6

views, indeed, pushed to their results, properly involved such error,-stopped short of committing themselves to it. Bishop Pearson observes, that the ancient Fathers, who opposed the heresy of Eutyches, did well make use of the sacramental ' union between the Body and Blood of Christ,' as an illustration; which had been no illustration, as addressed to him, had he not admitted the reality of that union: and, in fact, that Eutychians were sound in their statements about the Eucharist, appears from their trying to wrest the Church doctrine concerning it to serve their own turn: As the symbols of the body and blood of Christ are one thing before consecration, and ' after that change their name and become another,' &c.1 So utterly unheard of among professed Christians at that day was any question as to Sacramental Presence. It is recorded of some of the single-hearted and faithful Fathers from more distant lands, who met in the great Nicene Council, that on hearing the blasphemous, and to them hitherto unimagined impieties of Arius, they stopped their ears, and cried out aloud, and would have fled from the sounds as accursed. Can we doubt that the bold denials of these latter times would have been listened to with equal horror and detestation in any age of the Church?

But although not in her formal determinations, yet in a still more satisfactory shape, if possible, we do possess irrefragable evidence of the Church's positive views on the subject, in those 'great appellatives with which the purest ages of the Church, 'the most ancient Liturgies, and the most eminent saints of God use to adorn and invest this mysteriousness,' viz. of the Holy Communion. In the Greek Liturgies attributed to S. James, the sacramental symbols are called sanctified, honourable, precious, celestial, unspeakable, incorruptible, 'glorious, fearful, formidable, divine (aytao@evra,... арρητα, ἄχραντα, ἔνδοξα, φοβερὰ, φρικτά, θεῖα.). Nothing but the most lively belief in the reality of Christ's presence in the Eucharist could have invested it with the awfulness which these epithets prove it to have possessed in the eyes of the Church of that day.

6

92

But,' we have heard it argued, 'granting that these opinions have the witness of the whole Church thus against them, both tacit and expressed; granting this, are we justified in marking them with the awful signature of Heresy? Would the Church herself, if called upon for a formal determination, have done so? These ancient heresies "touched the person of our Lord," but it cannot be said that these views do, which seems to make а broad line of demarcation between the two cases.' We

Theodoret. Dialog. quoted by Pearson.

2 Jer. Taylor, vol. xv. p. 448.

6

6

91

6

reply that, in strictness, we suppose these views are not yet heresy, because the Church has not yet formally pronounced them to be so;-but that an Ecumenical Council, in any age, would have pronounced them such, we unhesitatingly believe. For we deny the minor of the proposition. We affirm that these opinions do touch' (however unconsciously on the part of their maintainers) the Person of our Lord.' Surely Hooker has abundantly demonstrated this, or furnished materials for the demonstration of it. Both the Roman and the Zuinglian view of the Sacraments are therefore untenable, because they trench on the Catholic doctrine of the Natures and Person of Christ. The Roman view deprives the majestical Body' of Christ of one of its properties, viz. its locality. 'If his majes'tical Body have any such new property, by force whereof it 'may everywhere really, in substance, present itself, or may at once be in many places, then hath the majesty of His estate extinguished' (viz. as to one of its properties, locality,) the verity of His Nature.' The Roman error then is, as far as it goes, Eutychian heresy; not that it asserts the one nature to be entirely confounded' with the other, but that it makes the one to annihilate a particular property of the other. It is less easy to fix the exact character of the Zuinglian, or of the more modern view, because its advocates do not present us with propositions so dogmatic and tangible as those of the Lateran and Tridentine Councils. Of necessity, however, it holds a degree of one of two heresies in solution, viz. either of Arianism or Nestorianism, according as its maintainers explain themselves; and one of these two must be precipitated, on applying the proper test. Those who deny the Real Presence of Christ in Baptism and the Eucharist, either mean to deny the presence of His Divinity as well as His Humanity; or, allowing the presence of His Divinity, to deny that of His Humanity:-for that they admit the presence of the Humanity without the Divinity is not to be supposed. Now the former of the two alternatives denies to Christ's Divine Nature its inalienable attribute of ubiquity; or, to put it otherwise, it supposes God to be present (for this none ever questioned), and present in an especial manner, at the highest act of Christian worship, but Christ not to be so present:-either way, it detracts from the verity of His Godhead, the unity of His Substance with that of the Father;-which is, in its degree, Arianism. The other alternative supposes it possible for Christ's Human Nature to be separated from His Divine Nature, so that the one may be present, the other being in no sense present:—which to assert is, pro tanto, Nestorianism. It seems clear, therefore, that the

1 Hooker, L. E. P. v. 55. § 6.

Catholic Church has implicitly declared as well the Roman as the other view to be heresy; and that any Ecumenical Council which shall hereafter meet, must of necessity explicitly declare them such, as a legitimate corollary to the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in the one case, and to those of either Nice or Ephesus in the other.

