instances fastened to the cross by nails through the hands and feet, but
were merely bound to it by ropes, cannot be proved by the testimony of
any ancient writer whatever. That the feet, as well as the hands, were
fastened to the cross by means of nails, is expressly asserted in the
play of Plautus, entitled “Mostellaria,” compared with Tertullian
against the Jews, and against Marcion. In regard to the nailing of the
feet, it may be farthermore observed, that Gregory Nazianzen has
asserted, that one nail only was driven through both of them; but
Cyprian, (_de passione_,) who had been a personal witness to
crucifixions, and is, consequently, in this case, the better authority,
states, on the contrary, that two nails or spikes were driven, one
through each foot. The crucified person remained suspended in this way
till he died, and the corpse had become putrid. While he exhibited any
signs of life, he was watched by a guard; but they left him when it
appeared that he was dead. The corpse was not buried, except by express
permission, which was sometimes granted by the emperor on his birth day,
but only to a very few. An exception, however, to this general practice
was made by the Romans in favour of the Jews, on account of Deut. xxi,
22, 23; and in Judea, accordingly, crucified persons were buried on the
same day. When, therefore, there was not a prospect that they would die
on the day of the crucifixion, the executioners hastened the extinction
of life, by kindling a fire under the cross, so as to suffocate them
with the smoke, or by letting loose wild beasts upon them, or by
breaking their bones upon the cross with a mallet, as upon an anvil. The
Jews, in the times of which we are speaking, namely, while they were
under the jurisdiction of the Romans, were in the habit of giving the
criminal, before the commencement of his sufferings, a medicated drink
of wine and myrrh, Prov. xxxi, 6. The object of this was to produce
intoxication, and thereby render the pains of the crucifixion less
sensible to the sufferer. This beverage was refused by the Saviour for
the obvious reason, that he chose to die with the faculties of his mind
undisturbed and unclouded, Matt. xxvii, 34; Mark xv, 23. It should be
remarked, that this sort of drink, which was probably offered out of
kindness, was different from the vinegar which was subsequently offered
to the Saviour by the Roman soldiers. The latter was a mixture of
vinegar and water, denominated _posca_, and was a common drink for the
soldiers in the Roman army, Luke xxiii, 36; John xix, 29.
2. Crucifixion was not only the most ignominious, it was likewise the
most cruel, mode of punishment: so very much so, that Cicero is
justified in saying, in respect to crucifixion, “_Ab oculis, auribusque
et omni cogitatione hominum, removendum esse_.” [That it ought neither
to be seen, heard of, nor even thought of by men.] The sufferings
endured by a person on whom this punishment is inflicted are narrated by
George Gottlieb Richter, a German physician, in a “Dissertation on the
Saviour’s Crucifixion.” The position of the body is unnatural, the arms
being extended back, and almost immovable. In case of the least motion,
an extremely painful sensation is experienced in the hands and feet,
which are pierced with nails, and in the back, which is lacerated with
stripes. The nails, being driven through the parts of the hands and feet
which abound in nerves and tendons, create the most exquisite anguish.
The exposure of so many wounds to the open air brings on an
inflammation, which every moment increases the poignancy of the
suffering. In those parts of the body which are distended or pressed,
more blood flows through the arteries than can be carried back in the
veins. The consequence is, that a greater quantity of blood finds its
way from the _aorta_ into the head and stomach, than would be carried
there by a natural and undisturbed circulation. The blood vessels of the
head become pressed and swollen, which of course causes pain, and a
redness of the face. The circumstance of the blood being impelled in
more than ordinary quantities into the stomach is an unfavourable one
also, because it is that part of the system which not only admits of the
blood being stationary, but is peculiarly exposed to mortification. The
aorta, not being at liberty to empty, in the free and undisturbed way as
formerly, the blood which it receives from the left ventricle of the
heart, is unable to receive its usual quantity. The blood of the lungs,
therefore, is unable to find a free circulation. This general
obstruction extends its effects likewise to the right ventricle, and the
consequence is, an internal excitement, and exertion, and anxiety, which
are more intolerable than the anguish of death itself. All the large
vessels about the heart, and all the veins and arteries in that part of
the system, on account of the accumulation and pressure of blood, are
the source of inexpressible misery. The degree of anguish is gradual in
its increase; and the person crucified is able to live under it commonly
till the third, and sometimes till the seventh, day. Pilate, therefore,
being surprised at the speedy termination of the Saviour’s life,
inquired in respect to the truth of it of the centurion himself, who
commanded the soldiers, Mark xv, 44. In order to bring their life to a
more speedy termination, so that they might be buried on the same day,
the bones of the two thieves were broken with mallets, John xix, 31–37;
and in order to ascertain this point in respect to Jesus, namely,
whether he was really dead, or whether he had merely fallen into a
swoon, a soldier thrust his lance into his side; but no signs of life
appeared, John xix, 31–37.
