Persian Gulf, where they had colonies in the islands of Dedan, Arad, and
Tyre. Sometimes they received them from the Arabians, who either brought
them by land through Arabia, or up the Red Sea to Eziongeber. In the
latter case, having landed them at the port mentioned, they transported
them through the country by the way of Gaza to Phenicia. The Phenicians
increased the amount of their foreign goods by the addition of those
which they themselves fabricated; and were thus enabled to supply all
parts of the Mediterranean. The Egyptians at first received their goods
from the Phenicians, Arabians, Africans, and Abyssinians; in all of
which countries there are still the remains of large trading towns; but
in a subsequent age, they imported goods from India in their own
vessels; and eventually carried on an export trade with various ports on
the Mediterranean. Oriental commerce, however, was chiefly carried on by
land: accordingly, vessels are hardly mentioned in the Bible, except in
Psalm cvii, 23–30, and in passages where the discourse turns upon the
Phenicians, or upon the naval affairs of Solomon and Jehoshaphat. The
two principal routes from Palestine into Egypt were, the one along the
shores of the Mediterranean from Gaza to Pelusium, and the other from
Gaza by the way of Mount Sinai and the Elanitic branch of the Red Sea.
3. The merchants transported their goods upon camels; animals which are
patient of thirst, and are easily supported in the deserts. For the
common purpose of security against depredations, the oriental merchants
travelled in company, as is common in the east at the present day. A
large travelling company of this kind is called a _caravan_ or _carvan_,
a smaller one was called _kafile_ or _kafle_, Job vi, 18–20; Gen.
xxxvii, 25; Isa. xxi, 13; Jer. ix, 2; Judges v, 6; Luke ii, 44. The
furniture carried by the individuals of a caravan consisted of a
mattress, a coverlet, a carpet for sitting upon, a round piece of
leather, which answered the purpose of a table, a few pots and kettles
of copper covered with tin; also a tin-plated cup, which was suspended
before the breast under the outer garment, and was used for drinking, 1
Sam. xxvi, 11, 12, 16: leathern bags for holding water, tents, lights,
and provisions in quality and abundance as each one could afford. Every
caravan had a leader to conduct it through the desert, who was
acquainted with the direction of its route, and with the cisterns and
fountains. These he was able to ascertain, sometimes from heaps of
stones, sometimes by the character of the soil, and, when other helps
failed him, by the stars, Num. x, 29–32; Jer. xxxi, 21; Isa. xxi, 14.
When all things are in readiness, the individuals who compose the
caravan assemble at a distance from the city. The commander of the
caravan, who is a different person from the conductor or leader, and is
chosen from the wealthiest of its members, appoints the day of their
departure. A similar arrangement was adopted among the Jews, whenever
they travelled in large numbers to the city of Jerusalem. The caravans
start very early, sometimes before day. They endeavour to find a
stopping place or station to remain at during the night, which shall
afford them a supply of water, Job vi, 15–20. They arrive at their
stopping place before the close of the day; and, while it is yet light,
prepare every thing that is necessary for the recommencement of their
journey. In order to prevent any one from wandering away from the
caravan, and getting lost during the night, lamps or torches are
elevated upon poles and carried before it. The pillar of fire answered
this purpose for the Israelites, when wandering in the wilderness.
Sometimes the caravans lodge in cities; but when they do not, they pitch
their tents so as to form an encampment; and during the night keep watch
alternately for the sake of security. In the cities there are public
inns, called _Chan_ and _Carvanserai_, in which the caravans are lodged
without expense. They are large square buildings, in the centre of which
is an area, or open court. Carvanserais are denominated in the Greek of
the New Testament, ϖανδοχεῖον, κατάλυσις and κατάλυμα, Luke ii, 7; x,
34. The first mention of one in the Old Testament is in Jer. xli, 17,
גרות כמהם. It was situated near the city of Bethlehem.
