Animals and Vices 1

Dogs and Anger:

At least if you believe some people, dogs were at some point associated with anger. This makes sense in light of territorial and traumatic barking. But bear in mind, it’s actually not wrong to get angry. You can channel it in a productive fashion. This is like making dogs guard the house. As if DC’s Black Canary’s capable of managing her anger in constructive ways and to some extent Stephanie Brown (who’s always tired of Tim’s laziness). Caitlin Snow, however, is prone to violent fits in wolf form.

Wolves and Gluttony:

This should be a no-brainer in that not only do wolves eat prey, they also eat rubbish, faeces and corpses. Not that felids don’t do any of those things, but not to the same extent canids do (felids are obligate carnivores). To put it this way, Caitlin Snow has an uncontrollable appetite for blood which she craves it even more whenever she appears as a wolf. She also enjoys rubbish and eating animals, to others’ shock.

The Pantheon … The thirty first edition, revised and corrected. Translated … (Google Books)

M History mentions only two, Ulysses and Orpheus, who escaped. ‘ The first Was foreWarned of the danger of their charming voices by Circe ,- therefore he stopped the ears of his companions with wax, and was himself; ‘fast bound to the mast of the ship, by which means he safely passed the fatal coasts. “‘ But Orpheus overcame them in their own art, and evaded the temptations of their murdering music, by playing upon his harp, and ‘ singing the praises of the gods so well, that he outdid the “Sirens. The Fates had ord-iined, that the Sirens should live till somebody who passed by heard them sing, and yet escaped alive. When therefore they sawthemselves overcome, they grew desperate, and threw themselVes headlonginto the sea, and were turned into stones. Some write, that they were formerly virgins, Pra‘serpine’s companions, who sought every where for her when she was stolen aWay by Pluto ,- but when they could not find her, they were so grieved, that they cast

(a) Horn. Odyss. (b) filonslm maris Sirens: erant, qum vocc canon: Quailibet admissa: detinuere rates. 0v. Art. Am. 3.

Sirens were once sea monsters, mere decoys,
Trepanuing seamen with their tuneful voice.

(0) Hum. Odyss. 1. (d) dpollon. Argon. 3. ~

[ocr errors]
themselves into the sea, and from that time’ were changed into sea monsters. “ Others-add, that by Juno’s ‘ persuasionthey-conteoded in music with the .Muses, who overcame them, and, to punish their rashness, cut 09″ their wings, with which they afterward made for themselves garlands.

.P. What did the \poetssignify byzthis fiction ?

M. That the “ b minds of men are deposed from their proper seat and state bythe allurements of pleasure.” It corruptsthem; and. there is not a more deadly plague in naturetto mankind than voluptuousness. Whoever ad-_ dicts himself altogetherto pleasures, loses his reason, and is ruined ; and he that desires to decline their charms, must stop his ears and not listen to them; but must liearken to the music of Orpheus, that is, he must observe the precepts and instructions of the wise.

Now turn your eyes to those two monsters, who are called Scylla’and Clzarybdis.

[ocr errors]
THE description of Scylla is very various; for some

» say, that cshe was a most beautiful woman from the breasts downward, but had six dogs’ heads: and others say, that in her upper parts she resembled-a woman, in vher lower a serpent and a wolf. But whatever her picture was, ” every body says she was the daughter of P/zorcus. She was courted bv Glaucus, and received I his embraces; upon which Circe, who passionately loved Glaucus, and’coald not bear that Scylla was preferred before her by Glaucus, epoisoned with venomous herbs those waters in which Sgt/Ila used to wash herself: Scylla was ignorant of it, and according to her custom, went into the fountain; and‘when she saw that the lower parts of her body‘were turned into the

(a) Pausan. in Boeot. (b) Voluptatum illicebris menteme sui sede et statu dimoveri. Cic. de Senectnte. (c) Horn. Odyss- (d) Apol‘ Ion. Argon. 3. (e) Myro Prian. l. 3. Rerum Messan.

