PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION. (continued 14)

In the Saxon times, the lords spiritual (as well as the other clergy) held by frankalmoigne, but yet made great part (as was said) of the grand council of the nation; being the most learned persons that, in those times of ignorance, met to make laws and regulations. But William the Conqueror turned the frankalmoigne tenures of the bishops and some of the great abbots into baronies; and from thenceforwards they were obliged to send persons to the wars, or were assessed to the escuage, (which was a fine or payment in money instead thereof,) and were obliged to attend in parliament. But the body of the clergy had no baronies, and holding by frankalmoigne, were in a great measure exempt from the charges which were assessed upon the laity, and were therefore by some other way to be brought under the same obligation. In order hereunto several measures were taken, till at last they settled into that method which finally obtained, and set aside the necessity of any other way. First, the pope laid a tax upon the Church for the use of the king; and both their powers uniting, the clergy were forced to submit to it. Next, the bishops were prevailed with, upon some extraordinary occasions, to oblige their clergy to grant a subsidy to the king, in the way of a benevolence; and for this, letters of security were granted back by the king to them, to insure them that what they had done should not be drawn into example or consequence. And these concessions were sometimes made by the bishops in the name of their clergy; but the common way was, that every bishop held a meeting of the clergy of his diocese. Then they agreed what they would do; and empowered first the bishops, afterwards their archdeacons, and finally proctors of their own, chosen for that end, to make the concession for them.

Thus stood this matter till the time of Edward the First, who, not willing to continue at such a precarious rate with his clergy, took another method; and, after several other experiments, fixed at last upon an establishment, which has, to a certain extent, continued ever since, viz. that the earls and barons should be called to parliament as formerly, and embodied in one house; and that the tenants in burgage should also send their representatives; and that the tenants by knight’s service, and other soccage tenants in the counties, should send their representatives; and these were embodied in the other house. He designed to have the clergy as a third estate; and as the bishops were to sit per baroniam in the temporal parliament, 253so they were to sit with the inferior clergy in convocation. And the project and design of the king was, that, as the two temporal estates charged the temporalities, and made laws to bind all temporal things within this realm; so this other body should have given taxes to charge the spiritual possessions, and have made canons to the ecclesiastical body: to this end was the præmunientes clause (so called from the first word thereof) in the summons to the archbishops and bishops, by which he required them to summon such of their inferior clergy to come with them to parliament, as he then specified and thought sufficient to act for the whole body of the clergy. This altered the convocation of the Church of England from the foreign synods; for these were totally composed of the bishops, who were pastors of the Church; and therefore the bishops only were collected to compose such foreign synods, to declare what was the doctrine, or should be the discipline, of the Church.

Edward I. projected making the clergy a third estate, dependent on himself; and, therefore, not only called the bishops, whom as barons he had a right to summon, but the rest of the clergy, that he might have their consent to the taxes and assessments made on that body. But the clergy, foreseeing they were likely to be taxed, alleged that they could not meet under a temporal authority, to make any laws or canons to govern the Church. And this dispute was maintained by the archbishops and bishops, who were very loath the clergy should be taxed, or that they should have any interest in making ecclesiastical canons, which formerly were made by the sole authority of the bishops; for even if those canons had been made at Rome, yet, if they were not made in a general council, they did not think them binding here, unless they were received by some provincial constitution of the bishops. The whole body of the Church being thus dissatisfied, the archbishops and bishops threatened to excommunicate the king: but he and the temporal estate took it so ill that the clergy would not bear any part of the public charge, that they were beforehand with them, and the clergy were all outlawed, and their possessions seised into the king’s hands. This so humbled the clergy that they at last consented to meet. And to take away all pretence, there was a summons, besides the præmunientes clause, to the archbishop, that he should summon the bishops, deans, archdeacons, colleges, and whole clergy of his province. From hence, therefore, the bishops, deans, archdeacons, colleges, and clergy, met by virtue of the archbishop’s summons; to which, being an ecclesiastical authority, they could not object. And so the bishops and clergy came to convocation by virtue of the archbishop’s summons; they esteeming it to be in his power, whether he would obey the king’s writ or not: but when he had issued his summons, they could not pretend it was not their duty to come. But the præmunientes writ was not disused; because it directed the manner in which the clergy were to attend, to wit, the deans and archdeacons in person, the chapter by one, and the clergy by two proctors. So that the clergy were doubly summoned; first, by the bishop, to attend the parliament; and, secondly, by the archbishop, to appear in convocation. And that the archbishop might not appear to summon them solely in pursuance of the king’s writ, he for the most part varied in his summons from the king’s writ, both as to the time and place of their meeting. And lest it might be thought still (of which they were very jealous) that their power was derived from temporal authority, they sometimes met on the archbishop’s summons without the king’s writ; and in such convocation the king demanded supplies, and by such request owned the episcopal authority of convening. So that the king’s writ was reckoned by the clergy no more than one motive for their convening. From henceforward, instead of making one state of the kingdom, as the king designed, the clergy composed two ecclesiastical synods, i. e. of Canterbury and York, under the summons of each of the archbishops; and being forced into those two synods before mentioned, they sat and made canons, by which each respective province was bound, and gave aids and taxes to the king. But the archbishop of Canterbury’s clergy, and that of York, assembled each in their own province; and the king gratified the archbishops, by suffering this new body of convocation to be formed in the nature of a parliament. The archbishop sat as king; his suffragans sat in the upper house as his peers; the deans, archdeacons, and the proctor for the chapter represented the burghers; and the two proctors for the clergy, the knights of the shire. And so this body, instead of being one of the estates as the king designed, became an ecclesiastical parliament, to make laws, and to tax the possessions of the Church.

