the power
and authority for this purpose vested in me by virtue of the act of
parliament passed in the first and second years of her present Majesty’s
reign, intituled ‘An Act to abridge the holding of benefices in
plurality, and to make better provision for the residence of the
clergy,’ give notice to and require you, C. D., clerk, to quit and give
up the curacy of —— aforesaid [_the following to be added where
applicable_, and to deliver up possession of the rectory house of ——
aforesaid, and the offices, stables, gardens, and appurtenances thereto
belonging, and (if any) such part of the glebe land as has been assigned
to you] at the expiration of six weeks from the giving of this notice to
you.
Witness my hand this —— day of ——, one thousand eight hundred and ——.”
(2.) FORM of notice by an incumbent, with consent of the bishop, to a
curate to quit curacy, or to give up house of residence.
“I, A. B., clerk, rector of ——, in the county of ——, and diocese of ——,
in pursuance of the power and authority for this purpose vested in me by
virtue of the act of parliament passed in the first and second years of
her present Majesty’s reign, intituled ‘An Act to abridge the holding of
benefices in plurality, and to make better provision for the residence
of the clergy,’ do hereby, with the permission of the Right Reverend ——
Lord Bishop of the diocese of —— aforesaid, signified by writing under
his lordship’s hand, give notice to, and require you, C. D., clerk, my
licensed curate of —— aforesaid, to quit and give up the said curacy of
—— [_the following to be added where applicable_, and the rectory house
of —— aforesaid, and the offices, stables, gardens, and appurtenances
thereto belonging, and (if any) such part of the glebe land as has been
assigned to you] at the expiration of six calendar months from the
giving of this notice to you.[5]
Witness my hand this —— day of ——, one thousand eight hundred and ——.”
FORM of bishop’s permission to an incumbent to give his curate notice
to quit curacy, or give up possession of house of residence.
(_Applicable to notice No. 2. only._)
“I, ——, Lord Bishop of ——, do hereby, on the application of A. B.,
clerk, rector of ——, in the county of ——, and my diocese of ——, signify
my permission for him to require and direct C. D., clerk, his licensed
curate at —— aforesaid, to quit and give up the said curacy [_the
following to be added where applicable_, and to deliver up possession of
the rectory house of —— aforesaid, and the offices, outhouses, gardens,
and appurtenances thereto belonging, and (if any) such part of the glebe
land as has been assigned to the said C. D., as such curate] upon six
calendar months’ notice thereof being given to such curate.
Given under my hand this —— day of ——, one thousand eight hundred and
——.”
_Note._—The notice No. 1. applies only to an incumbent newly admitted to
a benefice, and must be given within six months after such admission.
The notice No. 2. applies to every other case of an incumbent requiring
his curate to quit the curacy. The consent of the bishop is required
only in the latter case.
The 112th section of the act referred to in the notices contains
directions as to the mode in which the notice is to be served; and it
directs that “it shall be served personally upon the spiritual person
therein named, or to whom it shall be directed, by showing the original
to him and leaving with him a true copy thereof, or, in case such
spiritual person cannot be found, by leaving a true copy thereof at his
usual or last known place of residence, and by affixing another copy
thereof upon the church door of the parish in which such place of
residence shall be situate.” The notice must, immediately after the
service thereof, be returned into the Consistorial Court, (or the Court
of Peculiars, in the case of an archbishop’s or bishop’s peculiar; see
sect. 108,) and be there filed, together with an affidavit of the time
and manner in which the same shall have been served.
The stipends to be paid to curates by non-resident incumbents must be in
strict conformity with the directions of the act of parliament 1 & 2
Vict. c. 106. Clergymen who were incumbents of benefices before July
20th, 1813, cannot be compelled (see sect. 84) to pay more than £75 per
annum as a stipend to the curates of such benefices, but the bishop may
add to that sum £15 in lieu of a house.
Non-resident incumbents admitted to benefices after the above date, are
to allow stipends according to the following scale, prescribed by the
85th section:
The lowest stipend is £ 80
If the population amount to 300, the stipend is to be 100
If the population amount to 500, the stipend is to be 120
If the population amount to 750, the stipend is to be 135
If the population amount to 1000, the stipend is to be 150
or the whole value of the benefice, if it does not exceed these sums
respectively. Where the net yearly income of a benefice exceeds £400,
the bishop may (by sect. 86) assign a stipend of £100, notwithstanding
the population may not amount to 300; and if with that income the
population amounts to 500, he may add any sum not exceeding £50 to any
of the stipends payable by the last-mentioned incumbent, where the
curate resides within the benefice, and serves no other cure. Where the
population exceeds 2000, the bishop may require the incumbent to
nominate two curates, with stipends not exceeding together the highest
rate of stipend allowed to one curate.