\

heads of dogs,being extremely grieved that she had lost her beauty, she cast herselfheadlong into the sea, where she was turned into a rock, infamous for the many shi wrecks that happen there. This rock is still seen int e sea rhatdividt-s I talyfrom Sicily,between Messz’na, acity of Sicily, and R/iegium (now Reggio) in Calabria. It is said to be surrounded with dogs and wolves,which devour the ersons who are cast away there: but by this is meant, t at when the waves, by a storm, are dashed against this great rock, the noise a little resembles the barking of dogs, and the bowling of wolves.

P. You say that qulla was the daughter of lercus , was not she the daughter of Nisus, king of illeg’ara?

Ill. No; that Sc lla was another woman : for qul/a, athe daughter of ing Nisus, was in love with Jilinos, who besieged her father in the city oflllegara. She betrayed both her father and her country to him, by cutting off the fatal lock of purple hair, in which were contained her father’s and her country’s safetypmd sent it to the besieger. Illinos gained the city by it, but detested qulla’s perfidiousness, and hated her. She could not hear this misfortune, but was changed into a lark. Nisus, her father, was likewise changed Into a sparrowhawk, which is called ‘nisus, after his name; and this sparrowhawk,as if he yet sought to punish his daughter’s great baseness, still pursues the lark with great fury to devour her.

C’lzarybdis is a vast whirlpool in the same Sicilian Sea, over against htSl’qylla, which swallows down whatsoever comes within its circle, and votnits it up again. They say, that this Charybdi’s was formerly a very ravenous woman, who stole away Hercules’ oxen ; for which theft Jupiter struck her dead wrth thunder, and then turned her into this gulf. c Virgil gives an elegant description of these two monsters, qulla and Chaiybdz’s.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
P. What do these fablesof Sty/Ila and C/mrfybdz’s mean?

M They represent lust and gluttony, monstrous vices, v‘vhich render our ~voyage throu h this world extremely hazardous and perilous. Lust, ike Scylla, engages uuWary passengers by the beauty and pomp of hz-r outside; and when they are entangled in her snares, she tortures, vexes, torments, and disquiets them with rage and fury, which exceeds the madness of dogs, or the ravenousness of wolves. Gluttony isa Chart/Mt}, ‘a gulf or whirlpool that is insatialile ;‘it hui‘ies families alive, devours estates, consumes lands and treasures, and sucks up allthings. The _ are neighbouring vices, and, like Scylla and CM1y]: is, are but little distant from each other; nay, they areseldom separate, but act With united forces; for you will not easily find a inan, who is greatly addicted to the luxury of eating and drinking, Who is not also a slave to the luxury of concnpiscence, and besmeared with the sordid filth of baseplcasures, and wholly given up to do the most vile and impudentlusts.

But it is now time to consider the place in which the wicked are termented etérnally ; or rather to cast down our eyes upon it, in the lower apartment of this Pam them, where the infernal gods are painted. We will only take a transitory view of this scene, since it will he very unpleasant to Stay long in so tlolelul, so sad a place.

At Scyllum cecis cohibe! spvlimca latebris

The baptist Magazine (Google Books)

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
Bishops and Councils. By James Lillie, D.D., M.D. Edinburgh: Niinmo. London: Simpkin & Co. British Quarterly. October.

Dr. Lillie is a stern and sovero assailant of tho Hierarchy, but, so far as we have observed, he is fair and honourable. He grounds his attack on the “Bishops and Councils” on the words of Our Lord, Matt. vii. lj, 16, and on those of Paul, Acts xx. 28—30, regarding the “wolves” who wore to enter the Church. Those “wolves” he thinks he has detected in the bishops. Tho argument is entirely historical. For two centuries he finds no ” wolves” in the Churches. Tortullian, who nourished in the beginning of the third century, shames his pagan persecutors by comparing their manners with those of tho Christians. ” Behold how these Christians love one another!” was still the glorious standing miraclo by which Jesus of Nazareth was glorified in those who called themselves Christians. “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye havo love one to another.”