3. Our Saviour says, that whosoever will be his disciple must take up
his cross and follow him, Matt. xvi, 24: by which is meant, that his
disciples must be willing to suffer for him, in any way in which God, in
the course of his providence, may call them to suffer; even to endure
martyrdom, if called to it. The cross is also often put for the whole of
Christ’s sufferings, Eph. ii, 16; Heb. xii, 2; and the doctrine of his
perfect atonement, Gal. vi, 14.
CROWN is a term properly taken for a cap of state worn on the heads of
sovereign princes, as a mark of regal dignity. In Scripture there is
frequent mention made of crowns; and the use of them seems to have been
very common among the Hebrews. The high priest wore a crown, which was
girt about his mitre, or the lower part of his bonnet, and was tied
about his head. On the forepart was a plate of gold, with these words
engraven on it: “Holiness to the Lord,” Exod. xxviii, 36; xxix, 6.
New-married persons of both sexes wore crowns upon their wedding day,
Cant., iii, 11; and, alluding to this custom, it is said that when God
entered into covenant with the Jewish nation, he put a beautiful crown
upon their head, Ezekiel xvi, 12. The first crowns were no more than a
bandelet drawn round the head, and tied behind, as we see it still
represented on medals, &c. Afterward, they consisted of two bandelets;
by degrees they took branches of trees of divers kinds, &c; at length
they added flowers; and Claudius Saturninus says there was not any plant
of which crowns had not been made.
There was always a difference, either in matter or form, between the
crowns of kings and great men, and those of private persons. The crown
of a king was generally a white fillet bound about his forehead, the
extremities whereof being tied behind the head, fell back on the neck.
Sometimes they were made of gold tissue, adorned with jewels. That of
the Jewish high priest, which is the most ancient of which we have any
description, was a fillet of gold placed upon his forehead, and tied
with a ribbon of a hyacinth colour, or azure blue. The crown, mitre, and
diadem, royal fillet and tiara, are frequently confounded. Crowns were
bestowed on kings and princes, as the principal marks of their dignity.
David took the crown of the king of the Ammonites from off his head: the
crown weighed a talent of gold, and was moreover enriched with jewels, 2
Sam. xii, 30; 1 Chron. xx, 2. The Amalekite who valued himself on
killing Saul, brought this prince’s crown unto David, 2 Sam. i, 10. The
crown was placed upon the head of young King Josiah, when he was
presented to the people, in order to be acknowledged by them, 2 Chron.
xxiii, 11. Baruch says that the idols of the Babylonians wore golden
crowns, Baruch vi, 9. Queens, too, wore diadems among the Persians. King
Ahasuerus honoured Vashti with this mark of power; and, after her
divorce, the same favour was granted to Esther, chap. ii, 17. The
elders, in Rev. iv, 10, are said to “cast their crowns before the
throne.” The allusion is here to the tributary kings dependent upon the
Roman emperors. Herod took off his diadem in the presence of Augustus,
till ordered to replace it. Tiridates did homage to Nero by laying the
ensigns of royalty at the foot of his statue.
Pilate’s guard platted a crown of thorns, and placed it on the head of
Jesus Christ, Matt. xxvii, 29, with an intention to insult him, under
the character of the king of the Jews. See _Thorn_. In a figurative
sense, a crown signifies honour, splendour, or dignity, Lam. v, 16;
Phil. iv, 1; and is also used for reward, because conquerors, in the
Grecian games, were crowned, 1 Corinthians ix, 25.