Incumbents who have become incapable of performing their duties from
age, sickness, or other unavoidable cause, (and to whom, from these or
from any other special and peculiar circumstances, great hardship would
arise if they were required to pay the full stipend,) may (by sect. 87)
be relieved by the bishop, with the consent of the archbishop of the
province.
The bishop may (by sect. 89) direct that the stipend to a curate
licensed to serve two parishes or places shall be less for each by a sum
not exceeding £30 per annum than the full stipend.
All agreements for payment of a less stipend than that assigned by the
licence are (by sect. 90) declared to be void; and if less be paid, the
remainder may be afterwards recovered by the curate or his
representatives. When a stipend, equal to the whole value of a benefice,
is assigned to the curate, he is (by sect. 91) to be liable to all
charges and outgoings legally affecting the benefice; and (by sect. 94)
when such a stipend as last mentioned is assigned, and the curate is
directed to reside in the glebe house, he is to be liable to the taxes,
parochial rates, and assessments of the glebe house and premises; but in
every other case in which the curate shall so reside by such direction,
the bishop may, if he shall think fit, order that the incumbent shall
pay the curate all or any part of such sums as he may have been required
to pay, and shall have paid, within one year, ending at Michaelmas day
next preceding the date of such order for any such taxes, parochial
rates, or assessments, as should become due at any time after the
passing of the act.
For other particulars as to curates’ stipends and allowances, &c., see
the act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, from sect. 75 to 102, both inclusive.
CURE. The spiritual charge of a parish, or, in a larger sense, the
parish itself. When Christianity was first planted in this nation, the
bishops were constantly resident at their cathedrals, and had several
clergymen attending them at that place, whom they sent to preach and
convert the people, where there was the greatest probability of success;
and the persons thus sent either returned or continued in those places,
as occasion required, having no fixed cures or titles to particular
places; for being all entered in the bishop’s registry, (as the usual
course then was,) they could not be discharged without his consent.
Afterwards, when Christianity prevailed, and many churches were built,
the cure of souls was limited both as to places and persons. The places
are those which we now call parishes, the extent whereof is certainly
known, and the boundaries are now fixed by long usage and custom. The
parsons are the ministers, who, by presentation, institution, and
induction, are entitled to the tithes and other ecclesiastical profits
arising within that parish, and have the cure of souls of those who live
and reside there: and this the canonists call a cure _In foro interiori
tantum_; and they distinguish it from a cure of souls, _In foro
exterior_i, such as archdeacons have, to suspend, excommunicate, and
absolve, and which is _Sine pastorali cura_: and from another cure,
which they say is _In utroque simul_, that is, both _In exteriori et
interiori foro_: and such the bishop has, who has a superintendent care
over the whole diocese, intermixed with jurisdiction.
[Illustration: [Cusps]]
CUSPS. (In church architecture.) The projecting points from the
foliation of arches or tracery. Cusping first appeared in the Geometric
period, and was continued so long as Gothic architecture was employed.
Besides the more obvious differences arising from the number of cusps,
which, however, it is needless to particularize, there is one very great
peculiarity of the earlier cusping which ought to be clearly understood.
Let the tracery bar consist of three planes, _a_ the wall, _b_ the
chamfer, and _c_ soffit plane (the latter of course not being visible in
the two larger diagrams, which, being elevations, show no line at right
angles to the wall). In the more common cusping, the cusp is formed by
carrying out the whole of the soffit and part of the chamfer plane, and
leaving an unpierced hollow, or _eye_, in the tracery bar, as at A A,
_fig. I_; A A in the section answering to A A in the elevation, and E E
to E E. In the Earlier or Geometrical cusping, the tracery bar is
completed all round, and the cusp carries with it no part either of the
soffit or of the chamfer, but is let into the soffit, always in
appearance, sometimes in fact, as a separate piece of stone, as at B D,
_fig._ II. Here, too, the cusp leaves a free space between itself and
the tracery bar, as at B B B in elevation, and section II. D D D,
representing the place of departure of the cusp from the tracery bar.
This is generally called _soffit_ cusping, from its springing
exclusively from the soffit plane.
