rest being brought to Rome, and deposited in the church of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem.

Exaltation of the Cross, an ancient feast held on the 14th of September, in memory of this, that Heraclitus restored to Mount Calvary the true cross, in 642, which had been carried off fourteen years before by Cosrocs, king of Persia, upon his taking Jerusalem from the emperor Phocas.

The Adoration of the Cross seems to have been practised in the ancient church, in as much as the heathens, particularly Julian, reproached the primitive Christians with it; and we do not find that their apologists disclaimed the charge. Mornay, indeed, asserted that this had been done by St. Cyril, but could not support his allegation at the conference of Fontainbleau. St. Helena is said to have reduced the adoration of the cross to its just principle, since she adored Christ in the wood, not the wood itself. With such modifications some Protestants have been induced to admit the adoration of the cross. John Huss allowed of the phrase, provided it were expressly added, that the adoration was relative to the person of Christ. But, however Roman catholics may seem to triumph by virtue of such distinction and mitigations, it is well known they have no great place in their own practice. Imbert, the prior of Gascony, was severely prosecuted in 1683, for telling the people, that, in the ceremony of adoring the cross, practised in that church on Good Friday, they were not to adore the wood, but Christ, who was crucified on it. The curate of the parish told them the contrary. It was the wood; the wood they were to adore! Imbert replied, it was Christ, not the wood; for which he was cited before the archbishop of Bourdeaux, suspended from his functions, and even threatened with chains and perpetual imprisonment. It little availed him to cite the bishop of Meaux's distinction; it was answered, that the church allowed it not.

CROSS-BEARER, in the Romish church, the chaplain of an archbishop, who bears a cross before him on solerin occasions. Cross-bearers also denote | certain officers in the Inquisition, who make a vow before the inquisitors, or their vicars, to defend the catholic faith, though with the loss of fortune and life. Their business is also to provide the inquisitors with necessaries.

CRUCIFIX, a cross, upon which the body of Christ is fastened in effigy, used by the Roman catholics, to excite in

CRUSADE. See CROISADE.

CURATE, the lowest degree in the church of England; he who represents the incumbent of a church, parson, or vicar, and officiates in his stead: he is to be licensed and admitted by the bishop of the diocese, or by an ordinary having episcopal jurisdiction; and when a curate hath the approbation of the bishop, he usually appoints the salary too; and, in such case, if he be not paid, the curate hath a proper remedy in the ecclesiastical court, by a sequestration of the profits of the benefice; but if the curate be not licensed by the bishop, he is put to his remedy at common law, where he must prove the agreement, &c. A curate, having no fixed estate in his curacy, not being instituted and inducted, may be removed at pleasure by the bishop, or incumbent. But there are perpetual curates as well as temporary, who are appointed where tithes are impropriate, and no vicarage endowed: these are not removeable, and the improprietors are obliged to find them; some whereof have certain portions of the tithes settled on them. Curates must subscribe the declaration according to the act of uniformity, or are liable to imprisonment. Though the condition of curates be somewhat ameliorated by a late act, it must be confessed that they are still, in many respects, exposed to hardships: their salaries are not equal to many dissenting ministers, who have nothing to depend on but the liberality of their people. Can there be a greater reproach to the dignified ecclesiastics of this country, than the comparatively miserable pittance allowed the curates, who do all the labour? Surely they must be a set of useless beings, to reap so little wages; or else they are unjustly treated!!!

CURIOSITY, a propensity or disposition of the soul which inclines it to enquire after new objects, and to delight in viewing them. Curiosity is proper, when it springs from a desire to know our duty, to mature our judgments, to enlarge our minds, and to regulate our conduct; but improper when it wishes to know more of God, of the decrees; the origin of evil; the state of men, or the nature of things, than it is designed for us to know. The evil of this is evident. It reproaches God's goodness; it is a violation of Scripture, Deut. xxii. 29; it robs us of our time; it often makes us unhappy, lessens our usefulness, and

produces mischief. To cure this disposition let us consider the divine command, Phil. iv. 6 that every thing essential is revealed, that God cannot err; that we shall be satisfied in a future state. Is. xiii. 7. Curiosity concerning the affairs of others is exceedingly reprehensible. "It interrupts," says an elegant writer," the order, and breaks the peace of society. Persons of this disposition are dangerous troublers of the world. Crossing the lines in which others move, they create confusion, and awaken resentment. Hence, many a friendship has been broken; the peace of many a family has been overthrown; and much bitter and lasting discord has been propagated through society. Such a disposition is entirely the reverse of that amiable spirit of charity our Lord inculcates. Charity, like the sun, brightens every object on which it shines: a censorious disposition casts every character into the darkest shade it will bear. It is to be further observed, that all impertinent curiosity about the affairs of others tends greatly to obstruct per onal reformation. They who are so officiously occupied about their neighbours have little leisure, and less inclination, to observe their own defects, or to mind their own duty. From their inquisitive researches, they find, or imagine, they find, in the behaviour of others, an apology for their own failing; and the favourite result of their enquiries generally is, to rest satisfied with themselves. We should consider, also, that every excursion of vain curiosity about others is a subtraction from that time and thought which are due to ourselves, and to God. In the great circle of human affairs, there is room for every one to be busy, and well employed in his own province, without encroaching upon that of others. It is the province of superiors to direct; of inferiors to obey; of the learned to be instructive; of the ignorant to be docile; of the old to be communicative; of the young to be adviseable and diligent. In all the various relations which subsist among us in life, as husband and wife, master and servants, parents and children, relations and friends, rulers and subjects, innumerable duties stand ready to be performed; innumerable calls to activity present themselves on every hand, sufficient to fill up with advantage and honour the whole time of man. Blair & Serm. vol. iv. ser. 8; Clarke's Serm. ser. on Deut. xxix. 29; Seed's Posth Serm. ser. 7.