CRYSTAL, קרח. This word is translated “crystal” in Ezek. i, 22; and
“frost,” Gen. xxxi, 40; Job xxxvii, 10; Jeremiah xxxvi, 30; and “ice,”
Job vi, 16; xxxviii, 29; Psalm cxlvii, 17; κρυϛαλλος, Rev. iv, 6; xxii,
1. Crystal is supposed to have its name from its resemblance to ice. The
Greek word, κρύϛαλλος, is formed from κρύος, _ice_, and ϛαλάσσομαι, _to
concrete_. The word, זכוכית, is translated _crystal_, in Job xxviii, 17.
Dr. Good observes, “We are not certain of the exact signification,
farther than that it denotes some perfectly transparent and hyaline
gem.”
CUBIT, a measure used among the ancients. The Hebrews call it אמא, the
mother of other measures: in Greek ϖῆχυς. A cubit originally was the
distance from the elbow to the extremity of the middle finger: this is
the fourth part of a well proportioned man’s stature. The common cubit
is eighteen inches. The Hebrew cubit, according to Bishop Cumberland and
M. Pelletier, is twenty-one inches; but others fix it at eighteen
inches. The Talmudists observe, that the Hebrew cubit was larger by one
quarter than the Roman. Lewis Capellus and others have asserted that
there were two sorts of cubits among the Hebrews; one sacred, the other
common; the sacred containing three feet, the common containing a foot
and a half. Moses assigns to the Levites a thousand sacred cubits of
land round about their cities, Num. xxxv, 4; and in the next verse he
gives them two thousand common ones. The opinion, however, is very
probable, that the cubit varied in different districts and cities, and
at different times, &c.
CUCUMBER, קשאים, σίκυος, _cucumis_, Num. xi, 5, the fruit of a plant
very common in our gardens. Tournefort mentions six kinds, of which the
white and green are most esteemed. They are very plentiful in the east,
especially in Egypt, and much superior to ours. Maillet, in describing
the vegetables which the modern Egyptians have for food, tells us, that
melons, cucumbers, and onions are the most common; and Celsius and
Alpinus describe the Egyptian cucumbers as more agreeable to the taste
and of more easy digestion than the European.
CULDEES, a body of religious, who chiefly resided in Scotland, Ireland,
and some of the adjacent isles. The name has been also written _Keldees_
and _Kyldees_. Various etymons have been given of it. Two of these seem
to have superior claims to attention. It may be deduced either from
Irish _ceile_, or, _gille_, a servant, and _De_, _Dia_, God; or from
_cuil_, _ceal_, in Welsh _cel_, a sequestered corner, a retreat. The
latter seems to derive support from the established sense of _kil_,
retained in the names of so many places, which, in an early age, have
been consecrated to religion. It is more than probable that Christianity
had found its way into Scotland before the close of the second century;
and that it continued to be professed by a few scattered individuals
even before the arrival of Ninian, in the beginning of the fifth. But we
have no proof of the existence of any religious societies observing a
particular institute, till the year 563, when Columba landed in Hii, or
Iona; which, in honour of him, was afterward called _I-colum-kill_; that
is, the isle of Colum, or Columba, of the cells. He was born in Ireland,
A. D. 521; and, after founding many seminaries of religion there,
prompted by zeal for the propagation of Christianity, set sail for
Scotland with twelve companions. According to Bede, having converted the
northern Picts, he received from Brudi, their king, the island of Hii in
possession, for the purpose of erecting a monastery. Here he almost
constantly resided till the year 597, when he died. He made occasional
visits to the mainland, proceeding even as far as to Inverness: also to
Ireland, where he was held in high estimation. As he was himself much
devoted to the study of the Holy Scriptures, he taught his disciples to
confirm their doctrines by testimonies brought from this unpolluted
fountain, and declared that only to be the divine counsel which he found
there. His followers, faithful to his instructions, “would receive those
things only which are contained in the writings of the Prophets,
Evangelists, and Apostles, diligently observing the works of piety and
purity.” They lived, indeed, according to a certain institute, which, it
is said, was composed by their venerable instructer. But there was this
remarkable distinction between them and those societies properly called
monastic, that they were not associated expressly for the purpose of
observing this rule. While they seem to have reckoned something of this
kind necessary for the preservation of order, and for the attainment of
habits of diligence, their great design was, by the instruction of those
committed to their charge, to train them up for the work of the
ministry. Hence it has been justly observed, that the Culdean
fraternities may more properly be viewed as colleges than as
monasteries; as being in fact, the seminaries of the church both in
North Britain and in Ireland. There were also Culdees in Wales; and, for
many ages, the Christians of that country held the same doctrines, and
observed the same rites, with their Scottish and Irish brethren. The
presbyters not only acted as the ministers of religion to those in their
vicinity, but were still instructing others, and sending forth
missionaries whenever they had a call, or any prospect of success.