DAILY PRAYERS. “All priests and deacons are to say daily the morning and
evening prayer, either privately or openly, not being let by sickness or
some other urgent cause. And the curate that ministereth in every parish
church or chapel, being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably
hindered, shall say the same in the parish church or chapel where he
ministereth, and shall cause a bell to be tolled thereunto a convenient
time before he begin, that the people may come to hear GOD’S word, and
pray with him.”—_Preface to the Book of Common Prayer._ As this is not
only a direction of the Church, but also part of an act of parliament,
any parishioners desirous of attending daily prayers might compel the
clergyman to officiate, by bringing an action against him, as well as by
complaining to the bishop. For this, of course, there can seldom be any
necessity, as most of the clergy would be too happy to officiate, if
they could secure the attendance of two or three of their parishioners.
By the general practice of the clergy it seems to be decided, that they
are to say the morning and evening prayer in private, if they cannot
obtain a congregation; though, even under those circumstances, the
letter of the rubric seems to direct them to say the offices at church,
if possible. It is a cheering sign of the times, that the number of
instances in which the daily prayers are duly said in church is rapidly
on the increase.
DALMATIC, was formerly the characteristic dress of the deacon in the
administration of the holy eucharist. It was also worn by the bishop at
stated times; and in the Latin Church still forms part of the episcopal
dress, under the chasuble. It is a robe reaching below the knees, and
open at each side for a distance varying at different periods. It is not
marked at the back with a cross like the chasuble, but in the Latin
Church with two narrow stripes, the remains of the _angusti clavi_ worn
on the old Roman dress. In the Greek Church it is called _colobion_, is
covered with a multitude of small crosses, and has no sleeves. The
dalmatic is seen on the effigies of bishops on monuments, and in some
old brasses, over the alb and the stole, the fringed extremities of
which reach just below it. It has received its name from being the regal
vest of Dalmatia. It is the same as the tunicle, which is directed to be
worn according to the rubrics of King Edward VI.’s First Prayer Book, by
the priests and deacons who may assist the priest at the holy communion.
Like all the other ecclesiastical vestures, it was curtailed by the
corrupt practice of later ages in the West, so as not to reach further
than the knees.—_Jebb._
DAMNATORY CLAUSES. (See _Athanasian Creed_.)
DANIEL (THE BOOK OF). A canonical book of the Old Testament. Daniel
descended from the royal house of the kings of Judah, and was
contemporary with Ezekiel. (An. 606, before Christ.) He was of the
children of the captivity, being carried to Babylon when he was about
eighteen years of age. His name is not prefixed to his book; yet the
many passages in which he speaks in the first person, are a sufficient
proof that he was the author of it. The style of Daniel is not so lofty
and figurative as that of the other prophets: it is clear and concise,
and his narrations and descriptions simple and natural; in short, he
writes more like an historian than a prophet.
He was a very extraordinary person, and was favoured of God, and
honoured of men, beyond any that had lived in his time. His prophecies
concerning the coming of the Messiah, and the other great events of
after-times, are so clear and explicit, that Porphyry objected to them,
that they must have been written after the facts were done.—_Prideaux,
Connect._ P. I. b. iii. Ann. 534. _Hieron. in Proœm. ad Com. in Dan._
The Jews do not reckon Daniel among the prophets; and the reason they
assign is, because he rather lived the life of a courtier, in the palace
of the king of Babylon, than that of a prophet. They add, that, though
he had Divine revelations given to him, yet it was not in the prophetic
way, but by dreams and visions of the night, which they look upon as the
most imperfect way of revelation, and below the prophetic. But Josephus,
one of the ancientest writers of that nation, reckons him among the
greatest of the prophets, and says further of him, that he conversed
familiarly with God, and not only foretold future events, as other
prophets did, but determined likewise the time when they should come to
pass. But our Saviour, by acknowledging Daniel as a prophet, puts his
prophetic character out of all dispute.—_Maimonid, in More Nevochim_, p.
2, ch. 45. _Huet. Demonstr. Evangel._ Prop. 4, ch. 14. _Joseph. Antiq._
lib. x. ch. 12. Matt. xxiv. 15.
Part of the book of Daniel was originally written in the Chaldee
language; that is, from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the
end of the seventh chapter; and the reason was, because, in that part,
he treats of the Chaldean or Babylonish affairs. All the rest of the
book is in Hebrew.—_Hieron. in Præf. ad Dan._ The Greek translation,
used by the Greek Churches throughout the East, was that of Theodotion.
