In the last place, Chrysostom is cited, who in the end of lib. 3, against the censurers of a Monastic life, thus speaks to parents, If you shall oppose it, your children, if they should be endued with distinguished virtue, although you should be unwilling they may arrive at this monastic philosophy, they will enjoy eternal pleasures; but yon will heap to yourselves infinite torments. This testimony I have deferred to the last place, because it appeared the most valid.

But I answer, It appears from that book of Chrysostom that all things at that time were most corrupt both in city and town, so that he says they deserved to have fire and brimstone rained upon them no less than Sodom and Gomorrha. Hence he takes the occasion of exhorting parents to send their young children and as yet not corrupted by the common contagion, into seclusion among the Monks, in whose schools there was somewhat of piety and the Christian Religion: not that they should be perpetually bound over and above the will of their parents, by I know not what rules, as it is now done; but that, being well grounded in piety and religion, they might reverence their parents, and be to them both a comfort and greater help through their whole life. These things being largely explained, at length he subjoins the words adduced by Bellarmin; Your children, if they should be endued with distinguished virtue, although you should be unwilling they should arrive at this monastic philosophy, &c. He does not say, should become monks against your will, and wholly forsake you ; but shall arrive at this monastic philosophy, that is, shall learn Religion and Christian piety, which then flourished particularly among the monks. This is the meaning of

"in the Church, which we have learned from the Scripture and the Tradi"tion of the Apostles." Du Pin. Cent. iv. p. 268.

On the sense of this last sentence, and the proper acceptation of the term Tradition, so grossly abused by the Modern Church of Rome, the Translator would take occasion to refer his Readers to an instructive and able publication of the Rev. James Phelan, entitled, The Catholic Doctrine of Tradition as opposed to that of the Church of Rome. Dublin, 1829; and noticed in the Protestant Journal for August, 1831. The more learned Reader and Controversialist will not omit to study Archbishop Laud's Conference with Fisher the Jesuit.

Chrysostom; which will be evident to every one reading the book itself; in the whole of which not even the smallest word is found, which proves a solemn undertaking of a monastic life against the will of their parents. But if that could be proved on account of those times, in which religion and the true study of Christianity flourished mostly among the monks, it does not make for the praise of the popish Monks, among whom idleness, lust, and superstition reign; but true piety and religion are driven into exile, So much for the Fathers.

Certain Canons of the Councils are even brought forward by Bellarmin.

1. From the tenth Council of Toledo,* and the last Chapter, in which it is decreed, that it concerns parents, not to dedicate their children to Religion sooner than their fourteenth year; but afterwards it shall be lawful for children, even against the will of their parents, to enter a monastery by their own devotion.

I answer, We are not bound by the authority of this Council, because it is opposed by better Councils: By the third Council of Carthage,† cap. 4, in which it is ordained, that virgins are not wholly consecrated before their twenty-fifth year and although it opposes the Council of Gangra, a Canon of which we have before cited, prohibiting children from deserting their parents by a religious pretext. Lastly, it also opposes the opinion of all the Papists, and of Bellarmin himself: For that Canon (as it

:

This Council was held in the year 656. It ordained seven Canons, and its proceedings were subscribed by the Metropolitans of Toledo, Seville, and Braga, with 17 Bishops, and 5 Bishops' deputies.

+ This Council, according to Du Pin, was held in the year 397, under the Consulship of Cæsarius and Atticus. It ordained 50 Canons, most of which had been passed at the Council of Hippo, in the year 393. Several of the Canons of this Council are curious and remarkable. The 18th affirms, that none shall be ordained Priest, Bishop, and Deacon, unless they have converted all those who lived in the house with them. The 26th forbids the Metropolitan to assume the title of Prince of the Priests, or the Sovereign Priest, and declares, That no other name ought to be given him. but that of Bishop of the First See.-The Church, at that time, seems to have been jealous of the rise and usurpation of spiritual pride and power. Alas! how many little priests would be Sovereign priests if they could.

is extant in the edition of Surius and Binius) does not say that after the fourteenth year children may enter upon a monastic life against the will of their parents, but after the tenth year it shall be lawful for them to do it. Bellarmin saw that this was contrary to his argument, and did not square with his distinction concerning children under age and adults; therefore, in conformity with his own Jesuitical integrity, he adds four to the number.

2. He quotes from the Council of Tribur,* the 24th Canon, in these words, If a damsel shall have assumed to herself the sacred veil of her own accord before her twelfth year,

This was an important Council, numerously attended, and remarkable for the character of some of its Constitutions. It was held in the year 805, under King Arnoldus, at his palace called Tribur, situated near Mentz. The Archbishops of Mentz, Cologne, and Treves attended it, with nineteen German Bishops. It passed 58 Canons, several of which were confirmatory of many of those novelties and superstitions with which the Church now began to abound, and with which it was afflicted, and brought into a state of bondage issuing in the subsequent dark age. The Canon referred to above is thus stated by Du Pin: "The four and twentieth imports, that a Maid, who had taken the Veil by her own desire, and without any constraint, before she is 12 years old, is obliged to retain her virginity, if she hath worn that habit for a year and a day, and nobody may take her out of the Monastery."