CURSE, the action of wishing any tremendous evil to another. In Scripture

CUSTOM, a very comprehensive term, denoting the manners, ceremo nies, and fashions of a people, which having turned into habit, and passed into use, obtain the force of laws. Custom and habit are often confounded. By custom, we mean a frequent reiteration of the same act; and by habit, the effect that custom has on the mind or the body. See HABIT.

66

Viewing man," says Lord Kames, as a sensitive being, and perceiving the influence of novelty upon him, would one suspect that custom has an equal influence? and yet our nature is equally susceptible of both; not only in different objects, but frequently in the same. When an object is new, it is enchanting; familiarity renders it indifferent; and custom, after a longer familiarity makes it again desirable. Human nature, diversined with many and various springs of action, is wonderful, and indulging the expression, intricately constructed. Custom hath such influence upon many of our feelings, by warping and varying them, that we must attend to its operations, if we would be acquainted with human nature. A walk upon the quarter-deck, though intolerably confined, becomes, however, so agreeable by custom, that a sailor, in his walk on shore, confines himself commonly within the same bounds. I knew a man who had relinquished the sea for a country life: in the corner of his garden he reared an artificial mount, with a level summit, resembling, most accurately, a quarter-deck, not only in shape, but in size; and here was his choice walk." Such we find is often the power of custom.

CYNICS, a sect of ancient philosophers, who valued themselves upon their contempt of riches and state, arts and sciences, and every thing, in short, except virtue and morality. They owe their origin and institution to Antisthenes of Athens, a disciple of Socrates; who being asked of what use his philosophy had been to him, replied, it enables me to live with myself." Diogenes was the most famous of his disciples, in whose life the system of this philosophy appears in its greatest perfection. He led a most whimsical life, despising every kind of convenience; a tub serving him for a lodging, which he rolled before him wherever he went: yet he was

not the more humble on account of his ragged cloak. bag and tub. One day entering Plato's house, at a time when there was a splendid entertainment for several persons of distinction, he jumped, in all his dirt, upon a very rich couch, saving, "I trample on the pride of Plato!" "yes," replied Plato, "but

with still greater pride, Diogenes!" He had the utmost contempt for all the human race; for he walked the street of Athens at noon day, with a lighted lantern in his hand, telling the people "he was in search of an honest man." But with all his maxims of morality, he held some very pernicious opinions.

DAMIANISTS, a denomination in the sixth century, so called from Damian, bishop of Alexandria. Their opinions were the same as the Angelites, which see.

DÆMONS, a name given by the ancients to certain spirits or genii, which, they say, appeared to men, either to do them service, or to hurt them.

Several of the heathen philosophers held that there were different kinds of dæmons; that some of them were spiritual substances, of a more noble origin than the human race, and that others had once been men.

But those dæmons who were the more immediate objects of the established worship among the ancient nations were human spirits, such as were believed to become dæmons, or deities, after their departure from their bodies.

It has been generally thought, that by demons we are to understand devils, in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Others think the word is is in that version certainly applied to the ghosts of such dead men as the heathens deified, in Deut. xxxii. 17. Ps. cvi. 37. That damon often bears the same meaning in the New Testament, and particularly in Acts, xvii. 18. 1 Cor. x. 21. 1 Tim. iv. 1. Rev. ix. 13. is shown at large by Mr. Joseph Mede (see Works, p. 623, et seq.) That the word is applied always to human spirits in the New Testament, Mr. Farmer has attempted to shew in his Essay on Dæmoniacs, p. 208. et. seq. As to the meaning of the word Demon in the fathers of the Christian church, it is used by them in the same sense as it was by the heathen philosophers, especially the latter Platonists; that is, sometimes for departed human spirits, and at other times for such spirits as had never inhabited human bodies. In the fathers, indeed, the word is more commonly taken in an evil sense, than in the ancient philosophers.

DÆMONIÁC, a human being whose

er.

volition and other mental faculties are overpowered and restrained, and his body possessed and actuated by some created spiritual being of superior powSuch seems to be the determinate sense of the word; but it is disputed whether any of mankind ever were in this unfortunate condition. That the reader may form some judgment, we shall lay before him the arguments on both sides.