In the Vulgar Latin Bible, there is added, in the third chapter, after
the twenty-fourth verse, the Song of the Three Children, and, at the end
of the book, the History of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon: the
former is made the thirteenth, and the latter the fourteenth chapter of
the book, in that edition. But these additions were never received into
the canon by the Jews; neither are they extant in the Hebrew or the
Chaldee language, nor is there any proof that they ever were so.
The first six chapters of the book of Daniel are a history of the kings
of Babylon, and what befell the captive Jews under their government. In
the last six, he is altogether prophetical, foretelling, not only what
should happen to his own Church and nation, but events in which foreign
princes and kingdoms were concerned; particularly the rise and downfal
of the four secular monarchies of the world, and the establishment of
the fifth, or spiritual kingdom of the Messiah.
It is believed that Daniel died in Chaldea, and that he did not take
advantage of the permission granted by Cyrus to the Jews of returning to
their own country. St. Epiphanius says he died at Babylon, and herein he
is followed by the generality of historians.
“Amongst the old prophets,” says the great Sir Isaac Newton, “Daniel is
most distinct in order of time, and easiest to be understood; and
therefore, in those things which relate to the last times, he must be
made the key to the rest. His prophecies are all of them related to one
another, as if they were but several parts of one general prophecy. The
first is the easiest to be understood, and every following prophecy adds
something new to the former.”—_Observations on Daniel_, pp. 15, 24.
DATARY. An officer in the pope’s court. He is always a prelate, and
sometimes a cardinal, deputed by his Holiness to receive such petitions
as are presented to him, touching the provision of benefices. By his
post, the datary is empowered to grant, without acquainting the pope
therewith, all benefices that do not produce upwards of twenty-four
ducats annually; but for such as amount to more, he is obliged to get
the provisions signed by the pope, who admits him to audience every day.
If there be several candidates for the same benefice, he has the liberty
of bestowing it on which of them he thinks proper, provided he has the
requisite qualifications. The datary has a yearly salary of two thousand
crowns, exclusive of the perquisites, which he receives from those who
apply to him for any benefice. This office has a substitute, named the
_sub-datary_, who is likewise a prelate, and has a yearly pension of a
thousand crowns: but he is not allowed to confer any benefice, without
acquainting the datary therewith. When a person has obtained the pope’s
consent for a benefice, the datary subscribes his petition with an
_annuit sanctissimus_, i. e. _the most holy father consents to it_. The
pope’s consent is subscribed in these words, _Fiat ut petitur_, i. e.
_Be it according to the petition_. After the petition has passed the
proper offices, and is registered, it is carried to the _datary_, who
_dates_ it, and writes these words—_Datum Romæ apud, &c.: Given at Rome
in the pontifical palace, &c._ Afterwards the pope’s bull, granting the
benefice, is despatched by the datary, and passes through the hands of
more than a thousand persons, belonging to fifteen different offices,
who have all their stated fees. The reader may from hence judge how
expensive it is to procure the pope’s bull for a benefice, and what
large sums go into the office of the datary, especially when the
provisions, issued from thence, are for bishoprics, and other rich
benefices.—_Broughton._
DEACON. (See _Bishop_, _Presbyter_, _Priest_, _Orders_, _Clergy_.) The
name Διάκονοι, which is the original word for deacons, is sometimes used
in the New Testament for any one that ministers in the service of GOD:
in which large sense we sometimes find bishops and presbyters styled
deacons, not only in the New Testament, but in ecclesiastical writers
also. But here we take it for the name of the third order of the clergy
in the Church. Deacons are styled by Ignatius, “ministers of the
mysteries of Christ,” adding that they are “not ministers of meats and
drinks, but of the Church of GOD.” In another place he speaks of them as
“ministers of JESUS CHRIST,” and gives them a sort of presidency over
the people, together with the bishops and presbyters. Cyprian speaks of
them in the same style, calling them “ministers of episcopacy and the
Church,” and referring their origin to the Acts of the Apostles; and he
asserts that they were called _ad altaris ministerium_, to the ministry
and service of the altar. Optatus had such an opinion of them as to
reckon their office a lower degree of the priesthood. At the same time
it is to be observed, that in this he was singular. By those who
regarded them as a sacred order, they were generally distinguished from
priests by the name of _ministers_ and _Levites_. The ordination of a
deacon differed in the primitive Church from that of a presbyter, both
in the form and manner of it, and also in the gifts and powers that were
conferred by the ordinance. In the ordination of a presbyter, the
