examine the epistles of the Apostle. The different factions into which
they were divided, exalted above all others the chiefs, τοὺς ὑπὲρ λίαν
ἀποϛόλους, [the very chiefest Apostles,] 2 Cor. xi, 5; xii, 11, whose
notions they adopted, and whose doctrines they professed to follow, and
attempted to depreciate those of the opposite party. While, then, some
called themselves disciples of Paul, Cephas, or Apollos, others assumed
the splendid appellation of Christ’s party. Probably they affected to be
the followers of James, the brother of our Lord, and thought thus to
enter into a nearer discipleship with Jesus than the other parties. The
controversy, as we shall see from the whole, related to the obligation
of Judaism. The advocates of it had appealed, even in Galatia, to Cephas
and James, for the sake of opposing to Paul, who had banished Jewish
ceremonies from Christianity, authorities which were not less admitted
than his own. The question itself divided all these various parties into
two principal factions: the partisans of Cephas and James were for the
law; the friends of Paul adopted his opinion, as well as Apollos, who,
with his adherents, was always in heart in favour of Paul, and never
wished to take a part in a separation from him, 1 Cor. xvi, 12. The
leaders of the party against Paul, these ψευδαπόϛολοι, [false apostles,]
as Paul calls them, and μετασχηματιζόμενοι εἰς ἀποϛὸλους Χριϛοῦ,
[transformers of themselves into the apostles of Christ,] who declared
themselves the promulgators and defenders of the doctrines of Cephas,
and James, were, as may be easily conceived, converted Jews, 2 Cor. xi,
22, who had come from different places,--to all appearance from
Palestine, ἐρχομένοι, [the comers,] 2 Cor. xi, 4,--and could therefore
boast of having had intercourse with the Apostles at Jerusalem, and of
an acquaintance with their principles. They were not even of the
orthodox Jews, but those who adhered to the doctrines of the Sadducees;
and though they were even now converted to Christianity, while they
spoke zealously in favour of the law, they were undermining the hopes of
the pious, and exciting doubts against the resurrection, 1 Cor. xv, 35;
so that Paul, from regard to the teachers, whose disciples they
professed to be, was obliged to refute them from the testimony of James
and Cephas, 1 Cor. xv, 5, 7. These, proud of their own opinions, 1 Cor.
i, 17, not without private views, depreciated Paul’s authority, and
extolled their own knowledge, 1 Cor. ii, 12; 2 Cor. xi, 16, 17.
Violently as the contest was carried on, they still did not withdraw
from the same place of assembly for instruction and mutual edification;
this, however, was even the cause of too many scandalous scenes and
disorders. At the ἀγάπαι, _love feasts_, love and benevolence were no
where to be seen. Instead of eating together, and refreshing their poor
brethren out of that which they had brought with them, each one, as he
came, ate his own, without waiting for any one else, and feasted often
to excess, while the needy was fasting, 1 Cor. xi, 17. When also some
were preparing for prayers or singing, others raised their voices to
instruct, and commenced exercises in _spiritual gifts_, tongues,
prophesyings, and interpretations, 1 Cor. xii, xiii, xiv; moreover, the
women, to bring confusion to its highest pitch, took their part in
interlocutions and proposals of questions, 1 Cor. xiv, 34.
Such was the state of things as to the interior discipline of the
assemblies and edification; but the exterior deportment, which the
members of this society had maintained in civil life, soon disappeared
also. Formerly, when differences arose among the believers, they were
adjusted by the intervention of arbitrators from their own communion,
and terminated quietly. Now, as their mutual confidence in each other
more and more decreased, they brought, to the disgrace of Christianity,
their complaints before the Pagan tribunals, 1 Cor. vi, 1. But as to
what concerned the main object, namely, the obligation of Judaism, it
was so little confined simply to words and reasons, that each party
rather strove to display its opposite principles in its conduct. One
party gave to the other, as much as possible, motives for ill will and
reproach. The Jews required circumcision as an indispensable act of
religion; while Paul’s disciples attempted to lay the foundation of a
new doctrine respecting it, and to extinguish all traces of
circumcision, 1 Cor. vii, 18. As the Jewish party observed and
maintained a distinction of meats, that of Paul ate without distinction
any thing sold in the markets, and even meats from the Heathen
sacrifices, 1 Cor. x, 25, 28; viii, 1. Nor was this enough; they often
made no scruple to be present at the sacrificial feasts. Among other
things, they also took part in many scandalous practices which were
common there, and fell, by means of their imprudence, into still greater
crimes, 1 Cor. x, 20, 21; viii, 10. According to the Jewish custom, the
women were obliged to appear veiled in the synagogues and public
assemblies. The anti-judaists abolished this custom of the synagogue, 1
Cor. xi, 5, 6, 10; and herein imitated the Heathen practices. From
despite to Judaism, which considered matrimonial offspring as a
particular blessing of God, some embraced celibacy, which they justified
by St. Paul’s example, 1 Cor. vii, 7, 8; and this they also recommended
to others, 1 Cor. vii, 1–25. Some went even so far, that, although
married, they resolved to practise a continual continency, 1
Corinthians, vii, 3–5. These were the evils, both in his own party and
in that of his opponents, which St. Paul had to remedy.