Tertullian was a presbyter of thft Church of Carthage, and he speaks of presbyters as the rulers of tho Church, but not a word of a prelate. In that same Church, about fifty years after Tertullian, wo find Cyprian acting as chief presbyter; and the Hierarchy claim him as the great assertor of Episcopacy. Here, however, they assert more than they can prove. Still, we are not concerned to dispute the prelacy of Cyprian. It seems plain that the chairman of the presbyters contrived, in the latter half of the third century, to exalt himself into what we call a bishop. The grand point to keep in view is the morality of the Church under these upstart, ambitious presbyters. No longer could the chief presbytor of Carthage, Cyprian, abash the pagans by pointing to the

love of tho saints. Cyprian himself, as Dr. Lillio proves from his works, bewails the degeneracy of Churchmen, and the fierce rapacity of their bishops. In the beginning of the fourth century, just before the Council of Nicrea, Eusobius confirms the testimony of Cyprian as to the abandoned immorality of the prelates and their flocks. So far from being able to exclaim with Tertullian—nay, with tho pagans themselves—”Beholdhow the Christians love one another!” these two bishops, Cyprian and Eusebius, were compelled to upbraid both the flocks and their shepherds, as scandals to tho name of Christ. So that, a few years after, Ammianus Marcelliuus, a truthful historian, though a pagan, declared that no wild beasts were so savage as the Christians wore to each other. Dr. Lillio demands (and wo must say wo do not know how the Prelatiste can evade the query), were not these proud, ambitious, fierce, bloody prelates, the very “false prophots,” the “tearingwolves,” foretold by Christ and Faul t It seems a very odd way of parrying a dangerous thrust to abuse Dr. Lillio as “a mad bull,” and “a fiery pugilist,” as a weekly contemporary does. Tho question is simply historical, and must be determined by competent witnessos. We havo just soen these aro two famous bishops. Aro they not to be believed when they testify, no doubt unwillingly, against theirown order—the prelates? But it is not Cyprian and Eusebius alone. We have Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome, and many more, testifying to the same awful fact. It is merely confirming the Doctor’s argument to call him bad names. Nor is it essentially better to allow, with a daily contemporary, that “Dr. Lillie has some considerable acquaintance with Church history,” but, after all, “gives only his ipse dixit, as evidence, when he brings a whole bench of bishops into his box.”

But it is not merely weeklies and dailies that have fallen foul of the Doctor’s good name. Wo are truly sorry to find the ” British Quarterly combining with the High Church organs to run down tho historian of ” Bishops and Councils.” “Hard,” “misunderstanding,” “ungenerous,” “opprobrious,” “ill-natured,” “blustering,” “savage,”—all crowded into less than half a page of this most respectable Dissenting Review, form an awful bombshell to send at the head of a nonconforming brother. Wo are slow to think that gentlemen so distinguished for humane learning and Christian courtesy as Dr. Reynolds and Mr. Henry Allon could write or sanction tho use of such language as wo have quoted from their singular half-page. The best of editors, like ” good Homer,” will sometimes “nod,” and reviews creep into respectablo periodicals, which aro as unworthy of their high reputation as they aro unjust to tho authors whom they abuse.

What cvidonco does the reviower bring forward to justify these heavy charges? Well, it seems Dr. Alexander Roberts, editor of the ” AnteNicenc Library,” “come* in for many a blow.” Aro the blows fair, just, and merited? Is there a foul one among them all? It is not evon pretended. What is there “opprobrious,” &c, Ac., in this? Dr. Lillio had to tell the truth about the Hierarchy, and he found this Presbyterian editor helping tho Hierarchy. Was he not called on to denl with him? For instance, Dr. Roberts allows one of his prelatic translators to render Presbyterium by I’riesthood instead of Presbytery, thus countenancing that priestcraft which has been the bane of Christendom. This was a sin so glaring, oven in an Anglican, as to be repudiated by the respectablo Dr. Lightfoot. It was a double sin in a Presbyterian doctor.