6

6

There is one more light in which the subject may be viewed. To bring men to a right belief on any point of doctrine is as clearly a Christian duty, as it is to bring them to holiness of practice. But erroneous belief on the subject of Sacramental grace would appear to involve such awful consequences, that grave indeed is the responsibility which rests upon those who rightly hold it, of saving with fear, pulling them out of the fire,' those who are so unhappy as to deny the doctrine. It is not merely the wicked,' but such as be devoid of a lively faith,' that although they do carnally and visibly press with their 'teeth the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no 'wise are partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation 'do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing.'1 Now whereupon is this lively faith' exercised, but in the realised Presence of Christ in the rite? This surely is the distinctive work of faith in connexion with that Sacrament. Neither is this an unsupported determination of our Church-all the Catholic interpretations of S. Paul's words in 1 Cor. xi. proceed upon the same view; e. g. 'Let each one 'examine his own mind, what estimation or conception (vπóλnı) 'he has of the mysteries,' is the exposition of Theodorus. if this be so, how awful the doubt which arises in the mind, as to the degree in which those who deny the Lord's Presence in the Holy Communion, are or can be partakers in the benefits of it-nay, as to the degree in which they are 'guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.'

Own

And

We will not follow out the painful thought to the other grace-imparting ordinances of the Church, content to leave it, and the entire subject, to the serious consideration of those who are disposed to make light of the admission of such religionists, whether in the Church Home or Colonial, into positions of awful function and incalculable importance.

1 Art. XXIX.

436

ART. VII.-1. Illustrations of Instinct, deduced from the Habits of British Animals. By JONATHAN COUCH, F.L.S., Member of the Royal Geological Society and of the Royal Institution of Cornwall, &c. London: Van Voorst. 1847.

2. On Instinct. By RICHARD WHATELY, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin. Dublin: James M'Glashan. No. 1. Popular

Papers on Subjects of Natural History.

3. Our Fellow-Lodgers. By the Rev. R. WALSH, LL.D. and M.D., Rector of Finglas. No. 2. Ditto.

4. Zoology and Civilization. By ISAAC BUTT, LL.D., Q.C. No. 3. Ditto.

5. The Intellectuality of Domestic Animals. By the late Rev. CÆSAR OTWAY, A.B. No. 4. Ditto.

THERE is a growing feeling of reverence for the lower creation. In more quarters than one we feel that we have actual duties towards that mass of life, those creatures of energy and instinct, of power and beauty, which surround us. Not only do we regard them in their simply material aspect, as facts of creation, as strong, or swift, or curious, or handsome, which qualities they share with brute matter, with hill, and stream, and stone, but we regard them as sharers in one quality, and that the most tangible portion of our inheritance-they share in life, they are living creatures. They are in one particular our brethren. So far has this estimate proceeded, that in a humiliating rather than humble spirit, a clergyman, Dr. Walsh, has delivered a lecture, published in the series named in our heading, in which he discusses the nature of Entozoa, the intestinal worms, the creeping twining maggots which infest the human body, and thinks proper to name these disgusting creatures Our Fellow Lodgers,' as though they with our immortal part, the redeemed soul, were joint-tenants, occupants in common, of that contemptible, yet in truth sanctified, organisation the human body. Not only is this language affectation, but it is revolting to our religious feeling. The Christian body is not to be thought of in this way; there is a relative holiness in that which has been blessed by the Holy Spirit, and whose scattered fragments are to rise again on the resurrection morning. And here a distinction may be urged. There was a time in which the whole creation was pronounced very good.' But sharers in the fall, the whole creation groaneth and travaileth together in pain.' Under the

6

present dispensation, then, we are not to think of all creatures as intrinsically good. In what way corruption has infected them it would be hard to say, or presumptuous perhaps to inquire; but that they are corrupted, vitiated, fallen, debased in nature, or even in moral character, we may safely insist. And it is in this way that the lower creation is a mystery; and, it may be, its presence is to ourselves part of our probation. It is not for nothing that we are so surrounded with animal life; we cannot escape it; domesticated or savage, the living creature is our daily guest, our most constant attendant in some form or other. Such a perpetual presence, such an inextricable connexion with our own life, hints at duties: we cannot be so close to the animal world without having ethical relations towards it. And yet such duty is not a mere matter of admiration, or meditation, or philozoism. Duty varies as the moral character of its subjectmatter varies. And here no one can doubt of the fact, that animals do differ morally, as well as physically. Not only do classes differ but individuals differ: and as they differ, so do our relations towards them change.

And it may be that the animal world thus presents to us various characters and habits, dispositions, if we may so say, and tempers, not merely that we may exercise and employ the correlative human faculties towards such dispositions, but that they may constantly obtrude themselves in the way of example or warning to ourselves. So that the variety of moral character in animals, in addition to exercising our own moral character, is in the place of a living lesson to ourselves. Our own animal passions display themselves to the full, unchecked in any way by the Indwelling Spirit, or by conscience, in the various animals. What the lower vices are, we may learn from studying the class which externally most resembles ourselves: what cruelty is, from watching the tiger or cat: what fidelity is, from the unwavering affection of the dog. This may be one purpose of their actual being. And thus to recur to what was stated above, we are not forced to feel in the same way towards the monkey or the serpent, as we do towards the horse or elephant. If it be natural, it may also be right, to entertain disgust in the one case, as we do respect or even affection in the other. Enmity towards the serpent is a remarkable declaration of Holy Scripture: though it may not go to the extent of authorizing a wanton and indiscriminate destruction of all reptiles, yet it goes for something not only in the way of excusing, but of justifying, our abhorrence and aversion from them.

In the ordinary books of Natural History we think that this distinction of ethical character in animals, and the consequent difference of our involuntary estimate of them, has not been observed, simply because such treatises are ordinarily not of a