presbyters who were present were required to join in imposition of hands
with the bishop. But the ordination of a deacon might be performed by
the bishop alone, because, as the [fourth] Council of Carthage words it,
he was ordained not to the priesthood, but to the inferior services of
the Church: “quia non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium consecratur.” It
belonged to the deacons to take care of the holy table and all the
ornaments and utensils appertaining thereto; to receive the oblations of
the people, and present them to the priest; in some churches, to read
the Gospel both in the communion service and before it also; to minister
the consecrated bread and wine to the people in the eucharist; in some
churches, to baptize; to act as directors to the people in public
worship, for which purpose they were wont to use certain known forms of
words, to give notice when each part of the service began, and to excite
people to join attentively therein; to preach, with the bishop’s
licence; in extreme cases to reconcile the excommunicated to the Church;
to attend upon the bishop, and sometimes to represent him in general
councils. Deacons seem also to have discharged most of the offices which
now devolve upon churchwardens.—_Bingham._
The Church of England enjoins that “none shall be admitted a deacon
except he be twenty-three years of age, unless he have a faculty;” and
she describes the duties of a deacon in her office as follows: “It
appertaineth to the office of a deacon, in the church where he shall be
appointed to serve, to assist the priest in Divine service, and
specially when he ministereth the holy communion, and to help him in the
distribution thereof, and to read Holy Scripture and homilies in the
church; and to instruct the youth in the catechism; in the absence of
the priest to baptize infants, and to preach, if he be admitted thereto
by the bishop. And, furthermore, it is his office, where provision is so
made, to search for the sick, poor, and impotent people of the parish,
to intimate their estates, names, and places where they dwell, unto the
curate, that by his exhortation they may be relieved with the alms of
the parishioners, or others.”
In the rubric after the sentences of the Offertory, it is ordered, that
“while these sentences are in reading, the deacons, churchwardens, or
other fit persons appointed for that purpose, shall receive the alms for
the poor,” &c.
The deacon cannot pronounce the absolution, or minister at the holy
communion, except as an assistant. And if the rubrics be strictly
construed according to the letter, neither can he read the versicles
before the Psalms, or after the LORD’S Prayer, (at its second
occurrence,) nor the latter part of the Litany, beginning at the LORD’S
Prayer; nor any part of the Communion Service, except the Gospel, (not
according to the rubric, however, but in virtue of the licence in the
Ordination Service,) the Creed, and the confession. He is permitted to
baptize _only in the absence of the priest_; and perhaps the same remark
may apply to the other occasional offices.
DEACONESS. A woman who served the Church in those offices in which the
deacons could not with propriety exercise themselves. This order was
also appointed in the apostolic age. They were generally widows who had
been only once married, though this employment was sometimes exercised
by virgins. Their office consisted in assisting at the baptism of women,
in previously catechizing and instructing them, in visiting sick persons
of their own sex, and in performing all those inferior offices towards
the female part of the congregation, which the deacons were designed to
execute for the men. St. Paul (Rom. xvi.) speaks of Phœbe as _servant_,
or _deaconess_, of the church at Cenchrea, which was a haven of Corinth.
Deaconesses appear to be the same persons as those whom Pliny, in his
famous letter to Trajan, styles “_ancillæ quæ ministræ dicebantur_;”
that is, “female attendants, called assistants, ministers, or servants.”
It appears, then, that these were customary officers throughout the
churches; and when the fury of persecution fell on Christians, these
were among the first to suffer. They underwent the most cruel tortures,
and even extreme old age was not spared. It is probable that they were
blessed by the laying on of hands, but it is certain they were not
permitted to execute any part of the sacerdotal office. This order
continued in the Greek Church longer than in the Latin. It was generally
disused in the Western Church in the fifth century, but continued in the
Eastern Church until the twelfth. The deacon’s wife appears sometimes to
have been called a deaconess, as the presbyter’s wife was styled
_presbytera_, and the bishop’s wife _episcopa_.
DEAD. (See _Burial of the Dead_.) If all our prayers and endeavours for
our friend prove unavailable for the continuance of his life, we must
with patience submit to the will of GOD, “to whom the issues of life and
death belong:” and therefore, after recommending his soul to GOD, which
immediately upon its dissolution returns to Him, it is fit we should
decently dispose of his body, which is left to our management and care.