But although they thus sat as a parliament, and made laws for the Church, yet 254they did not make a part of the parliament properly so called. Sometimes indeed the lords, and sometimes the commons, were wont to send to the convocation for some of their body to give them advice in spiritual matters: but still this was only by way of advice; for the parliament have always insisted that their laws, by their own natural force, bind the clergy; as the laws of all Christian princes did in the first ages of the Church. And even the convocation tax always passed both houses of parliament, since it could not bind as a law till it had the consent of the legislature.

Thus the case stood when the act of submission (25 Henry VIII. c. 19) was made; by which it is enacted as followeth:—“Whereas the king’s humble and obedient subjects, the clergy of this realm of England, have not only acknowledged, according to the truth, that the convocation of the same clergy is, always hath been, and ought to be assembled only by the king’s writ; but also submitting themselves to the king’s Majesty have promised, in verbo sacerdotii, that they will never from henceforth presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure, enact, promulge, or execute any new canons, constitutions, ordinances, provincial or other, or by whatsoever name they shall be called, in the convocation, unless the king’s most royal assent and licence may to them be had, to make, promulge, and execute the same, and that his Majesty do give his most royal assent and authority in that behalf: it is therefore enacted, according to the said submission, that they, nor any of them, shall presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure any constitutions or ordinances provincial, by whatsoever name or names they may be called, in their convocations in time coming (which shall always be assembled by authority of the king’s writ); unless the same clergy may have the king’s most royal assent and licence to make, promulge, and execute such canons, constitutions, and ordinances, provincial or synodal; upon pain of every one of the said clergy doing contrary to this act, and being thereof convict, to suffer imprisonment, and make fine at the king’s will.”

It was resolved upon this statute, by the two chief justices and divers other justices, at a committee before the lords in parliament, in the eighth year of James I., 1. That a convocation cannot assemble at their convocation without the assent of the king. 2. That after their assembly they cannot confer, to constitute any canons, without licence of the king. 3. When they upon conference conclude any canons, yet they cannot execute any of their canons without the royal assent. 4. That they cannot execute any after the royal assent, but with these four limitations: (1.) that they be not against the prerogative of the king; nor (2.) against the common law; nor (3.) against the statute law; nor (4.) against any custom of the realm.

The clergy having continued to tax themselves in convocation as aforesaid, these assemblies were regularly kept up till the act of the 13 Charles II. c. 4, was passed, when the clergy gave their last subsidy: it being then judged more advantageous to continue the taxing them by way of landtax and poll-tax, as it had been in the time of the Long Parliament during the civil wars.

And in the year 1664, by a private agreement between Archbishop Sheldon and the Lord Chancellor Clarendon, and other the king’s ministers, it was concluded that the clergy should silently waive the privilege of taxing their own body, and permit themselves to be included in the money bills prepared by the commons. And this hath made convocations unnecessary to the Crown, and inconsiderable in themselves.

And since that time the clergy have been allowed to vote in choosing knights of the shire, as other freeholders, which in former times they did not.

