substance, blessings, and manner of ob- the things of this world.-2. A rapacity taining an interest therein by faith, are in getting.-3. Too frequently includes the very same, without any difference, sinister and illegal ways of obtaining Heb. xí. 6. Gal. iii. 7, 14. The reader, wealth.-4. A tenaciousness in keeping. who may wish to have a more enlarged It is a vice which marvellously prevails view of this subject, may peruse it-upon and insinuates into the heart of sius, Strong, or Boston on the Cove- man, and for these reasons: it often nants, in the former of which especially bears a near resemblance to virtue; he will find the subject masterly hand- brings with it many plausible reasons; led. and raises a man to a state of reputation COVENANT, in ecclesiastical history, on account of his riches. "There candenotes a contract or convention agreed not be," as one observes, "a more unto by the Scotch, in the year 1638, for || reasonable sin than this. It is unjust; maintaining their religion free from in- only to covet, is to wish to be unjust. novation. In 1581, the general assembly It is cruel: the covetous must harden of Scotland drew up a confession of themselves against a thousand plaintive faith, or national covenant, condemning voices. It is ungrateful: such forget episcopal government, under the name their former obligations and their preof hierarchy, which was signed by James sent supporters. It is foolish: it deI. and which he enjoined on all his sub- stroys reputation, breaks the rest, unjects. It was again subscribed in 1590 fits for the performance of duty, and is and 1596. The subscription was re- a contempt of God himself: it is unprenewed in 1638, and the subscribers en- || cedented in all our examples of virtue gaged by oath to maintain religion in mentioned in the Scripture. One, inthe same state as it was in 1580, and to deed, spoke unadvisedly with his lips; reject all innovations introduced since another cursed and swore; a third was that time. This oath, annexed to the in a passion; and a fourth committed confession of faith, received the name adultery; but which of the saints ever of Covenant, as those who subscribed lived in a habit of covetousness? Lastly, it were called Covenanters. it is idolatry, Col. iii. 5. the idolatry of the heart; where, as in a temple, the miserable wretch excludes God, sets up gold instead of him, and places that confidence in it which belongs to the Great Supreme alone." Let those who live in the habitual practice of it consider the judgments that have been inflicted on such characters, Josh. vii. 21. Acts v.; the misery with which it is attended; the curse such persons are to society; the denunciations and cautions respecting it in the Holy Scripture; and how effectually it bars men from God, from happiness, and from heaven. Scott's Essays, 72, 73. South's Serm., vol. iv. ser. 1; Robinson's Mor. Exercises, ex. iv; Saurin's Serm., vol. v. ser. 12. Eng. Trans. Solemn league and covenant, was established in the year 1643, and formed a bond of union between Scotland and England. It was sworn to and subscribed by many in both nations; who hereby solemnly abjured popery and prelacy, and combined together for their mutual defence. It was approved by the parliament and assembly at Westminster, and ratified by the general assembly of Scotland in 1645. King Charles I. disapproved of it when he surrendered himself to the Scots army in 1646; but, in 1650, Charles II. declared his approbation both of this and the national covenant by a solemn oath; and, in August of the same year, made a farther declaration at Dunfermline to the same purpose, which was also renewed on occasion of his coronation at Scone, in 1651. The covenant was ratified by parliament in this year; and the subscription of it was required by every member, without which, the constitution of the parliament was declared null and void. It produced a series of distractions in the subsequent history of that country, and was voted illegal by parliament, and provision made against it. Stat. 14. Car. 2, c. 4. COVETOUSNESS, an unreasonable desire after that we have not, with a dissatisfaction with what we have. It may farther be considered as consisting in, 1. An anxious carking care about COUNCIL, an assembly of persons met together for the purpose of consultation: an assembly of deputies or commissioners sent from several churches, associated by certain bonds in a general body, Acts ì. vi. xv. xxi. COUNCIL, Oecumenical or General, is an assembly which represents the whole body of the Christian church. The Romanists reckon_eighteen of them, Bullinger six, Dr. Prideaux seven, and bishop Beveridge eight, which, he says, are all the general councils which have ever been held since the time of the first Christian emperor. They are as follow:-1. The council of Nice, held in the reign of Constantine the Great, Q on account of the heresy of Arius.