a' sheep-cote.' In this last application, it is found in 2 Chron. xxxii. 28.

COUCH, from the French coucher, which means to lie down, signifies a place for rest and repose. See BED. As a verb, couch denotes to lie after the manner of animals. Hence, in Gen. xlix. 9, Judah is said to have 'couched as a lion:' comp. Isa. xiii. 21; xvii. 2.

COULTER (L. culter, a large knife) has for its Hebrew original, a word primarily signifying to cut, which is rendered 'coulter' in 1 Sam. xiii. 20, 21; but in Isa. ii. 4. Joel iii. 10. Macc. iv. 3, 'ploughshare.' The coulter of a plough is that curving and sharpened piece, which, being fixed in the beam, before the point of the share, with its point a little forward, serves to cut a vertical section in the ground.

COUNTERVAIL (L. contra, against, and valeo, I am strong) is to be of equal strength to an opposing party, so as to stop and put an end to his proceedings. In Esther vii. 4, the word seems to be employed in the now unusual sense of compensating or making good. The root-meaning of the original, Shavah, is to be or make equal; hence, to compare and compensate (Prov. iii. 15. Isa. xl. 25. Esther v. 13).

COURTEOUS, from court, which properly denotes an open area before or around a palace, where kings and nobles were wont to give audience. Hence the word, in the same manner as porte, in Turkey, came to signify a palace itself. Courteous,' therefore, is an epithet properly describing such demeanour and manners as are proper and becoming at

court.

This cluster of notions is much inferior in origin and character to the associations which the original Greek of the New Testament calls up, where 'courteous' and 'courteously' represent words which signify kind and gentle affections (Acts xxviii. 7. 1 Pet. iii. 8). One of these words is the same in origin, and of similar import, with our word philanthropic.

Christianity, in regard to manners, as well as to morals, stands high above other systems, making courteousness to consist in that which gives both birth and value to all true politeness, - a large, gentle, and loving heart.

COVENANT (L. a compact) is an agreement which is entered into between two parties for effecting a certain object, under certain conditions and formalities which custom may suggest, or morals render desirable, with a view to act as sanctions, and secure the performance of the intended object. In strictness of speech, then, some approach to equality should exist between the two parties, since an agreement implies the accordance of the wills of the two who enter into the contract. And yet a superior may offer succour or mercy to an inferior on certain conditions;

the acceptance of which may, with the offer itself, be analogically termed a covenant. And this is the modification of the idea which we find sanctioned by Holy Writ; in which the offers of mercy made by God to his sinful creatures, with the accompanying means of grace, are represented under the image of a covenant, though such a figure requires for its strict propriety the acceptance of the boon on the prescribed conditions. Whence we are led to the general remark, that the figurative language of Scripture should be expounded with caution, and not be pushed to extremes.

There is deep and important truth in the figure of a covenant, when understood Scripturally. There are but two covenants, strict y so called, mentioned in the Bible; the one made with Adam in Paradise, called the covenant of works, because obedience was its condition. When this was broken, there came the revelation of the other-the covenant of grace-made with Christ in eternity, in which, on condition of his laying down his life, his people were to enjoy eternal blessedness. Hence the religion of the Bible is of divine, not human, origination. It came from God to man. It is light from its great source. It is law from the Supreme Lawgiver. It is mercy from the Judge of all the earth. It is aid from Omnipotence. It is goodness from the infinite Father. It is sanctifica. tion from the God of holiness. From first to last, true religion is of, and works for God. Such, if God is, must be the origin of true religion. It may find a soil on the earth; but its source, like the light, the rain, and the dews, must be in heaven; for who but God can make known what God is and wills, or on what conditions he will accept his erring, guilty creatures? Who but God, the Almighty Source of law, order, and happiness, can devise or give effect to a moral instrumentality which shall secure the triumph and prevalence of holiness, and, with holiness, of spiritual life and blessedness? True religion, therefore, must have God for its author, as well as salvation for its end Revelation, inspiration, miracle, are in consequence necessary parts of true religion. The idea of the former is involved in the idea of the latter, distinguishing true religion from false, and distinguishing religion in general from philosophy. But religion, having thus its source in some great and divine reality, outward to the human mind, must objectively consist in certain great truths, and carry in its bosom certain facts and symbols as the media of communication between him who gave and those who receive the divine law. Hence we get to the conclusion, that every system which is spun out of the human mind, is not true religion, if, in any proper sense, it can be termed reli gion at all; the very idea and essence of which consist in some source of truth and