2. In each regular establishment of the Culdees, it would appear that
there were twelve brethren, with one who presided over them. Their
ecclesiastical government has been viewed as materially the same with
the Presbyterian. Their president, or abbot, was not a bishop, but a
presbyter; to whose authority, as we learn from Bede, even the bishops
of the district were subject. In their meetings, all matters were
settled by plurality of voices. The members of this council had the
general designation of _seniores_, or elders. To them, collectively,
belonged the trial of the gifts of those who had been educated in their
seminaries, when they were to be employed in the public ministry; from
them they received ordination and mission, and to them they were
amenable in the discharge of their office. Those whom they thus employed
are, by ancient writers, often denominated bishops. But that they
attached to this designation no dignity superior to that of presbyter,
appears incontrovertible from their being afterward called to account,
and sometimes censured by the fraternity. It has been asserted by the
friends of diocesan episcopacy, that a bishop _must_ always have resided
at Iona for the purpose of conferring ordination. But there is not the
slightest evidence of this. The contrary appears from all the records of
these early ages. We learn from the Saxon Chronicle, that “there was
always an abbot at Hii, but no bishop.” It is a singular fact, that
those who were first acknowledged as bishops in the northern parts of
England, and were indeed instrumental in the introduction of
Christianity there, were not only trained up at Iona, but received all
their authority from the council of seniors in that island. This was the
case with respect to Corman, the bishop of the Northumbrians, as well as
Aidan, Finan, and Colman, who succeeded each other in this mission. From
the testimony of Bede, it is evident that by means of Scottish
missionaries, or of those whom they had instructed and ordained, not
only the Northumbrians, but the Middle-Angles, the Mercians and
East-Saxons, all the way to the river Thames, that is, the inhabitants
of by far the greatest part of the country now called England, were
converted to Christianity; and for some time acknowledged subjection to
the ecclesiastical government of the Scots. The latter lost their
influence merely because their missionaries chose rather to give up
their charges than to submit to the prevailing influence of the church
of Rome, to which the Saxons of the west and of Kent had subjected
themselves.
3. Their doctrines were not less unpalatable than their mode of
government to the friends of the church of Rome. In England, in a very
early period, the adherents of the Popish missionary Augustine were
viewed by the delegates from Iona in the light of heretics. They
accordingly refused to hold communion with them. Matters were carried so
high in support of the Roman authority in the synod of Stroneschalch,
now Whitby, in England, A. D. 662, that Colman, the Scottish bishop of
Lindisfarne, left his bishopric, and with his adherents returned to
Scotland. Thus, as Bede informs us, “the Catholic institution daily
increasing, all the Scots who resided among the Angles, either conformed
to them or returned to their own country.” It was decreed in the council
of Cealhythe, A. D. 816, that no Scottish priest should be allowed to
perform any duty of his function in England. But in Scotland the Culdean
doctrine had taken deeper root; and, although equally offensive to the
votaries of Rome, kept its ground for several centuries. The Popish
writers themselves celebrate the piety, the purity, the humility, and
even the learning, of the Culdees; but while they were displeased with
the simplicity, or what they deemed the barbarism, of their worship,
they charged them with various deviations from the faith of the Catholic
church. It was not the least of these, that they did not observe Easter
at the proper time. They did not acknowledge auricular confession; they
rejected penance and authoritative absolution; they made no use of
chrism in baptism; confirmation was unknown; they opposed the doctrine
of the real presence; they withstood the idolatrous worship of saints
and angels, dedicating all their churches to the Holy Trinity; they
denied the doctrine of works of supererogation; they were enemies to the
celibacy of the clergy, themselves living in the married state. One
sweeping charge brought against them is, that they preferred their own
opinions to “the statutes of the holy fathers.”