-The council of Clermont, in 1095. The 2. The council of Constantinople, called first crusade was determined in this under the reign and by the command of council. The bishops had yet the preTheodosius the Great, for much the cedency of cardinals. In this assembly same end that the former council was the name of Pope was for the first time summoned.-3. The council of Ephesus, given to the head of the church, excluconvened by Theodosius the Younger, sively of the bishops, who used to asat the suit of Nestorius.-4. The coun- sume that title. Here, also, Hugh, cil at Chalcedon, held in the reign of archbishop of Lyons, obtained of the Martianus, which approved of the Eu-pope a confirmation of the primacy of tychian heresy.-5. The second council his see over that of Sens. The council of Constantinople, assembled by the of Rheims, summoned by Eugenius III. emperor Justinian, condemned the three in 1148, called an assembly of Cisastrian chapters taken out of the book of Theo-Gaul, in which advowses, or patrons of dorus, of Mopsuestia, having first de-churches, are prohibited taking more cided that it was lawful to anathematize than ancient fees, upon pain of deprivathe dead. Some authors tell us that tion and ecclesiastical burial. Bishops, they likewise condemned the several deacons, sub-deacons, monks, and nuns, errors of Origen about the Trinity, the are restrained from marrying. In this plurality of worlds, and pre-existence council the doctrine of the Trinity was of souls.-6. The third council of Con- decided: but upon separation the pope stantinople, held by the command of called a congregation, in which the carConstantius Pogonatus, the emperor, in dinals pretended they had no right to which they received the definitions of judge of doctrinal points; that this was the first five general councils, and parti- the privilege peculiar to the pope. The cularly that against Origen and Theo-council of Sutrium, in 1846, wherein dorus, of Mopsuestia.-7. The second three popes who had assumed the chair Nicene council.-8. The fourth council were deposed. The council of Clarenof Constantinople, assembled when don in England, against Becket, held in Louis II. was emperor of the West. 1164. The council of Lombez, in the Their regulations are contained in country of Albigeois, in 1200, occasiontwenty-seven canons, the heads of which ed by some disturbances on account of the reader may find in Dupin. What- the Albigensis; a crusade was formed ever may be said in favour of general on this account, and an army sent to councils, their utility has been doubted extirpate them. Innocent III. spirited by some of the wisest men. Dr. Jortin up this barbarous war. Dominic was says, "they have been too much extol- the apostle, the count of Toulouse the led by Papists, and by some Protestants. victim, and Simon, count of Montfort, They were a collection of men who the conductor or chief. The council of were frail and fallible. Some of those Paris in 1210, in which Aristotle's councils were not assemblies of pious metaphysics were condemned to the and learned divines, but cabals, the ma- flames, lest the refinements of that phijority of which were quarrelsome, fana-losopher should have a bad tendency tical, domineering, dishonest prelates, who wanted to compel men to approve all their opinions, of which they themselves had no clear conceptions, and to anathematize and oppress those who would not implicitly submit to their determinations." Jortin's Works, vol. vii. charge 2; Broughton's Dict.; Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. Index. COUNCILS, Provincial or Occasional, have been numerous. At Aix la Chapelle, A. D. 816, a council was held for regulating the canons of cathedral churches. The council of Savonnieries, in 859, was the first which gave the title of Most Christian King to the king of France; but it did not become the peculiar appellation of that sovereign till 1469. Of Troyes, in 887, to decide the disputes about the imperial dignity. The second council of Troyes, 1107, restrains the clergy from marrying. on men's minds, by applying those subjects to religion. The council of Pisa, begun March the 2d, 1409, in which Benedict XIII. and Gregory XII. were deposed. Another council, sometimes called general, held at Pisa in 1505. Lewis XII. of France, assembled a national council at Tours (being highly disgusted with the pope,) 1510, where was present the cardinal De Gurce, deputed by the emperor; and it was then agreed to convene a general council at Pisa. Murray's History of Religion. COUNCIL of Trent. See TRENT. COURAGE is that quality of the mind that enables men to encounter difficulties and dangers. Natural courage is that which arises chiefly from constitution; moral or spiritual is that which is produced from