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 a embly; 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 nece ary 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 nece ity 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 discu ing 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 Const an tine, 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, Nestor i an, 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 progre 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 succe or, Julius III, and the whole of the pontificates of Mar cell us 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 profe es to maintain. The fifth was convened at Constantinople, A. D. 556, by the emperor Just in i an; the sixth, also at Constantinople, in 681, in which the emperor Const an tine IV, himself presided; the seventh at Nice, in 787, by the empre 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 po e 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 Later an, held under Pope Calixtus, A. D. 1123; (10.) the second of Later an, under Innocent II, in 1139; (11.) the third of Later an, 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 Later an, 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 confe ion, 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 Later an, 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 progre 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 se ions, could scarcely number more than forty or fifty ecclesiastics, and, of those, not one eminent for profound theological or cla ical knowledge. The lawyers who attended, says Father Paul, “knew little of religion, while the few divines were of le than ordinary sufficiency.” Some of the other councils which are not acknowledged by the Papists to be “general” with respect to all their se ions, (as those of Basle and Con stance,) 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 Later an” 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 Con stance, 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 Hu 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 weakne 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 Con stance as one of the eighteen is resisted vi et arm is , by the crafty Cisalpine ecclesiastics, because one of the earliest acts of that council declared the representatives of the church in general council a embled 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 a erted and maintained, but now considered equally groundle and absurd in the case of general councils as in that of popes. If God had been pleased to exempt them from a po ibility of error, he would have announced that important privilege in his written word; but no such promise or a urance 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 di ensions, 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 a erter 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 nece ary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, as the church of England has well said, unle 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 cla ical 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 ble ings 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 pa ages 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 nece ary 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 transgre ors, 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 e ential 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 righteousne , 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 ble ings to him and his seed, uttered these significant words, “In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be ble ed.” In this transaction, then, there was the e ence 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 ble ing 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 ble ing. 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 ble ing, Luke i, 72, 73. Here, then, is another view of the Mosaic dispensation. “It was added, because of transgre ions, 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 e entially 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 e ence, 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 unle there were terms,--something required, as well as something promised or given,--duties to be performed, as well as ble ings to be received. Accordingly, the tenor of the new covenant, founded upon the promise originally made to Abraham, is expre ed 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 happine of his people, and the full communication of all the ble ings 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 nece ary, take away the po ibility 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. Covenants were anciently confirmed by eating and drinking together; and chiefly by feasting on a sacrifice. In this manner, Abimelech, the Philistine, confirmed the covenant with Isaac, and Jacob with his father Laban, Gen. xxvi, 26–31; xxx i, 44–46, 54. Sometimes they divided the parts of the victim, and pa ed between them, by which act the parties signified their resolution of fulfilling all the terms of the engagement, on pain of being divided or cut asunder as the sacrifice had been, if they should violate the covenant, Gen. xv, 9, 10, 17, 18; Jer. xxxiv, 18. Hence the Hebrew word char at , which properly signifies to divide, is applied allusively in Scripture to the making of a covenant. When the law of Moses was established, the people feasted in their peace-offerings on a part of the sacrifice, in token of their reconciliation with God, Deut. xii, 6, 7. See Circumcision .