goodness, besides and beyond our own minds. It may be affirmed with equal truth, that a system which retains little of the objective and divine element has so far little of the element of religion; and, how pleasing soever the colours may be with which it is decked out, stands to the meridian light and heat of Christianity, only as the yet faint rays of the morning, or the enfeebled rays of the evening, stand to the glorious power of the midday sun. There are two capital errors in the world: one makes religion to be exclusively of heaven; the other makes it to be exclusively of earth. In reality, it is of both. Heavenly in its origin, the child of God is nursed in human hearts. The action of the latter may be excluded no more than that of the former. What God has joined together, let not man put asunder. If heaven finds seed, sunshine, and rain, the earth offers a soil; which, again, was divinely prepared for the work by the hand that made the universe. Accordingly, while we are bid to work out our own salvation,' we are assured that God worketh in us both to will and to do' (Phil. ii. 12, 13). In every covenant there must be two parties. Deny the supernatural in religion, you set aside one, and reduce religion to morality. On the other hand, if you disown or undervalue the part which man bears in the covenant, making him a passive, unreasoning, unchoosing receptacle of divine grace, you destroy the very idea of a covenant, by removing or incapacitating one of the contracting parties. Holy Scripture sustains as well as gives the idea of a covenant, making man strong, wise, and happy, by uniting him in intimate union with God. The human, as well as the divine, forms a part of true religion. If so, then in all its representations and views, there will not fail to be a human element, which, however true and excellent for the time when put forth, must, as is every thing human and earthly, be more or less imperfect, incorrect, and

transient.

The Hebrew words equivalent to 'make a covenant,' 'establish a covenant,' &c. are of very frequent occurrence in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. They are found, I. in regard to the exhibition of mercy to Noah and his family (Gen. vi. 18). II. To the rainbow, selected immediately after the flood, as a token of the everlasting covenant which I have established between me and every living creature, that the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh' (Gen. ix. 14, seq.). JII. To the promise made to Abraham, to give Canaan as a possession to his seed (Gen. xv. 18; comp. xvii. 13), which was the foundation of all that was done for the redemption of the children of Israel, and their establishment in Palestine (Exod. ii. 24). This covenant, accordingly, involved the whole polity, civil and ecclesiastical, of the Hebrews (Exod. xxxiv. 10. Lev. xxvi.

42, seq. Deut. iv. 13): the ark, the central point of the Mosaic religion, received the name of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah' (Numb. x. 33). God himself is described as one who 'keepeth covenant and mercy' (Deut. vii. 9); and the Israelites are exhorted on their part to keep the provisions of the covenant (Deut. xxix. 9, seq.). For the furtherance of the objects of this covenant, Joshua is said to have made a covenant with the people, and set them a statute and an ordinance' (Josh. xxiv. 25); and David, even in the midst of sin and sorrow, found refuge and comfort in the conviction that God had made with him an everlasting covenant, ordered in all and sure' (2 Sam. xxiii. 5). After the same manner, Ezra, and the other great restorers of the Mosaic institutions after the exile, made a covenant with Jehovah, in order to secure the observance of his laws, and prevent another lapse into idolatry (Ezra x. 3. Neh. i. 5, 6). This covenant with the Abrahamidæ is termed the first covenant,' in opposition to the gospel, to which, IV. the term 'covenant,' 'new covenant' is applied (Heb. vii. 22; ix. 15; xii. 24), even by our Lord himself (Matt. xxvi. 28), who is the mediator; the party that negociates and establishes the covenant or compact between God and men (Heb. vii. 22; viii. 6), and who ratified the covenant with his death (Heb. xiii. 20; comp. ix 20. 1 Cor. xi. 25. Luke xxii. 20).

A covenant implies a statement of points agreed on : such a statement implies writing. The religion of the Bible, thus, as resting on definite facts, was favourable to the very early formation of a literature. Letters were needful for its purposes in its earliest periods. True religion is thus found to be, if not the inventress, certainly the foster-parent, of writing, which has been the schoolmistress of the world. Accordingly, the fragmentary but invaluable notices we possess of the antediluvian period of history, bear clear traces of the very early practice of the art of writing, by means of which only could these primitive traditions have been brought down in the state in which they are, into the hands of the compiler of the Pentateuch. And as early in the Mosaic economy as Exod. xxiv. 7, we find already in existence a book, spoken of as received and well known under the remarkable designation the book of the covenant,' which, from the context, appears to have contained a general summary of the divine ordinations for the establishment of the Mosaic religion, or articles of agreement concluded upon between God and the people, engrossed by Moses in writing.