principle, or a sense of duty. Courage and Fortitude are often used as synonymous, but they may be distinguished thus: fortitude is firmness of mind that supports pain; courage is active fortitude, that meets dangers, and attempts to repel them. See FORTITUDE. Courage, says Addison, that grows from constitution, very often forsakes a man when he has occasion for it; and when it is only a kind of instinct in the soul, it breaks out on all occasions, without judgment or discretion; but that courage which arises from a sense of duty, and from a fear of offending Him that made us, always acts in an uniform manner, and according to the dictates of right reason. CREATION, in its primary import, signifies the bringing into being something which did not before exist. The term is therefore most generally applied to the original production of the materials whereof the visible world is composed. It is also used in a secondary or subordinate sense to denote those subsequent operations of the Deity upon the matter so produced, by which the whole system of Nature, and all the primitive genera of things, receive their form, qualities, and laws. There is no subject concerning which learned men have differed in their conjectures more than in this of creation. "It is certain," as a good writer observes, "that none of the ancient philosophers had the smallest idea of its being possible to produce a substance out of nothing, or that even the power of the Deity himself could work without any materials to work upon. Hence some of them, among whom was Aristotle, asserted that the world was eternal, both as to its matter and form. Others, though they believed that the gods had given the world its form, yet imagined the materials whereof it is composed to have been eternal. Indeed, the opinions of the ancients, who had not the benefit of revelation, were on this head so confused and contradictory, that nothing of any consequence can be deduced from them. The freethinkers of our own and of former ages have denied the possibility of creation, as being a contradiction to reason; and of consequence have taken the opportunity from thence to discredit revelation. On the other hand, many defenders of the sacred writings have asserted that creation out of nothing, so far from being a contradiction to reason, is not only probable, but demonstrably certain. Nay, some have gone so far as to say, that from the very inspection of the visible system of Nature, we are able to infer that it was once in a state [ of non-existence." We cannot, however, here enter into the multiplicity of the arguments on both sides; it is enough for us to know what God has been pleased to reveal, both concerning himself and the works of his hands. Men, and other animals that inhabit the earth and the seas; all the immense varieties of herbs and plants of which the vegetable kingdom consists; the globe of the earth, and the expanse of the ocean; these we know to have been produced by his power. Besides the terrestrial world, which we inhabit, we see many other material bodies disposed around it in the wide extent of space. The moon, which is in a particular manner connected with our earth, and even dependent upon it; the sun, and the other planets, with their satellites, which like the earth circulate round the sun, and appear to derive from him light and heat; those bodies which we call fixed stars, and consider as illuminating and cherishing with heat each its peculiar system of planets; and the comets which at certain periods surprise us with their appearance, and the nature of whose connection with the general system of Nature, or with any particular system of planets, we cannot pretend to have fully discovered; these are so many more of the Deity's works, from the contemplation of which we cannot but conceive the most awful ideas of his creative power. "Matter, however, whatever the varieties of form under which it is made to appear, the relative disposition of its parts, or the motions communicated to it, is but an inferior part of the works of creation. We believe ourselves to be animated with a much higher principle than brute matter; in viewing the manners and economy of the lower animals, we can scarce avoid acknowledging even them to consist of something more than various modifications of matter and motion. The other planetary bodies, which seem to be in circumstances nearly analogous to those of our earth, are surely, as well as it, destined for the habitations of rational intelligent beings. The existence of intelligences of an higher order than man, though infinitely below the Deity, appears extremely probable. Of these spiritual beings, called angels, we have express intimation in Scripture (see the article ANGEL.) But the limits of the creation we must not pretend to define. How far the regions of space extend, or how