The reviewer complains that “Dr. Schaff,” “Dr. Alford,” and ” Dr. W. Cunningham,” are all censured. And why not, if they are all justly censurnhle f This critic socms to fancy that a man must not be found fault with if he prints ” D.D.” after his name. He does not say one word to show

that these respectable names are unjustly dealt with. Dr. Schaff, though a Presbyterian, coquettes with the Hierarchy. For instance (vol. iii. p. 612), ho tells us that Irona^us and Tertullian did not appeal to Scripture alone, but had “rocourso at the same time to Tradition, as preserved from the Apostles, through the unbroken succession of the bishops.” This style of writing is censured as delightful to Prelatists, and misleading to ordinary readers; and tho reason is given at pp. 46, 47 of ” Bishops and Councils.” Tho “Quarterly” critic says not a word of all this, but simply condemns Dr. Lillie for differing with Dr. Schaff. What is there “opprobrious,” &c, &c, in this?

• As for Dr. Alford, ho is praised in “Bishops and Councils” for the unrivalled abundance of his critical labours, “his candour,” &c, <S:c. But then Dr. Lillie demurs to the Dean’s not making his popular version of the New Testament harmonise with his Commentary. He tells us, in his commentary on Acts xx. 23, that “the Apostles ordained those whom the Churches elected,” and yet declares, in his revised New Testament of this year, that the Apostles ” elected the elders.” Again, in 1 Tim. iii. 1, Dr. Alford, in his revision, translates: “If a man seeketh for tho office of a bishop, he desireth a good work;” yet he declares, in his Commentary, that to translate so “is to set a trap”‘ for the common reader. But Dr. Lillie uses no ” opprobrious ” words when mentioning these things. He merely says Dr. Aiford’s readers are entitled to know his reasons for the changes— ” roasons which it is fair to believe the Dean must have.” What is there “blustering,” &c, &c, in all this?

As to Principal Cunningham, Dr. Lillie pronounces his “Lectures” “admirable,” and speaks reverently of his “learning and sagacity.” Still, he ventures to differ with the lamented author about” homoousion,” and gives five reasons for differing (pp. 65—67, “Bishops and Councils “). What ia there “ill-natured,” “opprobrious,” “ungenerous,” &c, &c, in all this?

“The entire treatise of Dr. Lightfoot on the Christian Ministry is treated to a most savage dissection.'” Dissection is a delicate, difficult operation, demanding a keen knife, a sharp eye, a steady hand, and a thorough knowledge of the Subject. In saying, then, that Dr. Lightfoot’s “entiro treatise is treated to a. ~ dissection,” tho sub-editor, unintentionally no doubt, pays Dr. Lillio the very highest possible compliment, and inflicts, unconsciously, a fatal blow on tho “treatise,” if not on tho author. For it is plainly implied, that all that is in the treatise of argument, or of no-argumeut, is thoroughly oxposed in “Bishops and Councils.” The operation is complete. Tho professor’s ” entire treatise ” is overthrown.

But then tho dissection is “a most savago” ono. Ah, poor Dr. Lightfoot, you have fallen into the hands of ” a savago “! The. Professor, probably, will not thank Dr. Beynolds or Mr. H. Allon for thoir sympathy. In short, the compliment cannot be returned. In tho criticism of “Bishops and Councils” the roviewer shows himself to be no dissector. His knifo is dull, his sight bad, his hand clumsy, his knowledge nothing. What has more feeling—mock feeling—to do with logic P Dr. Lillie had to crossexamine Dr. Lightfoot’s witnesses. It is shown dissectingly—that is, thoroughly—that the witnesses do not prove prelacy, but provo the very opposite. And tho reviewer holds up his hands in horror, and cries, ” A most savage dissection!” Ho does not soem to have an idea that such is the vory work enjoined by Paul on Titus (i. 12, 18): “The Cretans aro always liars, mischievous wild beasts, lazy bellies …. on whieh account rebuke them “—-*q>otomos (disgustingly): that is, literally, cutting away- all those fatal exeresoences of lying, wicked rapacity, and gluttony. “Savage dissection,” no doubt, tho Cretan liars, wolves, gluttons thought it, but absolutely necessary, if t&era was to be ” soundness in the.feith,”