The word rendered covenant appears sometimes in our version as 'league,' being used in relation to merely human affairs (Josh. ix. 6, seq. 1 Kings v. 12); and it may assist the reader in forming a right concep

tion of the religious import of covenant,' if he refer to instances in which the two contracting parties were human: - Abraham and Abimelech made a covenant (Gen. xxi. 27); Abimelech and Isaac (Gen. xxvi. 28, seq.); Laban and Jacob (Gen. xxxi. 44); Jonathan and David (1 Sam. xviii. 3).

We read in the Bible of a covenant of salt' (Lev. ii. 13. Numb. xviii. 19); and, from the connection, it is evident that emphasis and sanctity are thus given to the idea of covenant; so that 'a covenant of salt' is the same as a sacred and binding covenant, - -a covenant of special obligation. It is not so clear whence this emphasis is derived, probably, however, from the preserving and perpetuating virtue of salt; or it may have come from the fact, that salt was accounted an indispensable part of flesh offerings, and, from this, was termed the salt of the covenant of thy God' (Lev. ii. 13): whence a 'covenant of salt' may denote a specially religious covenant, around which religion had thrown its powerful sanctions and holy associations.

-- one

Covenants, from the earliest periods, were formed and ratified by blood, not only among the Hebrews, but other ancient nations. The animal was divided in two parts, between which the contracting parties walked; probably to intimate their wish, that he who broke the agreement should meet with a similar fate (Gen. xv. 9, seq. Jer. xxxiv. 18). Hence arose the phrase, 'blood of the covenant,' as referring to the slaughtered victim offered in ratification of the agreement (Exod. xxiv. 8. Matt. xxvi. 28. Heb. ix. 20). Among some Asiatic peoples, the Armenians, the Medes, the Lydians, and the Scythians, it was the custom for the offerers to draw blood from each other, of which they mutually drank, in order to give an additional sanction to their bond (Sallust. Catilin. 22). To this reprehensible practice, reference has been held to be made in Ps. xvi. 4. A meal accompanied the solemn formation of a covenant (Gen. xxvi. 30; xxxi. 54. 2 Sam. iii. 20); but it was not made from the slaughtered animal, which was wholly consumed by fire in token of the fate which awaited the transgressor.

These details serve to show, that much of an earthly character is mixed up with covenantal observances. The fact should not surprise but rather gratify us, as being in unison with the very idea of a covenant existing between God and man. And it is no little remarkable, and, as serving to show how the divine element kept the earthly pure, no little satisfactory to the friends of revealed religion, that the lamentable abuses, which were connected with sacrificial covenants in other nations, found no place among the men or the institutions that enjoy the sanc tion of the Bible.

Under the gospel each believer has the

privilege of entering within the bond of that Covenant which God made with Christ from everlasting, and which has been ratified in the death of Christ, and of being the heir of all the blessings and benefits secured in that covenant. These are forgiveness and holiness in this life, and eternal glory in that which is

to come.

CRAFT (T.) is in origin the same word as the modern German Kraft, strength; exemplifying the aphorism, that knowledge is power.' Craft,' originally denoting strength or efficiency, came to denote that skill which gives a person control over outward things; hence skill in a particular application, and so efficiency in skilled labour. From this the word went on to signify skilled labour itself, and was applied to such trade and business as demanded knowledge and a lengthened training. Accordingly, we have the phrase, trade, or craft.' The use of the term in a bad sense, as craftily' for 'cunningly,' would easily result from its previous applications. Craft' represents two very different words in Hebrew, one, Gharash, which denotes a cunning' or skilled workman (Hos. xiii. 2; comp. Gen. iv. 22. Isa. xl. 19); the other, Gohrem, craftiness (Job. v. 13; comp. Exod. xxi. 14. Josh. ix. 4). The term craftsman stands also for a Greek word, technites, which may be rendered artist or artificer. See Acts xix. 24, 38. Heb. xi. 10 (builder'). Rev. xviii. 22.