they are filled, we know not. How the planetary worlds, the sun, and the fixed stars are occupied, we do not pretend to have ascertained. We are even ignorant how wide a diversity of forms, what an infinity of living animated beings may inhabit our own globe. So confined is our knowledge of creation, yet so grand, so awful, that part which our narrow understandings can comprehend! to the contemplation of this immense fabric. Indeed, the beautiful and multiform works around us must strike the mind of every beholder with wonder and admiration, unless he be enveloped in ignorance, and chained down to the earth with sensuality. These works every way proclaim the wisdom, the power, and the goodness of the Creator. Creation is a book which the nicest philosopher may study with the deepest more it is examined, the more it opens to us sources of admiration of its great Author; the more it calls for our inspection, and the more it demands our praise. Here every thing is adjusted in the exactest order; all answering the wisest ends, and acting according to the appointed laws of Deity. Here the Christian is led into the most delightful field of contemplation. To him every pebble becomes a preacher, and every atom a step by which he ascends to his Creator. Placed in this beautiful temple, and looking around on all its various parts, he cannot help joining with the Psalmist in saying, "O Lord, how manifold are thy works; in wisdom hast thou made them all!" See ETERNITY of GOD. Hervey's Meditations; La Pluche's Nature Displayed; Sturm's Reflections on the Works of God. "Concerning the periods of time at which the Deity exécuted his several works, it cannot be pretended that mankind have had opportunities of receiv-attention. Unlike the works of art, the ing very particular information. Many have been the conjectures, and curious the fancies of learned men, respecting it; but, after all, we must be indebted to the sacred writings for the best information." Different copies, indeed, give different dates. The Hebrew copy of the Bible, which we Christians, for good reasons, consider as the most authentic, dates the creation of the world 3944 years before the Christian era. The Samaritan Bible, again, fixes the era of the creation 4305 years before the birth of Christ. And the Greek translation, known by the name of the Septuagint version of the Bible, gives 5270 as the number of the years which intervened || between these two periods. By comparing the various dates in the sacred writings, examining how these have See Ray and Blackmore on the Creacome to disagree, and to be diversified | tion; art. CREATION, Enc. Brit.; Derin different copies; endeavouring to re-ham's Astro and Physico-theology; concile the most authentic profane with sacred chronology, some ingenious men have formed schemes of chronology plausible, indeed, but not supported by sufficient authorities, which they would gladly persuade us to receive in preference to any of those above-mentioned. Usher makes out from the Hebrew Bible 4004 years as the term between the creation and the birth of Christ. Josephus, according to Dr. Wills, and Mr. Whiston, makes it 4658 years; and M. Pezron, with the help of the Septuagint, extends it to 5872 years. Usher's system is the most generally received. But though these different systems of chronology are so inconsistent, and so slenderly supported, yet the differences among them are so inconsiderable, in comparison with those which arise before us when we contemplate the chronology of the Chinese, the Chaldeans, and the Egyptians, and they agree so well with the general information of authentic history, and with the appearances of nature and of society, that they may be considered as nearly fixing the true period of the creation of the earth." Uncertain, however, as we may be as to the exact time of the creation, we may profitably apply ourselves CREDULITY, the belief of any proposition without sufficient evidence of its truth. CREED, a form of words in which the articles of faith are comprehended. See CONFESSION. The most ancient form of creeds is that which goes under the name of the Apostles' Creed (see below;) besides this, there are several other ancient forms and scattered remains of creeds to be met with in the primitive records of the church; as, 1. The form of apostolical doctrine collected by Origen.2. A fragment of a creed preserved by Tertullian.-3. A remnant of a creed in the works of Cyprian.-4. A creed composed by Gregory Thaumaturgus for the use of his own church.-5. The creed of Lucian, the martyr.