Paul, having understood the good effects of his first letter among the
Corinthians, wrote a second to them, A. D. 57, from Macedonia, and
probably from Philippi. He expresses his satisfaction at their conduct,
justifies himself, and comforts them. He glories in his suffering, and
exhorts them to liberality. Near the end of the year 57, he came again
to Corinth, where he staid about three months, and whence he went to
Jerusalem. Just before his second departure from Corinth, he wrote his
Epistle to the Romans, probably in the beginning of A. D. 58.
CORMORANT, שלך, Levit. xi, 17; Deut. xiv, 17; a large sea bird. It is
about three feet four inches in length, and four feet two inches in
breadth from the tips of the extended wings. The bill is about five
inches long, and of a dusky colour; the base of the lower mandible is
covered with a naked yellowish skin, which extends under the throat and
forms a kind of pouch. It has a most voracious appetite, and lives
chiefly upon fish, which it devours with unceasing gluttony. It darts
down very rapidly upon its prey; and the Hebrew, and the Greek name,
καταράκτης, [a cataract,] are expressive of its impetuosity. The word
קאת, which in our version of Isaiah xxxiv, 11, is rendered _cormorant_,
is the pelican.
CORNER. Amos iii, 12. Sitting in the corner is a stately attitude. The
place of honour is the corner of the room, and there the master of the
house sits and receives his visitants.
COUNCIL sometimes denotes any kind of assembly; sometimes that of the
sanhedrim; and, at other times, a convention of pastors met to regulate
ecclesiastical affairs. It may be reasonably supposed that as
Christianity spreads, circumstances would arise which would make
consultation necessary among those who had embraced the Gospel, or at
least among those who were employed in its propagation. A memorable
instance of this kind occurred not long after the ascension of our
Saviour. In consequence of a dispute which had arisen at Antioch
concerning the necessity of circumcising Gentile converts, it was
determined that “Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should
go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and elders about this
question.”--“And the Apostles and elders came together for to consider
of this matter,” Acts xv, 6. After a consultation, they decided the
point in question; and they sent their decree, which they declared to be
made under the direction of the Holy Ghost, to all the churches, and
commanded that it should be the rule of their conduct. This is generally
considered as the first council; but it differed from all others in this
circumstance, that its members were under the _especial_ guidance of the
Spirit of God. The Gospel was soon after conveyed into many parts of
Europe, Asia, and Africa; but it does not appear that there was any
public meeting of Christians for the purpose of discussing any contested
point, till the middle of the second century. From that time councils
became frequent; but as they consisted only of those who belonged to
particular districts or countries, they were called provincial or
national councils. The first general council was that of Nice, convened
by the emperor Constantine, A. D. 325; the second general council was
held at Constantinople, in the year 381, by order of Theodosius the
Great; the third, at Ephesus, by order of Theodosius, Junior, A. D. 431;
and the fourth at Chalcedon, by order of the emperor Marcian, A. D. 451.
These, as they were the first four general councils, so they were by far
the most eminent. They were caused respectively by the Arian,
Apollinarian, Nestorian, and Eutychian controversies, and their decrees
are in high esteem both among Papists and orthodox Protestants; but the
deliberations of most councils were disgraced by violence, disorder, and
intrigue, and their decisions were usually made under the influence of
some ruling party. Authors are not agreed about the number of general
councils; Papists usually reckon eighteen, but Protestant writers will
not allow that nearly so many had a right to that name. The last general
council was that held at Trent, for the purpose of checking the progress
of the reformation. It first met by the command of Pope Paul III, A. D.