4. Moses enacted no laws in favour of commerce, although there is no
question that he saw the situation of Palestine to be very favourable
for it. The reason of this was, that the Hebrews, who were designedly
set apart to preserve the true religion, could not mingle with foreign
idolatrous nations without injury. He therefore merely inculcated good
faith and honesty in buying and selling, Lev. xix, 36, 37; Deut. xxv,
13–16; and left all the other interests of commerce to a future age. By
the establishment, however, of the three great festivals, he gave
occasion for some mercantile intercourse. At these festivals all the
adult males of the nation were yearly assembled at one place. The
consequence was, that those who had any thing to sell brought it; while
those who wished to buy articles came with the expectation of having an
opportunity. As Moses, though he did not encourage, did not interdict
foreign commerce, Solomon, at a later period, not only carried on a
traffic in horses, as already stated, but sent ships from the port of
Eziongeber through the Red Sea to Ophir, probably the coast of Africa, 1
Kings ix, 26; 2 Chron. ix, 21. This traffic, although a source of
emolument, appears to have been neglected after the death of Solomon.
The attempt made by Jehoshaphat to restore it was frustrated, by his
ships being dashed upon the rocks and destroyed, 1 Kings xxii, 48, 49; 2
Chron. xx, 36. Joppa, though not a very convenient one, was properly the
port of Jerusalem; and some of the large vessels which went to Spain
sailed from it, Jonah i, 3. In the age of Ezekiel, the commerce of
Jerusalem was so great, that it gave an occasion of envy even to the
Tyrians themselves, Ezek. xxvi, 2. After the captivity, a great number
of Jews became merchants, and travelled for the purpose of traffic into
all countries. About the year 150 B. C. prince Simon rendered the port
at Joppa more convenient than it had hitherto been. In the time of
Pompey the Great, there were so many Jews abroad on the ocean, even in
the character of pirates, that King Antigonus was accused before him of
having sent them out on purpose. A new port was built by Herod at
Cesarea.
COMMUNION, in a religious sense, refers chiefly to the admission of
persons to the Lord’s Supper. This is said to be open, when all are
admitted who apply, as in the Church of England; to be strict, when
confined to the members of a single society, or, at least, to members of
the same denomination; and it is mixed, when persons are admitted from
societies of different denominations, on the profession of their faith,
and evidence of their piety. The principal difficulty on this point
arises between the strict Baptists and Pædo-Baptists.
CONCUBINE, פילגש. This term, in western authors, commonly signifies, a
woman, who, without being married to a man, yet lives with him as his
wife; but, in the sacred writers, the word concubine is understood in
another sense; meaning a lawful wife, but one not wedded with all the
ceremonies and solemnities of matrimony; a wife of the second rank,
inferior to the first wife, or mistress of the house. Children of
concubines did not inherit their father’s fortune; but he might provide
for, and make presents to, them. Thus Abraham, by Sarah his wife, had
Isaac, his heir; but, by his two concubines, Hagar and Keturah, he had
other children, whom he did not make equal to Isaac. As polygamy was
tolerated in the east, it was common to see in every family, beside
lawful wives, several concubines. Since the abrogation of polygamy by
Jesus Christ, and the restoration of marriage to its primitive
institution, concubinage is ranked with adultery or fornication.
CONEY, שפן, Levit. xi, 5; Deut. xiv, 7; Psalm civ, 8; and Prov. xxx, 26.
Bochart and others have supposed the _shaphan_ of the Scriptures to be
the jerboa; but Mr. Bruce proves that the ashkoko is intended. This
curious animal is found in Ethiopia, and in great numbers on Mount
Lebanon, &c. Instead of holes, they seem to delight in more airy places,
in the mouths of caves, or clefts in the rock. They are gregarious, and
frequently several dozens of them sit upon the great stones at the
mouths of caves, and warm themselves in the sun, or come out and enjoy
the freshness of the summer evening. They do not stand upright upon
their feet, but seem to steal along as in fear, their belly being nearly
close to the ground; advancing a few steps at a time, and then pausing.