-6. The creed of the apostolical constitutions. Besides these scattered remains of the ancient creeds, there are extant some_perfect forms, as those of Jerusalem, Cesarea, Antioch, &c. CREED, APOSTLES', is a formula or summary of the Christian faith, drawn up, according to Ruffinus, by the row's Exposition of it in his Works, vol. ii. CREED, ATHANASIAN, a formulary or confession of faith, long supposed to have been drawn up by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, in the fourth century, to justify himself against the calumnies of his Arian enemies; but it is now generally allowed not to have been his. Dr. Waterland ascribes it to Hilary, bishop of Arles. This creed obtained in France about A. D. 850, and was received in Spain and Germany about 180 years later. As to our own country, we have clear proofs of its being sung alternately in our churches in the tenth century. It was in common use in some parts of Italy in 960, and was received at Rome about 1014. As to the Greek and Oriental churches, it has been questioned whether they have ever received it, though some writers are of a contrary persuasion. The episcopal churches of America have rejected it. As to the matter of it, it is given as a summary of the true orthodox faith. Unhappily, however, it has proved a fruitful source of unprofitable controversy. See Dr. Waterland's Critical History of it. apostles themselves; who, during their stay at Jerusalem, soon after our Lord's ascension, agreed upon this creed as a rule of faith. Baronius and others conjecture that they did not compose it till the second year of Claudius, a little before their dispersion; but there are many reasons which induce us to question whether the apostles composed any such creed. For, 1. Neither St. Luke, nor any other writer before the fifth century, make any mention of an assembly of the apostles for composing a creed. 2. The fathers of the first three centuries, in disputing against the heretics, endeavour to prove that the doctrine contained in this creed was the same which the apostles taught; but they never pretend that the apostles composed it.-3. If the apostles had made this creed, it would have been the same in all churches and in all ages; and all authors would have cited it after the same manner. But the case is quite otherwise. In the second and third ages of the church there were as many creeds as authors; and the same authors sets down the creed after a different manner in several places of his works; which is an evidence, that there was not, at that time, any creed reputed to be the apostles'. In the fourth century, Ruffinus compares together the three ancient creeds of the churches of Aquileia, Rome, and the East, which differ very considerably. Besides, these creeds differed not only in the terms and expressions, but even in the articles, some of which were omitted in one or other of them; such as those of the descent into hell, the communion of the saints, and the life everlasting. From all which it may be gathered, that though this creed may be said to be that of the apostles, in regard to the doctrines contained therein, yet it cannot be referred to them as the authors of it. Its great antiquity, however, may be inferred from hence, that the whole form, as it now stands in the English liturgy, is to be found in the works of St. Ambrose and Ruffinus; the former of whom flourished in the third, and the latter in the fourth century. The primitive Christians did not publicly recite the creed, except at baptisms, which, unless in cases of necessity, were only at Easter and Whitsuntide. The CRISPITES, those who adopt the constant repeating of it was not intro-sentiments of Dr. Crisp, a divine of the duced into the church till the end of the seventeenth century. He was fond, it fifth century; about which time Peter is said, of expressions which alarm, and Gnaphius, bishop of Antioch, prescribed paradoxes which astonish; and perthe recital of it every time divine service was performed. See King's History of the Apostles' Creed; and Bar CREED, NICENE, a formulary of Christian faith; so called, because it is a paraphrase of that creed which was made at the first general council of Nice. This latter was drawn up by the second general council of Constantinople, A. D. 381: and therefore might be more properly styled the Constantinopolitan creed. The creed was carried by a majority, and admitted into the church as a barrier against Arius and his followers. The three creeds above-mentioned are used in the public offices of the church of England; and subscription to them is required of all the established clergy. Subscription to these was also required of the dissenting teachers by the toleration act; but from which they are now relieved by 19 Geo. III. CRIME, a voluntary breach of any known law. Faults result from human weakness, being transgressions of the rules of duty. Crimes proceed from the wickedness of the heart, being actions against the rules of nature. See PUNISHMENT and SIN. plexed himself much about the divine purposes. He did not distinguish as he ought, between God's secret will in his |