1545; it was suspended during the latter part of the pontificate of his
successor, Julius III, and the whole of the pontificates of Marcellus
II, and Paul IV, that is, from 1552 to 1562, in which year it met again
by the authority of Pope Pius IV, and it ended, while he was pope, in
the year 1563. Provincial councils were very numerous: Baxter enumerates
four hundred and eighty-one, and Dufresnoy many more.
2. Of the eighteen councils denominated “general” by the Papists, four
have already been enumerated; and they with the next four constitute the
eight eastern councils, which alone, according to the “Body of Civil
Law,” each of the popes of Rome, on his elevation to the pontificate,
solemnly professes to maintain. The fifth was convened at
Constantinople, A. D. 556, by the emperor Justinian; the sixth, also at
Constantinople, in 681, in which the emperor Constantine IV, himself
presided; the seventh at Nice, in 787, by the empress Irene; and the
eighth, at Constantinople, in 870, by the emperor Basilius. It is matter
of historical record, and therefore cannot be denied, that the convening
of all these councils appertained solely to the respective emperors;
that they alone exercised authority on such occasions; that the bishop
of Rome was never thought to possess any, although his power may be said
to have been set up between the fifth and sixth general councils; nor
did the bishop himself, _pro tempore_, think himself entitled to an
authority of the kind. The other councils which the Romish church
dignifies with the title of “general,” are the ten western ones, which
are here subjoined:--(9.) The first council of Lateran, held under Pope
Calixtus, A. D. 1123; (10.) the second of Lateran, under Innocent II, in
1139; (11.) the third of Lateran, under Alexander III, in 1179, the
decrees of which were intended to extirpate the Albigenses, as well as
the Waldenses, who were variously called Leonists, or poor men of Lyons;
(12.) the fourth of Lateran, under Innocent III, in 1215, which incited
Christian Europe to engage in a crusade for the recovery of the Holy
Land, and whose canons obtruded on the church the monstrous doctrines of
transubstantiation and auricular confession, the latter being ranked
among the duties prescribed by the law of Christ; (13.) the first of
Lyons, under Innocent IV, in 1245; (14.) the second of Lyons, under
Gregory X, in 1274; (15.) that of Vienne, under Clement V, in 1311;
(16.) that of Florence, under Eugenius IV, in 1439; (17.) the fifth of
Lateran, under the infamous Julius II; and (18.) the council of Trent,
of which an account is given in the preceding paragraph, and which
grounds its fame on its opposition to the progress of the reformation
under Luther. Though, according to Bellarmine, these eighteen alone are
recognised by the Romish church œcumenical or universal councils, yet
some of them did not deserve even the more restricted appellation of
“general.” For the council of Trent itself, in some of its sessions,
could scarcely number more than forty or fifty ecclesiastics, and, of
those, not one eminent for profound theological or classical knowledge.
The lawyers who attended, says Father Paul, “knew little of religion,
while the few divines were of less than ordinary sufficiency.” Some of
the other councils which are not acknowledged by the Papists to be
“general” with respect to all their sessions, (as those of Basle and
Constance,) are in part received by them, and in part rejected.
Bellarmine and other celebrated writers of his church, are dubious about
determining whether or not “the fifth of Lateran” was really a general
council, and leave it as a thing discretionary with the faithful either
to retain or reject it; if it be rejected, the only refuge which they
have, is to receive in its place the council of Constance, held under
John XXIII, in 1414, which is disclaimed by the Italian clergy but
admitted by those of France, and which is rendered infamous in the
annals of religion and humanity by its cruel and treacherous conduct
toward those two early Protestant martyrs, John Huss and Jerome of
Prague; “who went to the stake,” says, Æneas Sylvius, “as if it had been
to a banquet, without uttering a complaint that could betray the least
weakness of mind. When they began to burn, they sung a hymn, which even
the crackling of the flames could not interrupt. Never did any
philosopher suffer death with so much courage, as they endured the
fire.” But this acknowledgment of Constance as one of the eighteen is
resisted _vi et armis_, by the crafty Cisalpine ecclesiastics, because
one of the earliest acts of that council declared the representatives of
the church in general council assembled to be superior to the sovereign
pontiff, not only when schism prevailed, but at all other times
whatsoever.