Not that the dead are anything the better for the honours which we
perform to their corpses (for we know that several of the ancient
philosophers cared not whether they were buried or not; and the ancient
martyrs of the Christian Church despised their persecutors for
threatening them with the want of a grave). But those who survive could
never endure that the shame of nature should lie exposed, nor see the
bodies of those they loved become a prey to birds and beasts. For these
reasons, the very heathens called it a Divine institution, and a law of
the immortal gods. And the Romans especially had a peculiar deity to
preside over this affair. The Athenians were so strict, that they would
not admit any to be magistrates, who had not taken care of their
parents’ sepulture, and beheaded one of their generals after he had
gotten a victory, for throwing the dead bodies of the slain, in a
tempest, into the sea. And Plutarch relates, that, before they engaged
with the Persians, they took a solemn oath, that, if they were
conquerors, they would bury their foes; this being a privilege which
even an enemy hath a right to, as being a debt which is owing to
humanity.
2. It is true, indeed, the manner of funerals has varied according to
the different customs of several countries; but all civilized nations
have ever agreed in performing some funeral rites or other. The most
ancient manner was by “burying them in the earth;” which is, indeed, so
natural, that some brutes have been observed, by mere instinct, to bury
their dead with wonderful care. The body, we know, was formed of the
dust at first, and therefore it is fit it should “return to the earth as
it was” (Gen. iii. 19; Eccles. xii. 7); insomuch that some heathens
have, by the light of reason, called burying in the earth the being “hid
in our mother’s lap,” and the being “covered with her skirt.” And that
“interment,” or enclosing the dead body in the grave, was used anciently
by the Egyptians and other nations of the East, is plain from the
account we have of the embalming, and from their mummies, which are
frequently found to this day whole and entire, though some of them have
lain above three thousand years in their graves. That the same practice
of burying was used by the patriarchs, and their successors the Jews, we
have abundant testimony from the most ancient records in the world, the
books of Moses; by which we find, that their funerals were performed,
and their sepulchres provided with an officious piety (Gen. xxiii. 4;
xxv. 9; xxxv. 29; xlix. 31); and that it was usual for parents to take
an oath of their children, (which they religiously performed,) that they
should bury them with their fathers, and carry their bones with them,
whenever they quitted their land where they were. (Gen. xlvii. 29–31;
xlix. 29–33; l. 25, 26; Exod. xiii. 19. See also Josh. xxiv. 32; Acts
vii. 16; Heb. xi. 22.) In succeeding ages, indeed, it became a custom in
some places to burn the bodies of the dead; which was owing partly to a
fear that some injury might be offered them if they were only buried, by
digging their corpses again out of their graves; and partly to a
conceit, that the souls of those that were burnt were carried up by the
flames to heaven.
3. But though other nations sometimes used interment and sometimes
burning, yet the Jews confined themselves to the former alone. There is
a place or two indeed in our translation of the Old Testament, (1 Sam.
xxxi. 12; Amos vi. 10,) which might lead us to imagine that the rite of
burning was also used by them sometimes. But upon consulting the
original texts, and the customs of the Jews, it does not appear that the
burnings there mentioned were anything more than the burning of odours
and spices about their bodies, which was an honour they usually
performed to their kings. (2 Chron. xvi. 14; xxi. 19; Jer. xxxiv. 5.) So
that, notwithstanding these texts, we may safely enough conclude, that
interment, or burying, was the only rite with them; as it was also in
after-times with the Christian Church. For wherever Paganism was
extirpated, the custom of burning was disused; and the first natural way
of laying up the bodies of the deceased entire in the grave obtained in
the room of it.