It is not enough to prove 5, .man “ill-natured” that he, uses very plain and awfully severe words. Paul does so, and orders Titus $6 do no too-. The question always is, Is it not just, true, called for, and therefore good? No doubt the critic will say, Paul was inspired. Dr. Lillie is not, and there

fore has no right to use such language. But he forgets, before Paul used them, they had been written by a Cretan poet. Was the poet “illnatured,” &c., in writing so? Paul justifies him: “This witness is true.” The flatterers of tho lying, mischievous gluttons, who gave good dinners in the island of Crete, no doubt cursed tho poet as an “ill-natured, opprobrious savage,” and no doubt tho Cretans thought so, for calling their noble patrons, and themselves too, “liars, mischievous wild beasts, lazy gluttons;” but the Holy Spirit takes the words for his own. And yet, so far as we have observed, Dr. Lillie uses no such words. He only quotes the awful words of Christ and tho Apostles, and follows them with the testimony of Cyprian, Eusebius, Gregoiy, Hilary, and Jerome..

The hardest words in “Bishops and Councils” are the words of the Holy Spirit. Tho critic does not pretend the words are misapplied; nay, he says, ” With many of Dr. Lillio’s conclusions wo sympathise.” “There aro homo-truths told; thero are many home-thrusts against ‘Bishops and Councils;’ there are terrible indictments against popes and emperors; thore is a fierce onslaught on tho Hierarchical idea, which doubtless has done more to undermine Christianity than all tho infidelities and vices of the outside world put together.” Indeed! And yet the ” British Quarterly ” is shockod at the way in wjiich Dr. Lillio handles this ” underminer” of Christianity. By tho ” Hierarchical idea” the critic must mean Prelacy. And does Dr. Lillio say anythibg more “opprobrious” of it than that it undermines Christianity? He does not say that it is worse than ” all the infidelities and vices of the outsido world put together,” but he is probably well pleased that he has driven the “British Quarterly” to such an acknowledgment.

Dr. Lightfoot’s “entire treatise” is an elaborato defence of tho “Hierarchical idoa,” and is therefore, if tho ‘* British Quarterly ” is not wrong, an “undermining of Christianity moro mischievous than all tho infidelities and vices of the outside world put together.” Dr. Lillio says nothing half

The Lutheran Commentary: Wolf, E. J. The First Epistle to Timothy. Wolf, E … (Google Books)

Besides these moral requisites, sound orthodoxy is an indispensable qualification of the bishops. They must hold2 to the faithful word which accords with the true Christian doctrine, that taught by Christ and the Apostles. Faithful word, reliable, sure, wholesome, not treacherous and misleading like the doctrine of heretics (1 Tim. vi. 3; iv. 6; 2 Tim. i. 13). The true character of the word is more precisely defined by the next clause: according to, etc. The point emphasized is not so much their teaching of sound doctrine, as their internal personal adherence to it, their steadfast application to it, their being armed with it, and that for a twofold purpose embraced in their office: that by sound doctrine they may both support and cheer believers to continue in the way of life (1 Thess. iv. 18), and confute and convict the opponents of a pure Gospel. Proper instruction in sound doctrine is the divine instrument for the edification of Christians and for the confutation of errorists. The power of truth to build up believing souls and to triumph over error is without a parallel. The sound doctrine3 (1 Tim. i. 10). Doctrine is sound when free from error, as a man is called sound or healthy when free from disease. Gainsayers4 (ii. 9), those setting themselves in opposition. The indifference of our age to orthodoxy has no countenance from the Scriptures. The last clause leads to the subject of 10, which further describes those who oppose sound doctrine.

1 For the noun cf. Acts xxiv. 25; Gal. v. 23; 2 Pet. i. 6.

2 avrex, Matt. vi. 24; Luke xvi. 13; 1 Thess. v. 14.

8 ev Tt) IhdacK, = (card rr/v didax mor, ?j>y. * avrikey, John xix. 12.

io, 11. For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped; men who overthrow whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.