The Doctors and Fathers of the Church of Rome are in the present day vehemently incensing the popular clamour against Tithes. The 13th and 14th Canons of this Council had respect to them, as existing and claimed by her in those days. After the 13th had laid down the division, and appropriation; the 14th goes on " to preserve the Tithes to the ancient Churches, and annexes the Tithes of new broken-up lands to them; but if new houses be built four miles from other Churches, in a wood, or other place, and a Church be built there by the consent of the Bishop, they may put in a Priest and give him the new Tithes." Thus was established, in this part of the Church, that system which the church of Rome had been labouring, for three preceding centuries, to establish throughout her growing empire. And we further see, from the decrees of this Council, how far Papal Supremacy had begun to extend its grasp. The thirtieth Canon appoints, "that in memory of St. Peter, the Holy Roman and Apostolic See ought to be honoured, it being just, that that Church, which is the Mother of the priestly dignity, should be the Mistress of Ecclesiastical order, so that 'tis fit, that men bear and endure the yoke she lays upon them, although it be almost insupportable!! Nevertheless 'tis ordered, that if any Priest or Deacon be accused of carrying forged Letters from the Pope to stir up any troubles, or lay any snares for the ministers of the Church, the Bishop may with due respect to the Pope, stop his proceedings, till he hath written to the Holy See."

her parents and tutors may make that act void if they wish. But if at a more advanced age, a youth, or a young woman, chooses to serve God (namely, in a monastic life), it is not in the power of the parents to forbid it. Hence Bellarmin infers, that it was lawful for children to enter a monastery after their twelfth year against the will of their parents.

I answer, the former part of the Canon is corruptly cited, the latter is forged. For that whole sentence, But if at a more advanced age, and what follows, are not the words of the Council, but assumed by Gratian, hence Bellarmin brings forward this Canon. For Gratian, Caus. 20, qu. 2, can. Puella, cites this in the same manner in which Bellarmin has done: but those last words, in which the whole force of the argument lies, are not found in the volumes of the Council themselves. Nor is this new to Gratian, whom all know to be a famous interpolater of the Councils who have compared that farrago of decrees with the councils themselves.* Bellarmin's moral reasons re

main now to be solved.

1. It is lawful for children, against the will of their parents, to contract matrimony; therefore, it is lawful for them to profess continence against their will.

I answer, Children sin if in contracting matrimony they defer not this honour to their parents, and suffer themselves to be directed by them: and they likewise sin who desert them against their will, to lead a monastic life. Although it must be conceded, That whatever is good and pious in a monastic life may be practised by children, even if their impious and profane parents gainsay it for instance, they may preserve perpetual continence, if they have that gift from God; they may give themselves up to prayer; they may subdue their appetite for flesh by moderate fasting; because these things are not opposed to due obedience: but they cannot withdraw themselves from the paternal roof against the will of their parents, and place themselves in that state of life in which they are un

• Vide Note, Vol. i. p. 285.

able to assist and sustain their parents; because this is opposed to the Divine command.

2. It is lawful for a man, against the will of his wife, after the period of the marriage contract, to betake himself to a monastic life; therefore it is much more lawful for a son to do that against the will of his father.

I answer, That it is lawful by the canonical and antichristian law; but by the Divine law it never was lawful: for matrimony, from the moment of contract, is true and confirmed matrimony, although not consummated. This very contract, therefore, transfers the power of the husband's own body to his wife, and the wife's to the husband: the husband therefore cannot against the will of the wife, defraud her of her right. What the Schoolmen pretend, that the monastic profession is a spiritual death, and that by this death marriage is dissolved no less than bodily existence, is so ridiculous, that it needs no refutation for to die spiritually to the world and sin, is the duty of all Christians, not of the monks only.

3. Every free-born child after the years of puberty has his own right, as far as pertains to those things which relate to his person and condition; therefore he may use this right, and enter a monastery against the will of his parents.

I answer, Children after the years of puberty do not immediately so become their own masters, that they may, without sin, neglect the counsel, throw off paternal rule, or slink away from home at their own pleasure. Nay, we constantly see in the Scriptures, that pious children, even after their fourteenth year (which is fixed as the mark of puberty) obey their parents, and yield to their commands, even in those things which relate to their person as Jacob did in choosing a wife, and Isaac before him: So virgins did not take to themselves husbands without paternal approbation Exod. xxii. 17; Deut. vii. 3; 1 Cor. vii. 36. It is therefore false, and contrary as well to Divine as to human laws, which Bellarmin takes for granted, That every damsel after her twelfth year, and every youth after his fourteenth year, may, against the will of their parents, de