4. And this has always been done with such solemnity, as is proper to
the occasion. Sometimes, indeed, it has been attended with an expensive
pomp, that is unseemly and extravagant. But this is no reason why we
should not give all the expressions of a decent respect to the memory of
those whom GOD takes from us. The description of the persons who
interred our SAVIOUR, the enumeration of their virtues, and the
everlasting commendation of her who spent three hundred pennyworth of
spikenard to anoint his body to the burial, have always been thought
sufficient grounds and encouragements for the careful and decent
sepulture of Christians. And, indeed, if the regard due to a human soul,
rendered some respect to the dead a principle that manifested itself to
the common sense of heathens, shall we think that less care is due to
the bodies of Christians, who once entertained a more glorious
inhabitant, and were living temples of the HOLY GHOST? (1 Cor. vi. 19;)
to bodies which were consecrated to the service of GOD; which bore their
part in the duties of religion; fought the good fight of faith and
patience, self-denial and mortification; and underwent the fatigue of
many hardships and afflictions for the sake of piety and virtue;—to
bodies which, we believe, shall one day be awakened again from their
sleep of death; have all their scattered particles of dust summoned
together into their due order, and be “fashioned like to the glorious
body of CHRIST” (Phil. iii. 21; see also 1 Cor. xv. 42–44); as being
made partakers of the same glory with their immortal souls, as once they
were of the same sufferings and good works. Surely bodies so honoured
here, and to be so glorified hereafter, and which too we own, even in
the state of death, to be under the care of a Divine providence and
protection, are not to be exposed and despised by us as unworthy of our
regard. Moved by these considerations, the primitive Christians, though
they made no use of ointments whilst they lived, yet they did not think
the most precious too costly to be used about the dead. And yet this was
so far from being reproached with superstition, that it is ever reported
as a laudable custom, and such as had something in it so engaging, so
agreeable to the notions of civilized nature, as to have a very
considerable influence upon the heathens, who observed and admired it;
it becoming instrumental in disposing them to a favourable opinion at
first, and afterwards to the embracing of the Christian religion, where
these decencies and tender regards to deceased friends and good people,
were so constantly, so carefully, and so religiously practised.—_Dean
Comber._ _Wheatly._
CHRIST’S Church, that is, the whole number of the faithful, is usually
divided into two parts; namely, the Church militant, and the Church
triumphant. By the Church _militant_, or in a state of warfare, we mean
those Christians who are at present alive, and perpetually harassed with
the temptations and assaults of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and
whose life is consequently a continual warfare under the banner of our
blessed SAVIOUR. By the Church _triumphant_, we mean those Christians
who have departed this life in GOD’S true faith and fear; and who now
enjoy in some measure, and after the day of judgment shall be fully
possessed of, that glory and triumph, which is the fruit of their
labours, and the reward of those victories which they obtained over
their spiritual adversaries, during the time of their trial and combat
here upon earth.—_Dr. Bennet._
After the Offertory in the eucharist is said, and the oblations of bread
and wine, with the alms for the poor, are placed upon the table, the
minister addresses this exhortation to the people: “Let us pray for the
whole state of CHRIST’S Church militant here in earth.” The latter part
of this sentence is wanting in Edward’s First Book. The words “militant
here in earth,” which were designed expressly to exclude prayer for the
dead, were inserted in the Second Book, in which that part of this
prayer, which contained intercession for the dead, was expunged. It was
the intention of the divines who made this alteration, to denote that
prayers are not to be offered up for the dead, whose spiritual warfare
is already accomplished; but for those only who are yet “fighting the
good fight of faith,” and are consequently in a capacity of needing our
prayers.—_Shepherd._
Although the doctrine of purgatory be a comparatively modern doctrine,
yet prayers for the _justified_ dead, for the increase of their
happiness, and for our reunion with them, were introduced early into the
Church. But it can be proved:
First. That, the prayers of the primitive Church _for_ the dead, being
especially for those who were accounted saints _par excellence_, and
including even the Blessed Virgin and the Holy Apostles, prayer _to_ the
departed saints, whoever they may be, as it is practised by the churches
under the Roman obedience, must be contrary in theory, as it is in fact,
to the primitive practice; since it were impossible to pray _to_ and
_for_ the same persons.
Secondly. That it was not for the release of the spirit of the departed
from purgatory that the Church supplicated Almighty GOD. For this also
were incompatible with prayer for the Blessed Virgin, and other eminent
saints, of which there was never any doubt but that they were already in
Abraham’s bosom, or even, as in the case of martyrs, in heaven itself.
Thirdly. That works of supererogation formed no part of the system of
primitive theology; since all were prayed for as requiring the mercy of
GOD, though it was not declared to what particular end.
Fourthly. That the use of hired masses for the dead, who may have been
persons of exceeding criminality, and have died in mortal sin, is
utterly at variance with the practice of the Church of old.—See
_Archbishop Usher_ and _Bingham_.
DEADLY SIN. We pray in the Litany to be delivered from “all deadly sin.”
In the strict sense of the word every sin is deadly, and would cause
eternal death if it were not for the intervention of our blessed
SAVIOUR. Even what are called infirmities and frailties, are in this
sense deadly. But persons under grace have for these offences “an
Advocate with the FATHER, JESUS CHRIST the righteous, and he is the
propitiation for our sins.” (1 John ii. 2.) Their infirmities and
frailties, therefore, if they are trying to overcome them, are not
deadly to persons under grace, or baptized persons justified by faith,
although, if persevered in, and uncorrected, they may terminate in
deadly sin; and they consequently require continual repentance, lest
they should grow into such a fearful burden. But even to persons under
grace we learn, from 1 John v. 16, 17, that there are “sins unto
death,”—which must mean sins that put us out of a state of grace, and
this is done by any wilful sin persevered in. By deadly sin in a
_Christian_ is meant wilful sin, persevered in, which deprives us of all
Christian privileges. (See _Sin_.)
