testament, because he had left immoderate legacies to her mother-in-law, the fathers of rich families were present in great numbers, and the sons of those families attended for the sentence in great and anxious expectations, looking which interest should get the advantage. But the judges very wisely left the case undetermined, because it was hard on the father's side; but they were resolved never to leave a precedent, in which the children should be, in any thing, superior to their fathers; or that as Death and Love changed their quivers, so old age should be reckoned as void of counsel, and wisdom and prudence should be the portion of young men.

RULE VIII.

It is not lawful for Children to enter into any lasting Course of Life, against the Will or Approbation of their Parents.

1. THIS rule contains two great cases. The first is concerning the states of religion; the other is concerning the states of civil life.

2. It is not lawful for children to take upon them any religious vows, or enter into any of those which are called states of religion, viz. to take upon them the state of single life, to be priests, monks, friars, hermits, or any thing of the like nature, without the consent of their parents.

3. Thomas Aquinas entered into the Dominican order, and became a friar without the consent of his parents: and that unjustifiable action begat a more unjustifiable doctrine": "Post annos pubertatis posse liberos se voto religionis obligare, absque voluntate parentum;" "That after fourteen years of age or the first ripeness, it is lawful for children to take upon them the vows of religion, whether their parents be willing or unwilling."-And, after his time, it grew into a common doctrine and frequent practice; and if a monk could persuade a young heir, or a pregnant youth, into their cloisters, they pretended to serve God, though certainly they served themselves, and disserved a family. The ground they went upon was, the pretence of the great sanctity of the state

L

2. 2æ. qu. 88. art. 9.

a Bellar. lib. 2. de Monachis, cap. 36.

monastical; that it was for God and for religion; that to serve God no man that can choose, hath need to ask leave; that if the father be superior, yet God is the supreme; that it is 'corban;' that if the young man or maiden be given to God, he is given to him, that hath more right to him or her than the parents; that religion in all things is to be preferred; and that although the parents have a right over the bodies of their children, yet of their souls they are themselves to dispose, because theirs is the biggest interest and concern: and whereas God hath commanded to 'honour our father and mother,' we know that God is our father, and the church is our mother; and what does accrue to these, is no diminution to the other's right.

4. Against all these fair pretences it is sufficient to oppose this one truth, that 'religion and piety cannot, of themselves, cross each other, but may very well stand together; and nothing is better than to do a necessary duty.' And there needs not much consideration to tell which is better, to make our love to God, and our love to our parents, and our duty to them both, to stand together, or to fight one with another. God intends the first, that is certain; -for he is not the author of division, nor hath he made one good contrary to another. For if one be set up against another, they are both spoiled. For that duty that goes away, is lost; and that duty which thrusts it away, hath done evil, and therefore is not good. If therefore it be possible to do our duty to our parents and to love God greatly at the same time, there needs no more to be said in this affair, but that we are to remember, that a man may greatly serve God, and yet never be a friar or a priest; and that allowing or supposing that these are great advantages, or rather engagements of duty, yet it is certain, that no state of perfection can be set forward by doing evil: and he enters ill into the state of perfection, that passes into it by the door of undutifulness.

5. Now then, we are certain of this, that parents have the first right, and the first possession; and that to dispossess any one of his rights against his will is great injustice; and therefore that no end can sanctify it: and that it would be a strange religion, which teaches impiety for pious considerations: and therefore without further inquiry, it follows, that a son may not, upon any pretences of a religious

manner and circumstances of life, subduct himself from his father's power, and put himself under other governments, with which his father shall have nothing to do. A son hath no power over himself, for he belongs to and is under the power of another; and therefore if he does subduct himself, he is undutiful, and impious, and unjust, and does not honour his father and his mother. But he that does persuade the son from his father's house into a monastery, is 'reus plagii,' 'he is a man-stealer.' "Qui patri eripit fili um, educatori alumnum, domino servum, Deo efficit impium, educatori ingratum, domino nequam," said Tertullian"; "He that debauches a son, a pupil, or a servant, and snatches them from their father, their guardian, or their lord, makes them impious, ungrateful, and vile."-And because this was done by some upon pretence of piety, the council of Gangra forbade it upon a curse: "Quicunque filii à parentibus prætextu divini cultus abscedunt, nec debitam reverentiam impendunt illis, anathema sint." Pretence of the divine ser vice is no good warranty for disobedience to parents; and they who so neglect their father's blessing, will meet with the curse of their mother. And this canon was cited and renewed in the sixth council of Constantinople. The council of Tribur forbids expressly a young maiden, before twelve years of age, to enter into a monastery without the consent of her guardian. Gratian, citing this decree, adds something of his own; for it is not known whence he had it, except from the degenerous and corrupt practices of his own times. "Si vero, in fortiori ætate, adolescentula servire Deo elegerit, non est potestas parentibus prohibendi," "If the young maiden be of great age, the parents have no power to forbid her:" which is a clause which is not to be found

in the codes of councils, in any editions old or new. But when monastical life had reputation and secular advantages upon religious pretences, then the advocates and promoters of it were willing, by right or wrong, to set it forward. But the corruption is plain, and apparently against the doctrine and practices of the fathers of the church.