They have something very mild, feeble-like, and timid, in their
deportment; are gentle and easily tamed, though, when roughly handled at
the first, they bite very severely. Many are the reasons to believe this
to be the animal called _saphan_ in Hebrew, and erroneously by our
translators, “the coney,” or rabbit. The latter are gregarious indeed,
and so far resemble the other, as also in size; but they seek not the
same place of retreat; for the rabbit burrows most generally in the
sand. Nor is there any thing in the character of rabbits that denotes
excellent wisdom, or that they supply the want of strength by any
remarkable sagacity. The _saphan_, then, is not the rabbit; which last,
unless it was brought to him by his ships from Europe, Solomon never
saw.
Let us now apply the characters of the ashkoko to the _saphan_. “He is
above all other animals so much attached to the rocks, that I never
once,” says Mr. Bruce, “saw him on the ground, or from among large
stones in the mouth of caves, where is his constant residence. He lives
in families or flocks. He is in Judea, Palestine, and Arabia, and
consequently must have been familiar to Solomon. David describes him
very pertinently, and joins him to other animals perfectly known: ‘The
hills are a refuge for the wild goats, and the rocks for the _saphan_:’
and Solomon says that ‘they are exceeding wise,’ that they are ‘but a
feeble folk, yet make their houses in the rocks.’ Now this, I think,
very obviously fixes the ashkoko to be the _saphan_; for his weakness
seems to allude to his feet, and how inadequate these are to dig holes
in the rock, where yet, however, he lodges. From their tenderness these
are very liable to be excoriated or hurt; notwithstanding which, they
build houses in the rocks more inaccessible than those of the rabbit,
and in which they abide in greater safety, not by exertion of strength,
for they have it not, but are truly, as Solomon says, ‘a feeble folk,’
but by their own sagacity and judgment; and are therefore justly
described as wise. Lastly, what leaves the thing without doubt is, that
some of the Arabs, particularly Damir, say that the _saphan_ has no
tail, that it is less than a cat, that it lives in houses or nests,
which it builds of straw, in contradistinction to the rabbit and the
rat, and those animals that burrow in the ground.”
CONFESSION signifies a public acknowledgment of any thing as our own:
thus Christ will confess the faithful in the day of judgment, Luke xii,
8. 2. To own and profess the truths of Christ, and to obey his
commandments, in spite of opposition and danger from enemies, Matt. x,
32. 3. To utter or speak the praises of God, or to give him thanks. 4.
To acknowledge our sins and offences to God, either by private or public
confession; or to our neighbour whom we have wronged; or to some pious
persons from whom we expect to receive comfort and spiritual
instruction; or to the whole congregation when our fault is published,
Psalm xxxii, 5; Matt. iii, 6; James v, 16; 1 John i, 9. 5. To
acknowledge a crime before a judge, Josh. vii, 19.
2. In the Jewish ceremony of annual expiation, the high priest confessed
in general his own sins, the sins of other ministers of the temple, and
those of all the people. When an Israelite offered a sacrifice for sin,
he put his hand on the head of the victim, and confessed his faults,
Lev. iv. On the day of atonement, the Jews still make a private
confession of their sins, which is called by them _cippur_, and which is
said to be done in the following manner: Two Jews retire into a corner
of the synagogue. One of them bows very low before the other, with his
face turned toward the north. He who performs the office of confessor
gives the penitent nine-and-thirty blows on the back with a leathern
strap, repeating these words, “God, being full of compassion, forgave
their iniquity, and destroyed them not; yea, many a time turned he his
anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.” As there are only
thirteen words in this verse recited in the Hebrew, he repeats it three
times, and at every word strikes one blow; which makes nine-and-thirty
words, and as many lashes. In the meantime, the penitent declares his
sins, and at the confession of every one beats himself on his breast.
This being finished, he who has performed the office of confessor
prostrates himself on the ground, and receives in turn from his penitent
nine-and-thirty lashes.