3. A general council being composed of men every one of whom is
fallible, they must also be liable to error when collected together; and
that they actually have erred is sufficiently evident from this fact,
that different general councils have made decrees directly opposite to
each other, particularly in the Arian and Eutychian controversies, which
were upon subjects immediately “pertaining unto God.” Indeed, neither
the first general councils themselves, nor those who defended their
decisions, ever pretended to infallibility; this was a claim of a much
more recent date, suited to the dark ages in which it was asserted and
maintained, but now considered equally groundless and absurd in the case
of general councils as in that of popes. If God had been pleased to
exempt them from a possibility of error, he would have announced that
important privilege in his written word; but no such promise or
assurance is mentioned in the New Testament If infallibility belonged to
the whole church collectively, or to any individual part of it, it must
be so prominent and conspicuous that no mistake or doubt could exist
upon the subject; and above all, it must have prevented those
dissensions, contests, heresies, and schisms, which have abounded among
Christians from the days of the Apostles to the present time; and of
which that very church, which is the asserter and patron of this
doctrine, has had its full share.
The Scriptures being the only source from which we can learn the terms
of salvation, it follows that things ordained by general councils as
necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, as the
church of England has well said, unless it may be declared that they he
taken out of Holy Scripture. It is upon this ground we receive the
decisions of the first four general councils, in which we find the
truths revealed in the Scriptures, and therefore we believe them. We
reverence the councils for the sake of the doctrines which they declared
and maintained, but we do not believe the doctrines upon the authority
of the councils.
COVENANT. The Greek word διαθήκη occurs often in the Septuagint, as the
translation of a Hebrew word, which signifies _covenant_: it occurs also
in the Gospels and the Epistles; and it is rendered in our English
Bibles sometimes _covenant_, sometimes _testament_. The Greek word,
according to its etymology, and according to classical use, may denote a
testament, a disposition, as well as a covenant; and the Gospel may be
called a testament, because it is a signification of the will of our
Saviour ratified by his death, and because it conveys blessings to be
enjoyed after his death. These reasons for giving the dispensation of
the Gospel the name of a testament appeared to our translators so
striking, that they have rendered διαθήκη more frequently by the word
_testament_, than by the word _covenant_. Yet the train of argument,
where διαθήκη occurs, generally appears to proceed upon its meaning a
covenant; and therefore, although, when we delineate the nature of the
Gospel, the beautiful idea of its being a testament, is not to be lost
sight of, yet we are to remember that the word _testament_, which we
read in the Gospels and Epistles, is the translation of a word which the
sense requires to be rendered _covenant_. A covenant implies two
parties, and mutual stipulations. The new covenant must derive its name
from something in the nature of the stipulations between the parties
different from that which existed before; so that we cannot understand
the propriety of the name, _new_, without looking back to what is called
the _old_, or _first_. On examining the passages in Gal. iii, in 2 Cor.
iii, and in Heb. viii-x, where the old and the new covenant are
contrasted, it will be found that the old covenant means the
dispensation given by Moses to the children of Israel; and the new
covenant the dispensation of the Gospel published by Jesus Christ; and
that the object of the Apostle is to illustrate the superior excellence
of the latter dispensation. But, in order to preserve the consistency of
the Apostle’s writings, it is necessary to remember that there are two
different lights in which the former dispensation may be viewed.
Christians appear to draw the line between the old and the new covenant,
according to the light in which they view that dispensation. It may be
considered merely as a method of publishing the moral law to a
particular nation; and then with whatever solemnity it was delivered,
and with whatever cordiality it was accepted, it is not a covenant that
could give life. For, being nothing more than what divines call a
covenant of works, a directory of conduct requiring by its nature entire
personal obedience, promising life to those who yielded that obedience,
but making no provision for transgressors, it left under a curse “every
one that continued not in all things that were written in the book of
the law to do them.” This is the essential imperfection of what is
called the covenant of works, the name given in theology to that
transaction, in which it is conceived that the supreme Lord of the
universe promised to his creature, man, that he would reward that
obedience to his law, which, without any such promise, was due to him as
the Creator.