CRANE is the rendering, in Isa. xxxviii. 14 and Jer. viii. 7, of the word Soos; denoting a migratory bird that utters a sound termed chattering, which, from the connection, must have been mournful and tremulous. This is all the information respecting the bird which we can gather from the Scriptures. The crane of Europe, whose voice is loud and clamorous, could not have been intended. But the name Sous indicates the expressive sound of the swallow's voice; and Bochart considers the swallow to be meant. In that case, the other bird (Gahgoor), connected with the Soos in both the places of Scripture given above, may be the crane, so that the names will have to change places; but not the European crane, which has a loud voice, and does not appear in Palestine. Pro

NUMIDIAN CRANE.

bably the Numidian crane was meant, which has a feeble voice; and, coming from central Africa, arrives in Palestine in the spring. These cranes are often seen on the monuments of Egypt.

The swallow, by which word the Numidian crane is represented in the aforecited passages, was probably denominated in Hebrew Durohr (Ps. lxxxiv. 3. Prov. xxvi. 2); a rendering which is supported by the ancient rabbins, as well as modern scholars of eminence, among whom may be named De Wette, and Umbreit; though some prefer translating it by turtle-dove.'

CREATION is a Latin word connected with a root which seems to indicate growth; and appears to have had its origin in a system of thought, which represented organised and animated existence as springing spontaneously out of what were termed 'primeval elements;' namely, earth, air, fire, and water. Accordingly, Lucretius makes all beings to have arisen from seeds or first principles pre-existent in nature:

The rise of things: how curious nature joins The various seeds, and in one mass combines The jarring principles! what new supplies Bring nourishment and strength!' The Hebrew word Bahrah, rendered' create,' has a very different origin. Having for its primary meaning the idea of cutting, separating, and reducing into shape and form, it refers the mind to the wisdom, power, and skill of the great Workmaster and Architect of the universe, and stands in agreement with the doctrine that is variously taught or implied throughout the Bible, namely, that the universe is the work of Almighty God.

Much difficulty has been occasioned to some persons by the nction, that the Hebrew word denotes to create out of nothing;' and in this Lucretius finds support for his atheistical views:

'Nothing was by the gods of nothing made.' The real signification of the term is the reverse of this; inasmuch as it necessarily implies materials for the great Maker and Builder' to work upon. Whence those materials, philology does not inform us; but the Scriptural narrative evidently supposes their pre-existence. Before we speak further on this point, however, we must give attention to the record itself.

In what light is it to be regarded? This is a fundamental question, without an answer to which we cannot expect to form definite and satisfactory ideas respecting its con

the receiver in his actual condition. Now, as emanating from the Source of truth, inspiration must convey light. Light, therefore, is an essential element of all revelation. Full, perfect, and complete light? Such light can appertain only to the great Source of light himself. Hence it must be not full, not perfect, not complete. Consequently, other elements must be mingled with the truth of inspiration. These elements we discover by adverting to the second and third of the aforenamed subjects, - the receiver considered first generally, and second with respect to his actual condition. The receiver is man, a finite being; in his very nature a being of narrow view and limited capacity; a being confined to a speck of creation, on which he has been placed, in order that, with the aid of the Almighty, he may advance in a knowledge of the universe around him, and in power to fulfil the end of his creation. Such a being can receive light only according to the measure of his capacity; and, in consequence, is incapable of seeing things as they are, which is a function of the all-comprehending mind of God. Man sees phenomena, not actual realities, things as they appear, rather than as they are. This is an essential condition of all his knowledge. Appearances will, in process of time, and as his powers improve and expand, pass into realities; but the transition is necessarily tardy, and, until he acquires new powers, cannot be completed. Indeed, in str ctness of speech, the transition can never reach ts termination; simply, because man can never become God. Let it be observed, also, that this is a condition which attaches to man in his scientific equally as in his religious inquiries. Absolute truth belongs exclusively to God. Science, therefore, must not be rashly set in array against revelation. They are both in one aspect human, and partake of the conditions of all finite existence. If too much has been assumed for religion, the presumptions of science have been scarcely less extravagant. As a product of man's mind, science must consist in relative truth; and the history of sciencewhich has in no two generations been, in regard to any one branch, the same — - the history of science, which is a history of a long and painful struggle, confirms our deduction. Science and revelation are not enemies. They are children of the same great Father. Science, however, is without that divine element which constitutes the essence of revelation; while revelation has always been conditioned on the actual state of science, and kept pace with it in its ceaseless growth, purification, and progress. Hence we come to the third subject; namely, the actual condition, mental and moral, of the party to whom a revelation is made. And we say that all revelation must of necessity be adapted to the receiver. You cannot