For, explaining what has just been said, there are many

of these gainsayers and they must be silenced. V. O.: ” The necessity of the preceding directions is brought out and made prominent by a severe description of the character of the gainsayers.” They are delineated very much like those in the Epistles to Timothy (1 Tim. i. 6, 7,10). Unruly (6; 1 Tim. i. 9), refractory persons, who do not accept apostolic doctrine as authoritative, and refuse to conform to it. Vain talkers and deceivers are the leading terms. Those who resist the apostolic word not only expatiate on trifling questions (14; iii. 9; 1 Tim. iv. 7), but they use insinuating forms of address by which they deceive their followers (2 Tim. iii. 13). Especially . . . circumcision, Christians who had been Jews, and who now insist upon Jewish observances (14; Gal. ii. 12; iii. 7). “Especially “=not exclusively. Among those unwilling to submit to the obedience of faith and engaged in factious deceptions must also have been some Gentile Christians. Whose mouths . . . stopped, muzzled, reduced to silence, namely, by the presentation of sound doctrine so as to convict the gainsayers (9, 13) of their error (Matt. xxii. 24). Error is ever ready to assert itself, and, unless it be paralyzed by means of the truth, keeps incessantly at its destructive work. Hen . . . whole houses, lit. “inasmuch as they” overthrow (2 Tim. ii. 18), i. e. undermine the faith of entire families. This pernicious influence they wield by teaching what should not be taught, what has no place in the Gospel. Error not only impairs faith, it is subversive of it. And men engage in teaching it, not from principle or fanatic though misguided zeal, but for their selfish profit, for the financial gain which it brings. Filthy lucre, base, vile, dirty earnings from such dishonorable and contemptible methods. Professing to be teachers and helpers of the people, they talk unctuously of the sacred rites of Moses, the precepts of their revered ancestors(14), but their sole aim is by flattering Jewish Christians on their pre-eminence to insinuate themselves into their favor and into their pocket-books (1 Tim. i. 5, 10). Mercenary aims in the minister of the Gospel lead him to seek popularity by corrupting the doctrine. In proof of the baseness of the national character of the Cretans, which makes them so easy a prey to the arts of the heretics, Paul cites one of their own writers. (Cf. Actsxvii. 28; 1 Cor. xv. 33-)

12-14. One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said. Cretans are alway liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.

One of themselves, a Cretan. A prophet of their own,

expresses more strongly the same idea, one of their countrymen, to whom the Cretans themselves ascribed the gift of prophecy. HutH.: “He described beforehand the character of the Cretans as it was in the Apostle’s time.” Others take-” prophet” in its popular sense, which does not require the gift of foretelling. Epimenides is meant, “a priest, bard and seer among his countrymen,” famed among the Greeks as a philosopher, contemporary with the Seven Wise Men, perhaps one of them. Always liars. Ellic.: “If antiquity can be trusted, a character only too well deserved.” Their name was the synonym for falsehood and deceit. Such natures would lend a willing ear to the ” deceivers” (10). Evil beasts, wild, lawless, greedy, brutish. Idle gluttons, lit., bellies, “do-nothing gluttons” (Phil. iii. 19; Rom. xvi. 18; 2 Pet. ii. 13, 14), given to gluttony and licentiousness. Plato confirms the sensuality of the Cretans. The object of quoting this line is now indicated. This testimony . . . The unfavorable judgment is justified by facts. Paul makes apostolic confirmation of it, not with a view of insulting or humiliating them, but for the sake of saving them, which is possible only through their recovery to a sound faith, ” the centre and starting-point of the entire internal and external life.” For which cause . . . sharply. In view of the peril from their national vices, they must be boldly taken in hand as by the sharp knife of the surgeon, the only adequate remedy for the disorder. “Sharply” (2 Cor. xiii. 10). Severe rebuke is to be administered, not gentle and soothing opiates. “Not so much the heretics as the Christians who were exposed to their misleading influence,” are to be set right with severity. They have not properly resisted these subversive teachings, and by their ready compliance (n) have fostered the propagation of error. The specific malady by which they were infected is defined as giving heed to . . . away from the truth (2 Tim. i. 15). They yield themselves to myths instead of to the faithful word (9), and render obedience to the arbitrary rule of men who turn aside from the Gospel, who are estranged from the truth. They cling to error, they depart from the truth. Myths, fables (1 Tim. i. 4, 7; iv. 1; vi. 20; 2 Tim. iv. 4; 2 Pet. i. 16), a name given to heresies ” from the theories they contain.” They are described as ” Jewish,” being peculiar to the Judaizers, “though their substance was derived from Gentile modes of thought.” And commandments of men. Practical error blends quickly with theoretical error. “Commandments of men” they were following versus the will of God (Matt. xv. 1-20; Col. ii. 22). These were doubtless of a ceremonial character, bearing on ascetical restrictions, prohibitions of food, etc. (1 Tim. iv. 3), which originated with men, and bad men at that, men ” who turn themselves ” away from the truth, their carnal hearts being at enmity with the Gospel. In opposition to these human ordinances distinguishing between clean and unclean externals, by means of which the heretics plied their vocation, and pretended to promote moral perfection, Paul lays down a general principle exposing the absurdity of such claims.