No sooner had Adam broken the covenant of works, than a promise of a
final deliverance from the evils incurred by the breach of it was given.
This promise was the foundation of that transaction which Almighty God,
in treating with Abraham, condescends to call “my covenant with thee,”
and which, upon this authority, has received in theology the name of the
Abrahamic covenant. Upon the one part, Abraham, whose faith was counted
to him for righteousness, received this charge from God, “Walk before me
and be thou perfect;” upon the other part, the God whom he believed, and
whose voice he obeyed, beside promising other blessings to him and his
seed, uttered these significant words, “In thy seed shall all the
families of the earth be blessed.” In this transaction, then, there was
the essence of a covenant; for there were mutual stipulations between
two parties; and there was superadded, as a seal of the covenant, the
rite of circumcision, which, being prescribed by God, was a confirmation
of his promise to all who complied with it, and being submitted to by
Abraham, was, on his part, an acceptance of the covenant.
The Abrahamic covenant appears, from the nature of the stipulations, to
be more than a covenant of works; and, as it was not confined to
Abraham, but extended to his seed, it could not be disannulled by any
subsequent transactions, which fell short of a fulfilment of the
blessing promised. The law of Moses, which was given to the seed of
Abraham four hundred and thirty years after, did not come up to the
terms of that covenant even with regard to them, for, in its form it was
a covenant of works, and to other nations it did not directly convey any
blessing. But although the Mosaic dispensation did not fulfil the
Abrahamic covenant, it was so far from setting that covenant aside, that
it cherished the expectation of its being fulfilled: for it continued
the rite of circumcision, which was the seal of the covenant; and in
those ceremonies which it enjoined, there was a shadow, a type, an
obscure representation, of the promised blessing, Luke i, 72, 73.
Here, then, is another view of the Mosaic dispensation. “It was added,
because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise
was made,” Gal. iii, 19. By delivering a moral law, which men felt
themselves unable to obey; by denouncing judgments which it did not of
itself provide any effectual method of escaping; and by holding forth,
in various oblations, the promised and expected Saviour; “it was a
schoolmaster to bring men unto Christ.” The covenant made with Abraham
retained its force during the dispensation of the law, and was the end
of that dispensation.
The views which have been given furnish the ground upon which we defend
that established language which is familiar to our ears, that there are
only two covenants essentially different, and opposite to one another,
the covenant of works, made with the first man, intimated by the
constitution of human nature to every one of his posterity, and having
for its terms, “Do this and live;”--and the covenant of grace, which was
the substance of the Abrahamic covenant, and which entered into the
constitution of the Sinaitic covenant, but which is more clearly
revealed, and more extensively published in the Gospel. This last
covenant, which the Scriptures call _new_ in respect to the mode of its
dispensation under the Gospel, although it is not new in respect of its
essence, has received, in the language of theology, the name of the
covenant of grace, for the two following obvious reasons: because, after
man had broken the covenant of works, it was pure grace or favour in the
Almighty to enter into a new covenant with him; and, because by the
covenant there is conveyed that grace which enables man to comply with
the terms of it. It could not be a covenant unless there were
terms,--something required, as well as something promised or
given,--duties to be performed, as well as blessings to be received.
Accordingly, the tenor of the new covenant, founded upon the promise
originally made to Abraham, is expressed by Jeremiah in words which the
Apostle to the Hebrews has quoted as a description of it: “I will be to
them a God, and they shall be to me a people,” Heb. viii, 10:--words
which intimate on one part not only entire reconciliation with God, but
the continued exercise of all the perfections of the Godhead in
promoting the happiness of his people, and the full communication of all
the blessings which flow from his unchangeable love; on the other part,
the surrender of the heart and affections of his people, the dedication
of all the powers of their nature to his service, and the willing
uniform obedience of their lives. But, although there are mutual
stipulations, the covenant retains its character of a covenant of grace,
and must be regarded as having its source purely in the grace of God.
For the very circumstances which rendered the new covenant necessary,
take away the possibility of there being any merit upon our part: the
faith by which the covenant is accepted is the gift of God; and all the
good works by which Christians continue to keep the covenant, originate
in that change of character which is the fruit of the operation of his
Spirit.