And from that time the convocation has never passed any synodical act; and from thenceforth, until the year 1700, for the most part they were only called, and very rarely did so much as meet together in a full body, and with the usual solemnity. It is true that, during the remainder of King Charles the Second’s reign, when the office of prolocutor was void by death or promotion, so many of the lower house came together as were thought sufficient to choose a new one; and those members that were about the town commonly met, during parliament, once a week, had prayers read, and were formally continued till the parliament was dissolved, and the convocation together with it. And in King James the Second’s time, the writs issued out of course, but the members did not meet. In the year 1689, after the accession of William and Mary to the throne, a convocation was not only called, but began to sit in due form; but their resolutions came to nothing. And from thence till the year 1700 they were only called, but did not meet; but in that year, and ever since, at the meeting of the parliament, the convocation of the clergy has 255likewise been solemnly opened, and the lower clergy have been permitted to form themselves into a house, and to choose their prolocutor; nor have they been finally dismissed as soon as that solemnity was over, but they continued from time to time till the parliament hath broke up, or been dissolved. And now it seems to be agreed that they are of right to be assembled concurrently with parliaments, and may act and proceed as provincial councils, when her Majesty in her royal wisdom shall judge it expedient.

In Ireland, the convocations of the four provinces assembled all together in Dublin; and were formed exactly upon the model of those of England; consisting of the upper house, consisting of the bishops; and of the lower, consisting of deans, archdeacons, proctors of the chapters, and proctors of the clergy of each diocese.—See Wilkins’s Concilia, iv. 496, and for the rules and privileges of the convocation, iv. 632.

Mr. Stephens, in his Introduction to the Irish Common Prayer Book, (xxxvii. &c.,) remarks that, “In 1615, a convocation of the Irish clergy, formed after the model of the English convocation, assembled in Dublin. This seems to have been the first convocation ever held in Ireland. The clergy do not appear to have granted any subsidies, or ever to have claimed the right of taxing themselves.... In the reign of Henry VIII. there does not seem to be any reference of ecclesiastical matters to the convocation, nor any claim of exemption on the part of the clergy.” [He then quotes the preamble of 28 Henry VIII. c. 12.] “In the second year of Elizabeth a parliament was assembled, and no mention is made of a convocation, though acts with respect to the Church were passed. And in the third year of Elizabeth there was not any parliament, yet she signifies her pleasure to Lord Sussex, the lord lieutenant, for a general meeting of the clergy, and the establishment of the Protestant religion. This of course was an order to summon not a convocation, but the ancient synod of the clergy, which had the power of settling all matters concerning religion.... In Ireland the provincial synod had not been suspended, and by their consent given at three different times in the reign of Edward, ... the clergy revived the use of the English liturgy, and expressed their conformity to the doctrine of the English Church.” There is, indeed, a passage in the Manuscript Collections of Dudley Loftus, which has been adduced as proof of a convocation having been held in 1560: “This year was held a convocation of bishops at the queen’s command, for establishing the Protestant religion.” But he must have used the word convocation merely “to express a meeting of the bishops, and would have adopted a very different phraseology to describe the meeting of the convocation.” See also Ebrington’s Life of Ussher, 38–40. As before observed, (see Church of Ireland,) no provision whatever has been made since the Irish Union, for the assembling even formally of the convocation of the Irish province of the Church. Still it appears (vide 11 Parl. Reg. 164 and 274) that it was by no means intended that the Irish provinces should be deprived of their convocations. It was proposed on the 20th April, 1800, that the archbishops, bishops, and clergy of Ireland, should be summoned to sit in the convocation of the United Church. Mr. Pitt expressly said, in proposing the amendment to this resolution, “that the prosperity of the Church of Ireland never could be permanent, unless it be a part of the Union to have, as a guard, power to the United Parliament to make some provision in this respect;” i.e. convocation. “And afterwards,” he said, “it was judged better to omit the insertion of any provisional article respecting the convocation, till the Union actually took place.” This pledge has never been redeemed.—See an article on the United Church and its Synods, in the Law Review for Feb. 1851.