3. The Romish church not only requires confession as a duty, but has
advanced it to the dignity of a sacrament. These confessions are made in
private to the priest, who is not to reveal them under pain of the
highest punishment. The council of Trent requires “secret confession to
the priest alone, of all and every mortal sin, which, upon the most
diligent search and examination of our consciences, we can remember
ourselves to be guilty of since our baptism; together with all the
circumstances of those sins, which may change the nature of them;
because, without the perfect knowledge of these, the priest cannot make
a judgment of the nature and quality of men’s sins, nor impose fitting
penance for them.” This is the confession of sins which the same council
confidently affirms “to have been instituted by our Lord, and by the law
of God, to be necessary to salvation, and to have been always practised
in the catholic church.” It is, however, evident, that such confession
is unscriptural. St. James, indeed, says, “Confess your faults one to
another,” James v, 16; but priests are not here mentioned, and the word
_faults_ seems to confine the precept to a mutual confession among
Christians, of those offences by which they may have injured each other.
Certain it is, that from this passage the necessity of auricular
confession, and the power of priestly absolution, cannot be inferred.
Though many of the early ecclesiastical writers earnestly recommend
confession to the clergy, yet they never recommend it as essential to
the pardon of sin, or as having connection with a sacrament. They only
urge it as entitling a person to the prayers of the congregation; and as
useful for supporting the authority of wholesome discipline, and for
maintaining the purity of the Christian church. Chrysostom condemns all
secret confession to men, as being obviously liable to great abuses; and
Basil, Hilary, and Augustine, all advise confession of sins to God only.
It has been proved by M. Daillé, that private, auricular, sacramental
confession of sins was unknown in the primitive church. But, though
private auricular confession is not of divine authority, yet, as
Archbishop Tillotson properly observes, there are many cases in which
men, under the guilt and trouble of their sins, can neither appease
their own minds, nor sufficiently direct themselves, without recourse to
some pious and prudent guide. In these cases, men certainly do very
well, and many times prevent a great deal of trouble and perplexity to
themselves, by a timely discovery of their condition to some faithful
minister, in order to their direction and satisfaction. To this purpose
a general confession is for the most part sufficient; and where there is
occasion for a more particular discovery, there is no need of raking
into the minute and foul circumstances of men’s sins to give that advice
which is necessary for the cure and ease of the penitent. Auricular
confession is unquestionably one of the greatest corruptions of the
Romish church. It goes upon the ground that the priest has power to
forgive sins; it establishes the tyrannical influence of the priesthood;
it turns the penitent from God who only can forgive sins, to man who is
himself a sinner; and it tends to corrupt both the confessors and the
confessed by a foul and particular disclosure of sinful thoughts and
actions of every kind without exception.
CONFESSIONS OF FAITH, simply considered, is the same with _creed_, and
signifies a summary of the principal articles of belief adopted by any
individual or society. In its more common acceptation, it is restricted
to the summaries of doctrine published by particular Christian churches,
with the view of preventing their religious sentiments from being
misunderstood or misrepresented, or, by requiring subscription to them,
of securing uniformity of opinion among those who join their communion.
Except a single sentence in one of the Ignatian Epistles, (A. D. 180,)
which relates exclusively to the reality of Christ’s personality and
sufferings in opposition to the _Docetæ_, the earliest document of this
kind is to be found in the writings of Irenæus, who flourished toward
the end of the second century of the Christian æra. In his treatise
against heresies, this father affirms that “the faith of the church
planted throughout the whole world,” consisted in the belief of “one
God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and sea, and all
that are in them; and one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became
incarnate for our salvation; and one Holy Spirit, who foretold, through
the Prophets, the dispensations and advents, and the generation by the
virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the
ascension in the flesh into heaven, of Jesus Christ our beloved Lord,
and his appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father, to unite
together all things under one head, and to raise every individual of the
human race; that unto Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, and Saviour and
King, every knee may bow, and every tongue confess; that he may
pronounce just sentence upon all.” In various parts of Tertullian’s
writings similar statements occur, (A. D. 200,) which it is unnecessary
particularly to quote. We shall only remark, that in one of them, the
miraculous conception of Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost is
distinctly mentioned; that in another, he declares it to have been the
uniform doctrine from the beginning of the Gospel, that Christ was born
of the virgin, both man and God, _ex eâ natum hominem et Deum_; and that
in each of these, faith in the Father, Son, and Spirit, is recognised as
essential to Christianity. The following passage we cite, for the
purpose of marking its coincidence with the Apostles’ Creed, to which we
shall have occasion soon to advert: “This,” says he, “is the sole,
immovable, irreformable rule of faith; namely, to believe in the only
God Almighty, maker of the world; and his Son Jesus Christ, born of the
virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, the third day raised from
the dead, received into heaven, now sitting at the right hand of the
Father, about to come and judge the quick and the dead, by the
resurrection also of the flesh.” The summaries contained in the works of
Origen (A. D. 520) nearly resemble the preceding; any difference between
them being easily accounted for, from the tenets of the particular
heresies against which they were directed. In his “Commentary on St.