Adaptive animals

Actually given studies about wolves rummaging through rubbish and not just by attacking livestock that makes sense why some believe dogs were meant to be commensal. Maybe not always the case but inevitable however had toilets never arrived, owned wolves would’ve spent a lot of time eating faeces (this is even noted in some studies too). Even today, dogs are still noted to eat faeces even those of humans.

As for cats, you’d be better off observing urban leopards. This is a noted phenomenon in India enough to warrant reports and studies a lot. As in whenever the leopards’ actual environment shrank, they turned to human settlements and especially when it comes to eating livestock. For better or worse (actually those wildcats could’ve done similar by eating rats and even monkeys were noted to do the same).

That’s not to say sheep, goats and cattle are any less adaptive but honestly they rarely if ever stray in the same quantities as cats and dogs do. But mostly because people would keep watching over those, if because they’re valuable edible resources. If they’re not kept for meat, they can be kept for milk. Without them, we wouldn’t have any supermarket yogurt, ice cream and cheese.

In the days before proper refrigeration, keeping livestock safe and sound becomes all the more important as with jarring and salt. That’s not to say people haven’t eaten cats and dogs but sometimes they don’t eat those due to hygienic concerns. Same with pigs and like I said, had toilets never been around the concern becomes all the more understandable.

(This is also why some owners deliberately exclude their cats and dogs from their rooms and houses.)

Pigs were also noted to rummage through rubbish. Likewise monkeys are noted to not only receive food from people but also get owned by them and trained to get fruit. They’re also noted to hang out in monasteries, which sounds familiar when it comes to church cats and some clergy were noted to own dogs themselves.

When it comes to commensalism, it’s likely this is the very path cats, dogs, monkeys and rodents have adopted in order to adapt to human environments. Livestock not so much but because people would guard and over-protect them as they’re valuable commodity.

You don’t ever trust wolves as they say

Though not always the case, I do think lycophobia goes wherever sheep-herding goes. If I’m not mistaken, even Iran at some point didn’t like wolves but not because of Christianity but because of Zoroastrianism. India might be no different, if I’m not mistaken the Hindi word for wolf is literally sheep stealer.

(In all honesty, Christianity can’t be blamed for lycophobia when the sentiment does exist outside of those communities.)

Actually to make matters worse, some studies have shown that wolves do readily adapt to human environments however by not only livestock predation but also scavenging garbage. (Actually this makes the Coppingers’ theory of commensal dogs all the more plausible given wolves have been shown to adapt to human environments, which might be confirmed.)

That’s not to say wolves are necessarily bad as much as they’re much more adaptable than people realise. However by going through livestock and rubbish. It’s as if Caitlin Snow hangs out at the Justice League for food and blood. Maybe you ought not to trust wolves, especially if they beguile you for food.

But then again wherever sheep-farming goes, so does the distrust of wolves to whatever extent.

Wolfish gluttony

As to why wolves were historically associated with gluttony, there are few ways of looking at this. In some studies, wolves were noted to dine on corpses, livestock, rubbish and faeces (same with dogs and the path to commensalism’s inevitable if it weren’t for hygienic concerns that wolves/dogs would spend a lot of time outside).

Also Caitlin Snow’s habit of absorbing heat can be considered wolfish. Watch out if she develops a thing for cannibalism. The Biblical wolf’s feared for attacking livestock. Caitlin’s feared for killing superheroes and eating them alive. Never trust wolves like her. And why she’s doomed to have wolfish gluttony.