In Scotland, by an act of parliament, 1663, an order was made for regulating the meetings of the national synod, or, as it is called in England, the convocation of the Church of Scotland; and an act was passed, That this synod shall consist of the two archbishops and their suffragans, all the deans and archdeacons, the fixed moderators, along with one minister of every presbytery, and one commissioner from each of the four universities: That the synod, then constituted, is to meet at such places and times as his Majesty by proclamation shall appoint, and is to debate, treat, consider, consult, conclude, and determine upon such pious matters, causes, and things, concerning the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this Church, as his Majesty shall, from time to time, under his loyal hand, deliver, or cause to be delivered, to the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, president of the said national assembly, to be by him offered to their consideration: That unless his Majesty or his commissioner be present, no national assembly can be held: And that no act, canon, order, or ordinance, shall be owned 256as an act of the national synod of the Church of Scotland, but such as shall have been considered, consulted, and agreed upon by the president and major part of the number above specified.—Skinner’s Eccles. Hist. of Scotland.

COPE. (Cappa, called also pallium, or pluviale.) A kind of cloak worn during Divine service by the clergy. It reaches from the neck nearly to the feet, and is open in front, except at the top, where it is united by a band or clasp. It is in use in the Western Church only; and is probably only a modification of the vestment, or chasuble. The latter, in the Roman Church, is used by the officiating priest at mass only; the other, by all orders of the clergy in procession, &c., on solemn occasions. The rubrics of King Edward VI., still legally in force, prescribe a cope or vestment for the priest administering the holy communion, and for the bishops, when executing any public ministration in the church; for which a vestment may be substituted either by priest or bishop. By the 24th canon the cope only is prescribed to the priest administering the communion, and that only in cathedral churches. But the rubric being subsequently enacted, which refers to the regulation of Edward VI.’s First Prayer Book, the latter is more strictly to be considered as the law of the Church. It was used in several churches and college chapels in the 17th century, (see Jebb’s Church Service, p. 217,) and was in use at Durham cathedral and Westminster till the middle of the last century. De Foe, in his anonymous Tour through England, 1762, says that “the old vestments, which the clergy before the Reformation wore, are still used on Sundays and holidays, by the residents.” And Dr. Collis, in his Rubric of the Church of England examined, 1737, says that “no copes are worn at present in any cathedral or collegiate church in the ministration of the holy communion, except in the churches of Westminster and Durham.” The cope has always been worn by officiating bishops, and by the dean and prebendaries of Westminster at coronations, and occasionally at state funerals.

COPIATÆ. The office of the Copiatæ, (κοπιάω, to travail,) who are called in Latin Fossarii, was to superintend funerals, and to see that all persons had a decent burial. They performed their office gratuitously towards the poor.—Cave.

COPTS. The Monophysite, or Jacobite, Christians of Egypt, who have been for eleven centuries in possession of the patriarchal chair of Alexandria, and the dominant sect among the Christians of that region, are called Copts. They were placed in possession of the Egyptian churches on the irruption of the Saracens in the seventh century. Their numbers are now perhaps about 100,000. They have three liturgies, one ascribed to St. Basil, which they use on fast days; that of St. Cyril, which they use in Lent; and that of St. Gregory, which they use on festivals. Their service is very much crowded with ceremonies. The Coptic tongue, in which their worship is conducted, is to them a dead language, and not even understood by many of their priests. Their habits of life are ascetic, and they have many monasteries. They have a patriarch, who resides at Cairo, but takes his title from Alexandria.

CORBEL. A bracket. A projection supporting a weight; and so corbel-table, a table or horizontal projection supported by corbels. Corbel-tables are almost confined to the Norman, Transition, and Early English periods. Corbels in other places are of course continued; they are often of extreme beauty.

CORDELIERS. (Monks of the Order of St. Francis.) They wear coarse grey cloth with a little cowl, and a rope girdle with three knots; from this girdle they are called Cordeliers. They are the same with the Minorites; but had the name of Cordeliers given them upon this occasion, they having repulsed the infidels in a war which St. Louis made against them, the king asked their name, and was answered, they were des Gens des Cordelies—people with cords about them. (See Franciscans.)

CORONATION. The solemn religious rite by which a sovereign prince is consecrated to his high office, in which also the queen consort in Christian countries is usually associated with her husband, not for office’ sake, but honoris gratia.

By ancient custom the coronation of the sovereign of England belongs to the archbishop of Canterbury, and that of the queen consort to the archbishop of York. The place is Westminster Abbey. The kings of Scotland were crowned at Scone.

According to Mr. Palmer, (Supplement,) the coronation of sovereigns may 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 257Service, 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 258of 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 259first 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 260Mediator. 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 261as 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 262not 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.

263“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 264that, 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 265bringing 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; 266and 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, 267was 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 268gives 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.

269Wherever 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, 270it 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.”

271Declaration 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).