To form an idea of the condition of the Corinthian church, we must 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, 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.