John’s Gospel,” he thus writes: “We believe that there is one God, who
created all things, and framed and made all things to exist out of
nothing. We must also believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and in all the
truth concerning his Deity and humanity; and we must likewise believe in
the Holy Spirit; and that, being free agents, we shall be punished for
the things in which we sin, and rewarded for those in which we do well.”
According to Cyprian, the formula, to which assent was required from
adults at their baptism, was in these terms: “Dost thou believe in God
the Father, Christ the Son, the Holy Spirit, the remission of sins, and
eternal life, through the holy church?” This was called by him _symboli
lex_, “the law of the creed;” and by Novatian, _regula veritatis_, “the
rule of truth.”
2. From these and similar sources, the different clauses of what is
commonly called the Apostles’ Creed appear to have sprung. For, though
it was long believed to be the composition of the Apostles, its claims
to such an inspired origin are now universally rejected. Of its great
antiquity, however, there can be no doubt; the whole of it, as it stands
in the English liturgy, having been generally received as an
authoritative confession in the fourth century. Toward the end of that
century, Rufinus wrote a commentary on it, which is still extant, in
which he acknowledges that the clause respecting Christ’s descent into
hell was not admitted into the creeds either of the western or the
eastern churches. We learn also that the epithet _catholic_ was not at
that time applied in it to the church. Its great simplicity and
conciseness, beside, prove it to have been considerably earlier than the
council of Nice, when the heretical speculations of various sects led
the defenders of the orthodox faith to fence the interests of religion
with more complicated and cumbrous barriers.
This confession of faith was then preëminently named _symbolum_; which
might be understood in the general acceptation of _sign_, as the
characteristic, representative sign of the Christian faith; or, in a
more restricted sense, in reference to the σύμϐολον ϛρατιωτικὸν, or
_tessera militaris_, the watch word of the Christian soldier,
communicated to each man at his first entrance into the service of
Christ. Perhaps this word, at first, only denoted the formula of
baptism, and was afterward transferred to the confession of faith.
3. In the celebrated council of Nice, (A. D. 325,) in which Arianism was
not only condemned, but proscribed, the confession established as the
universal standard of truth and orthodoxy runs thus: “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, the only begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father, before all worlds, God of God, Light of
Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance
with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for
our salvation, descended from heaven, and became incarnate by the Holy
Ghost, of the virgin Mary; and was made man, was crucified for us under
Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose
again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth
on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again with glory to
judge both the quick and the dead, of whose kingdom there will be no
end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets; and one
catholic, and Apostolical church. I acknowledge one baptism for the
remission of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the
life of the world to come.”
It were endless to specify the particular shades of difference by which
the Arian confessions (the number of which amounted nearly to twenty in
the space of a very few years) were distinguished from each other:
suffice it to say, that while they agreed generally in substance,
especially in rejecting the Nicene term, ὁμοούσιος, as applied to the
Son, their variations of expression concerning the nature of his
subordination to the Father were so astonishingly minute, as almost to
bid defiance to any attempt which might be made, at this distance of
time, to determine in what their real and essential differences
consisted.