DEAN. Of deans there are two sorts; 1st, the _dean of a cathedral_, who
is an ecclesiastical magistrate, next in degree to the bishop. He is
chief of the chapter, and it is supposed is called a dean, (_Decanus_,)
from a similar title in ancient monasteries, of an officer who presided
over ten monks.
The dean represents the _Archpresbyter_, or _Protopapas_, who all the
world over, from the most ancient times, was found under one
denomination or another in the principal church of the diocese, to which
a body of clergy was uniformly attached. Notre Dame at Paris had a dean
as early as 991 at least. There was a dean of Bangor in 603; of Llandaff
in 612; at Canterbury from 825 to 1080, then the name of Prior was
substituted. Salisbury had its dean in 1072; Lincoln, 1092. In
conventual cathedrals, the head was generally prior, the bishop being
virtually abbot. The dean was the first dignitary of the cathedral; the
head of the corporation; and, in subordination to the bishop, has,
according to the statutes of more ancient cathedrals, the _cure of
souls_ over the members of the cathedral, and the administration of the
corrective discipline of the Church. He has also duties in the choir and
the chapter in common with all the chapter. He is by our law a sole
corporation, that is, he represents a whole succession, and is capable
of taking an estate as dean, and conveying it to his successors. 2nd,
_Rural deans_, whose office is of ancient date in the Church of England,
long prior to the Reformation, as it has been throughout Europe, and
which many of the bishops are now reviving. Their chief duty is to visit
a certain number of parishes, and to report their condition to the
bishop. (See _Rural Dean_.) The dean was not always head of the chapter
abroad; the provost being sometimes the superior. But he had always the
administration of the discipline in _spirituals_, [_curam animarum_, as
it is expressly called in statutes both of home and foreign Churches,]
the provosts often concerning themselves merely in temporals, and he had
the superintendence of the choir, or cathedral body. (See _Dictionnaire
de Droit Canonique, Lyons_, 1787, voce _Doyen_.) They were, in fact,
very much like the deans in our colleges, though more strictly limited
_ad sacra_. The Dean of Faculty, in most ancient and some modern
universities, presided over the meetings of their respective faculties,
and maintained the academical discipline.
DEAN AND CHAPTER. This is the style and title of the governing body of a
cathedral. A chapter consists of the dean, with a certain number of
canons, or prebendaries, heads of the church—_capita ecclesiæ_. The
origin of this institution is to be traced to a remote antiquity. A
missionary bishop, when converting our ancestors, would take his
position in some central town, with his attendant priests: these, as
opportunity offered, would go to the neighbouring villages to preach the
gospel, and administer the other offices of the Church. But they resided
with the bishop, and were supported out of his revenues. By degrees
parochial settlements were made; but still the bishop required the
attendance of certain of the clergy at his cathedral, to be his council;
(for the bishops never thought of acting without consulting their
clergy;) and also to officiate in his principal church or cathedral.
These persons, to qualify themselves for their office, gave themselves
up to study, and to the maintenance and decoration of their sanctuary;
the services of which were to be a model to all the lesser churches of
the diocese. Forming, in the course of time, a corporation, they
obtained property, and ceased to be dependent upon the bishop for a
maintenance. And being considered the representatives of the clergy,
upon them devolved the government of the diocese when vacant; and they
obtained the privilege, doubtless on the same principle, of choosing the
bishop, which originally belonged to the whole clergy of the diocese, in
conjunction with the bishops of the province. In this privilege they
were supported by the kings of the country, who perceived that they were
more likely to intimidate a chapter into the election of the royal
nominee, than the whole of the clergy of a diocese. But still the deans
and chapters sometimes acting independently, an act was passed under
Henry VIII., by which a dean and chapter refusing to elect the king’s
nominee to the bishopric become individually outlawed, lose all their
property, and are to be imprisoned during pleasure. Since that time
these corporations have always succumbed to the royal will and pleasure.
The great object of the institution, it will be perceived, is, 1st, To
provide the bishop with a council; 2nd, To make provision for a learned
body of divines, who, disengaged from parochial cares, may benefit the
cause of religion by their writings; 3rd, To make provision, also, that
in the cathedral church of each diocese the services shall be performed
with rubrical strictness, and with all the solemnity and grandeur of
which our services are capable.