4. The Scots, having received the Christian faith by the labours of the
Culdees, long withstood the errors and usurpations of Rome. It was not
till the twelfth century that their influence began to decline. The
difference between the lower classes of society in England and those of
the same description in Scotland, both with respect to religious
knowledge and moral conduct, is generally considered to be very
striking. Some writers, whose attention has been arrested by this
singular circumstance, and who could not be influenced by local
attachments, have ascribed the disparity to the relative influence,
however remote it may seem, of the doctrine and example of the Culdees.
Notwithstanding their great disinterestedness and diligence in
propagating the Gospel in England, these good men, it has been remarked,
within thirty years after the commencement of their mission, were
obliged to give way to the adherents of Rome; whereas the Scots, it is
certainly known, enjoyed the benefit of their labours for more than
seven centuries, and seem to have still retained their predilection for
the doctrines and modes which they so early received.
CUMMIN, כמון, Isaiah xxviii, 25, 27; κύμινον, Matt. xxiii, 23. This is
an umbelliferous plant, in appeara resembling fennel, but smaller. Is
seeds have a bitterish warm taste, accompanied with an aromatic flavour,
not of the most agreeable kind. An essential oil is obtained from them
by distillation. The Jews sowed it in their fields, and when ripe
threshed out the seeds with a rod, Isaiah xxviii, 25, 27. The Maltese
sow it, and collect the seeds in the same manner.
CUP. This word is taken in a twofold sense; proper, and figurative. In a
proper sense, it signifies a vessel, such as people drink out of at
meals, Gen. xl, 13. It was anciently the custom, at great
entertainments, for the governor of the feast to appoint to each of his
guests the kind and proportion of wine which they were to drink, and
what he had thus appointed them it was deemed a breach of good manners
either to refuse or not to drink up; hence a man’s cup, both in sacred
and profane authors, came to signify the portion, whether of good or
evil, which happens to him in this world. Thus, to drink “the cup of
trembling,” or of “the fury of the Lord,” is to be afflicted with sore
and terrible judgments, Isaiah li, 17; Jeremiah xxv, 15–29; Psalm lxxv,
8. What Christ means by the expression, we cannot be at a loss to
understand, since in two remarkable passages, Luke xxii, 42, and John
xviii, 11, he has been his own interpreter. _Lethale poculum bibere_,
“to drink the deadly cup,” or cup of death, was a common phrase among
the Jews; and from them, we have reason to believe, our Lord borrowed
it.
CUP OF BLESSING, 1 Corinth. x, 16, is that which was blessed in
entertainments of ceremony, or solemn services; or, rather, a cup over
which God was blessed for having furnished its contents; that is, for
giving to men the fruit of the vine. Our Saviour, in the Last Supper,
blessed the cup, and gave it to each of his Apostles to drink, Luke
xxii, 20.
CUP OF SALVATION, Psalm cxvi, 13, a phrase of nearly the same import as
the former, a cup of thanksgiving, of blessing the Lord for his saving
mercies. We see, in 2 Macc. vi, 27, that the Jews of Egypt, in their
festivals for deliverance, offered cups of salvation. The Jews have at
this day cups of thanksgiving, which are blessed, in their marriage
ceremonies, and in entertainments made at the circumcision of their
children. Some commentators think that “the cup of salvation” was a
libation of wine poured on the victim sacrificed on thanksgiving
occasions, according to the law of Moses, Exod. xxix, 40.
CURSE. To curse, signifies to imprecate, to call for mischief upon, or
wish evil to, any one. Noah cursed his grandson Canaan, Gen. ix, 25:
Jacob cursed the fury of his two sons, Gen. xlix, 7: Moses enjoins the
people of Israel to denounce curses against the violaters of the law,
Deut. xxvii, 15, 16, &c. Joshua pronounced a curse upon him who should
undertake to rebuild Jericho. These curses were such as were either
ordained by God himself, and pronounced by men under the influence of
his Spirit; or they were predictions of certain evils which would happen
to individuals, or to a people, uttered in the form of imprecations.
They were not the effects of passion, impatience, or revenge; and,
therefore, were not things condemned by God in his law, like the cursing
mentioned, Exodus xxi, 17, xxii, 28, Leviticus xix, 14.
CUSH, the eldest son of Ham, and father of Nimrod, Seba, Havilah,
Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtecha; and the grandfather of Sheba and Dedan.
The posterity of Cush, spread over great part of Asia and Africa, were
called Cushim, or Cushites; and by the Greeks and Romans, and in our
Bible, Ethiopians.