-

pour into a vase more than the measure of its capacity. You cannot pour the liquid in more rapidly than the orifice admits. The child can in no way receive even ideas which appear like intuitions to the adult. An untutored peasant could make nothing of the demonstrable propositions of the Principia.' Say that the Mosaic account of the creation emanated from the divine Mind, could it be a description of the actual facts of creation? The workings of God are understood only by God himself. The account must of necessity be given in such a way as to be understood by man, by untaught, uncultivated minds. In the first place, human language must be employed as a medium of communication. But human language has in all cases a reference to the pre-existent state of knowledge. Had you spoken to an ancient Roman of virtue, he would have understood you to speak of valour; and nothing but a very long training could have brought him to understand by virtue,' simple obedience to the will of God, as the expression of infinite wisdom and love. Creation cannot even now be explained to the most cultivated intellects of the nineteenth century: how much less could the actual reality be revealed to men in the earlier stages of civilisation! Mind, in its very essence, is a growth. All growth is slow and gradual. And the mind of our first progenitors could have been no other than infantine; and, as such, incapable of receiving even the Newtonian ideas of the universe, much more, conceptions coincident with the archetypal ideas of the Infinite Intelligence. With the earliest races of men, creation could have been nothing more than the simpler transitions and changes of which nature is full, referred to some great Cause. That Cause, inspiration told them, was one, even God, the Maker of heaven and earth, which to them was the universe. Revelation must necessarily be conditioned on actual knowledge. To a being that knows nothing, nothing can be revealed. What is known is the vehicle for the conveyance of what is unknown. Ilence the new is necessarily modelled on the old. The new will of course as new be more than the old, but it cannot differ in kind. If the old is partly light, partly darkness; so also will be the new. The previously unknown is conditioned on the previously known; and therefore the resultant partakes of the nature of both. The pre-existent meaning of words, of necessity, modifies new disclosures. The word day, found in the Scriptural account of the creation, had a meaning before that account was made known, or it never could in any way have been understood; and the pre existent meaning of day' would be the import in which the term, as found in the account, was taken. Not our signification of the term 'day,' nor the prophetic,

nor any other, but the then current meaning, would be that in the light of which the account was read. Hence the necessity of knowing what the import of the term 'day' then was; and hence the impropriety of giving to that or any other term an arbitrary signification, derived from later knowledge or cherished theories. But we adduce this instance in order to exemplify the fact, that revelation bears a relation to pre-existent states of mind. Even if inspiration consists in God's telling man certain facts or truths, this telling can be made intelligible only through such powers and such knowledge as were possessed by those to whom the revelation was made. The infinite cannot in its very nature communicate itself to the finite. To do so would be to lose its own essential qualities. The boundless must first enter within bounds; and He that filleth all in all must be narrowed to the petty dimensions of a mind of one of his creatures. The communication of knowledge, then, from God to man, - however specific and direct it may be, cannot be God's knowledge; cannot proceed from God's all-embracing view; but must enter the human mind through its narrow portals, perhaps in an untutored age. You cannot tell, unless you suit your ideas to the ideas of the scholar, and employ the language which he uses. And if these ideas are few, narrow, and earthly, and that language involves, for the most part, only terms derived from the world of sense - you can, whatever your own knowledge, impart only narrow and imperfect conceptions of divine things. But these remarks acquire additional force, if, discarding the idea of a direct, verbal communication, we regard inspiration as a general, divine influence, operating to quicken, elevate, and expand man's faculties in one special direction, and on one particular subject.

In this view, revelation—it is too obvious to require proof or illustration— must follow the general order of Providence, and so proceed, step by step, with the progress of civilisation, being similar to, yet not identical with, either Providence or civilisation; but, while of the same kind with the former, and leading to results accordant with, and promotive of, the latter, being also something special, extraordinary, distinguished,-yea, even peculiar, if not individual. In truth, from theory we turn to facts, facts recorded in the Book of Inspiration itself: we find that revelation has consisted in the raising-up of eminent men from time to time, who, under God, became both the depositaries and the heralds of great and important truths, truths which increased in number and in brilliancy as time went on, till from Abraham, the father of the faithful, we are led gradually to the perfect day of Christ. And thus the grand discovery made in the opening words of the