1. Dæmoniacs, arguments against the existence of. Those who are unwilling to allow that angels or devils have ever intermeddled with the concerns of human life, urge a number of specious arguments. The Greeks and Romans of old, say they, did believe in the reality of dæmonical possession. They supposed that spiritual beings did at times enter into the sons and daughters of men, and distinguish themselves in that situation by capricious freaks, deeds of wanton mischief, or prophetic enunciations. But in the instances in which they supposed this to happen, it is evident no such thing took place. Their accounts of the state and conduct of those persons whom they believed to be possessed in this supernatural manner, show plainly that what they ascribed to the influence of dæmons were merely the effect of natural diseases. Whatever they relate concerning the larvati, the cerriti, and the lymphatici, shows that these were merely people disordered in mind, in the same unfortunate situation with those madmen, ideots, and melancholy persons, whom we have among ourselves. Festus describes the larvati as being furiosi et mente moti. Lucian describes dæmoniacs as lunatic, and as staring with their eyes, foaming at the mouth, and being speechless. It appears still more evident that all the persons spoken of as possessed with devils in the New Testament, were either mad or epileptic, and precisely in the same condition with the madmen and epileptics of modern times.

The

Jews, among other reproaches which they threw out against our Saviour, said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him? The expressions he hath a devil, and is mad, were certainly used on this occasion as synonymous. With all their virulence, they would not surely ascribe to him at once two things that were inconsistent and contradictory. Those who thought more favourably of the character of Jesus, asserted concerning his discourses, in reply to his adversaries, These are not the words of him that hath a dæmon; meaning, no doubt, that he spoke in a more rational manner than a madman could be expected to speak. The Jews appear to have ascribed to the influence of dæmons, not only that species of madness in which the patient is raving and furious,but also melancholy madness. Of John, who secluded himself from intercourse with the world, and was distinguished for abstinence and acts of mortification, they said, He hath a demon. The youth, whose father applied to Jesus to free him from an evil spirit, describing his unhappy condition in these words, Have mercy on my son, for he is lunatic, and sore vexed with a demon; for oft times he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water, was plainly epileptic. Every thing, indeed, that is related in the New Testament concerning dæmoniacs, proves that they were people affected with such natural diseases as are far from being uncommon among mankind in the present age. When the symptoms of the disorders cured by our Saviour and his apostles as cases of dæmonical possession correspond so exactly with those of diseases well known as natural in the present age, it would be absurd to impute them to a supernatural cause. It is much more consistent with common sense and sound philosophy to suppose that our Saviour and his apostles wisely, and with that condescension to the weakness and prejudices of those with whom they conversed, which so eminently distinguished the character of the Author of our holy religion, and must always be a prominent feature in the character of the true Christian, adopted the vulgar language in speaking of those unfortunate persons who were groundlessly imagined to be possessed with dæmons, though they well knew the notions which had given rise to such modes of expression to be ill founded, than to imagine that diseases which arise at present from natural causes, were produced in days of old by the intervention of dæmons, or that evil spirits still con

tinue to enter into mankind in all cases of madness, melancholy, or epilepsy. Besides, it is by no means a sufficient reason for receiving any doctrine as true, that it has been generally received through the world. Error, like an epidemical disease, is communicated from one to another. In certain circumstances, too, the influence of imagination predominates, and restrains the exertions of reason. Many false opinions have extended their influence through a very wide circle, and maintained it long. On every such occasion as the present, therefore, it becomes us to enquire not so much how generally any opinion has been received, or how long it has prevailed, as from what cause it has originated, and on what evidence is rests. When we contemplate the frame of Nature, we behold a grand and beautiful simplicity prevailing through the whole: notwithstanding its immense extent, and though it contains such numberless diversities of being, yet the simplest machine contructed by human art does not display greater simplicity, or an happier connection of parts. We may, therefore, infer by analogy, from what is observable of the order of Nature in general to the present case, that to permit evil spirits to intermeddle with the concerns of human life, would be to break through that order which the Deity appears to have established through his works; it would be to introduce a degree of confusion unworthy of the wisdom of Divine Providence.

II. Damoniacs, arguments for the existence of. In opposition to these arguments, the following are urged by the Dæmonianists. In the days of our Saviour, it would appear that dæmonical possession was very frequent among the Jews and the neighbouring nations. Many were the evil spirits whom Jesus is related in the Gospels to have ejected from patients that were brought unto him as possessed and tormented by those malevolent dæmons. His apostles too, and the first Christians, who were most active and successful in the propagation of Christianity, appear to have often exerted the miraculous powers with which they were endowed on similar occasions. The dæmons displayed a degree of knowledge and malevolence which sufficiently distinguished them from human beings: and the language in which the dæmoniacs are mentioned, and the actions and sentiments ascribed to them in the New Testament, show that our Saviour and his apostles did not consider the idea of dæmonical possession as being