e

6. St. Ambrosed and St. Austin say, that 'a father or mother ought not to hinder a son or daughter from entering

b Advers. Marcion.
4. Lib. 1. de Virgin.

c Can. 16.
e Epist. 109, 110.

VOL. XIV.

0

into a monastery. But then, things were so ordered, that the entry thither was not a perpetual bond, but a going thither as to a Christian school, a place for institution and holy practice, and from thence they might return when they would, they might serve God and their parents too: the profession of a monk was then nothing else but "priscæ liberæque vitæ ac pure Christianæ meditatio," "a meditation and institution of a Christian life according to the rate of the primitive simplicity," liberty, and devotion. But besides this, though they exhort parents not to hinder their children, yet they affirm they have power to do it, and they may, if they will; as appears amply in St. Austin's epistle to Ecdicea, and in his two hundred and thirty-third epistle to Benenatus. But most plainly and dogmatically it is affirmed by St. Basil'; "Liberos non esse recipiendos in monasteriis, nisi à parentibus suis offerantur;" "Children are not to be received into monasteries unless their parents present them:" and when St. Gregory Nazianzen had, against his father's commandment, run into a monastery, he began to bethink himself what he had done, and found, that, without impiety, he could not be contumacious against his father; and therefore left his solitude and returned home. "Et hoc" (saith he) "jussu Dei magis quam hominum metu. Itaque, O pater, dicto jam audienti præbe benedictionem." This he did in obedience to God, and not for the fear of men; and therefore upon the account of his obedience and return, he begged his father's blessing. But besides this, there were two remarkable examples which abundantly conclude this duty. The one was of Heliodorus, who together with St. Jerome had undertaken a monastical life by vow; but finding, that, by piety and nature, he was to regard his only sister and her son, he returned to her house, and took upon him the habit of the clergy, and left that of monks. Against him St. Jerome, who was then a young man, newly come from the university and the schools of rhetoric, storms very much, and says some things, which, when he was older and wiser, he changes and revokes, as appears in his epistle to Nepotian, where he imputes his former sayings to his juvenile years and learning. Now though Heliodorus had no parents, when he undertook a monastical life, and there

S. Aug. epist. ad Bonifac. Comit.

& In Quæst. fuse Explic. p. 15.

1

fore had his liberty; yet it is therefore certain, he believed he ought not to have done it without the consent of parents, if they had been living, because he did suppose a less piety, even to his sister and his nephew, to be a sufficient reason for him to leave his solitude and show piety at home. But the other instance is more material. Stagirius was made a monk, not against his father's commandment, but against his counsel. The father was very unwilling; but durst not expressly forbid it, upon some scruples, which were put into his head by the humours, which were then beginning. But because he had neglected his father's counsel, and caused trouble to him, Stagirius was vexed with the devil, and St. Chrysostom took great pains to comfort him. But afterward the manners of men grew worse, and all religion was enclosed in a friar's habit, and it grew to be esteemed excellent to enter into a monastery; and whatsoever did hinder it, was to be despised, or used like a temptation; and the orders of religion grew potent, and prevailed over private interests and private religion, and by degrees it entered into insufferable mischiefs and impiety. It was sometimes restrained by good laws, so that it could not grow so fast. Charles the Great made a law concerning it: "De pueris vero sine voluntate parentum ut tonsurentur, vel puellæ velentur, modis omnibus inhibitum est," "Boys must not be shorn nor maidens veiled without the consent of their parents." And to the transgressors of this law a fine was imposed, the same with that which was appointed in the Salic law; which did equally forbid them to be slain and to be shorn. For by religious pretences not to do kindness to their parents, our blessed Saviour called hypocrisy in the Pharisees; and therefore, upon the like pretences, to do them wrong, to take their right from them, to dispossess them of their dearest pledges, must needs be so much the worse. It is that which our blessed Saviour calls 'hypocrisy,' and dishonouring our parents:' it is that which the church does call an 'anathema;' which the laws call plagium,' or 'manstealing: it is 'homicide' in the account of the imperial laws: and St. Bernard calls them 'wolves' that do it, in his