reject the other half. They will have infant affusion, but Dr. Wall will have infant immersion.

In the present essay I shall attempt to show that the argument from tradition, drawn out with so much display, proves too much for any sect of Protestants in Christendom. Admitting that every author adduced relates with all truthfulness and fidelity the facts which he states, as transpiring in his own age or country, on Protestant principles, with Protestants themselves it can afford no authority for infant baptism.

It is a rule or law of evidence, of universal acquiescence and authority, that the testimony of any witness is admissible or inadmissible to the full extent of his deposition. So far, then, as it is his testimony, we are obliged to receive all or none of it. If, for example, we receive the testimony of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, &c. &c., as to the existence of infant baptism in their day and country, we must also receive their testimony in favor of infant communion, and in favor of the monastic and ascetic life. With whatever respect for them, or with whatever authority we receive their testimony in the one case, we must receive it in the other cases. If their testimony be authoritative touching any fact or opinion, as to the existence of it, the universality of it, or the meaning of it, it is equally so touching them all. This being an oracle of common sense-an axiom in moral evidence-we assume it and proceed upon the assumption, as upon an incontrovertible fact.

We, therefore, proceed to show that all the authors of note relied on by Dr. Miller, Dr. Wall, or any other Dr. of Protestant theology in proof of the early existence of infant baptism, who have distinctly named or alluded to it, as a custom, or rite, existing in their time, equally establish the existence, universality, and antiquity of religious celibacy, the sanctifying efficacy of virginity and the superlative merit of the monastic life.

Since writing my last essay on this subject, I have read, with more or less attention, some hundreds of pages, many of which, though read in former years, were again read as though entirely new, that I might repose in the full assurance that I give a faithful view of the testimony and opinions of the authors quoted. And, although in possession of the principal records of both Grecian and Roman Fathers and their opinions, I generally prefer to quote their opinions and statements from Taylor's "Ancient Christianity," because now a popular work; and because he has with great fidelity and ability examined and reported the views of the Greek and Roman Fathers on the subjects named; and especially because his

antagonists, the Oxford Tract Theologians, with all their armor on, have not, so far as I have learned, presumed to cavil at his array of patristic authority and opinions.

I state the argument in the following terms:-Romanists quote the Greek and early Roman fathers of the four first centuries, in proof of monastic life-the celibacy of the clergy-the merit of perpetual virginity-the pontificate of Peter in Rome—and infant communion. Protestants quote the same authorities for infant baptism, and argue from them in the same manner as the Romanists for their other traditions. But Protestants repudiate the Greek and Roman Fathers as competent and credible witnesses for infant communion, the pontificate of Peter in Rome, the monastic life, and a bachelor priesthood; yet they quote with confidence, and hear with gladness. the same authors in favor of infant baptism. This we regard as an indefensible aberration from sound logic and fairplay. If we receive their testimony in the one case in evidence of the universality, antiquity, and authority of infant baptism, we ought by all means to receive the whole of their testimony in the case of the universality, antiquity, and authority of the monastic life-the celibacy of the clergy, the merits of perpetual virginity, &c. &c.

But Protestants will say that the Romanists in these cases depend upon tradition alone for authority, while in the case of infant baptism we mainly depend upon scriptural authority, and only corroborate it by the ancient Greek and Roman Fathers, historians, and commentators. This, however, is not the fact. Romanists plead for scriptural authority for their traditions and found their arguments on what they call "Bible doctrine," if not upon express Bible precepts and positive enactments. Protestants are not able to maintain this ground with sensible and well read Romanists. For example, take the monastic life, the celibacy of the clergy, and the merits of perpetual virginity, and ask a well bred and well read Romanist, What Bible authority have you, sir, for these traditions!? What defence will he make? Probably he will begin with Paul the great Apostle to the Gentiles, Barnabas his companion, and Timothy his adopted son; and show that they waived matrimony for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He will also tell of those who forsook houses, and lands, and husbands, and wives, for the Lord's sake. Nay, he will read you two learned homilies-one on a passage from Jesus, and one from Paul. That from Jesus is recorded Matthew xix. 12. "For there are some eunuchs which were so born from their mother's womb, and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs by men, and there be eunuchs who have made themselves

eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Monks, say some Romanists, are eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. "They have made themselves so. "Now let him that can receive it, receive it;" that is, say they, "make themselves eunuchs, or monks, for the sake of gaining the kingdom of heaven." The famous Origen literally made himself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake. The Essenes, contemporary with the Messiah, are by some supposed to be here alluded to by him. They were really monks for the sake of greater seclusion from the world, and were regarded as the most pure and holy sect among the Jews. Here, then, says the Romanist, is high authority for the plea of the superior spirituality and sanctity of virginity and the ascetic life. Now who can make a more scriptural argument for infant baptism than this?-!

But this is not all. Paul teaches the theory as well as the practice of celibacy. Hear him:-"It is good," says he, "for a man not to touch a woman." And certainly better for a woman not to touch a man! "I say, then, to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they abide" (single!) “even as I. For I would that all men were even as I myself. Art thou loosed from a wife, then seek not a wife. He that is unmarried careth for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he that is married careth for the things of the world how he may please his wife. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” Doubtless, then, if "he that giveth his daughter in marriage doeth well, he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better." Now who may not hence, infer that Paul was in favor of nuns as well as monks? From these premises can any one reasonably say that the Romanist depends less on the Bible for his holiness of virginity and the excellency of monkery than does the Pedobaptist for his infant initiation and dedication to the Lord? I trow not. So far, to say the least, methinks, the Bible plea for the sanctity and blessedness of celibacy and that of infant holiness, or infant baptism, are inferentially equal.

But our present business is with tradition. For this purpose we have selected that prolific cause and fountain of Roman pollutions, the Monachism. We shall, therefore, give a few specimens of the estimation in which it was held by the Ante-Nicene Fathers. To be understood by the least conversant with ecclesiastic history in these brief allusions and quotations, I will state that the Fathers, so

called by the Greek and Roman churches, are divided into three classes: The Apostolic Fathers-viz. Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, or those who were conspicuous at or before the Council of Nice, which sat two or three months at Nice, in Bythinia, A. D. 325. Socrates says that 318 Bishops met in this council. The present Nicene Creed is, indeed, but a development or expansion of the Council of Nice, made by 150 Bishops at the second general council, which, in 381, met at Constantinople.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, so called, are the beau ideal of Protestant orthodoxy; and, hence, the names of Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary, Basil, the two Gregories, Nazianzan and Nyssen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustin, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodoret, are conspicuous, not all, indeed, but a majority of them, Ante-Nicene: for there are in all forty-two Fathers, a majority of which were Ante-Nicene, while the others are called Post-Nicene. These, together with the five apostolic Fathers, make out the entire Fathers of the Greek, Roman and Protestant churches amounting in all to forty-seven.

Now, in glancing at these, we shall summon a few of the most famous, both as fathers and as writers, to represent the whole patristic brotherhood, whose opinions give laws to the Catholic church in all matters of opinion, faith, and practice. Before hearing them depose, we shall quote a few passages from the most conspicuous and authoritative of them, declarative of the Catholic views of the monastic life.

But, as farther prefatory to these, we must allude to the Grecian fountain of errors, which, together with the Gnostic and Roman fountains, gradually corrupted the whole Christian church.

The Greeks had a temple dedicated to HESTIA, who as the tradition goes, when wooed by Neptune, laid her hand on the head of Jupiter and vowed perpetual virginity; for which he allotted to her a throne in the midst of every mansion, the choicest portions of the sacrifices, and to be honored in all the temples of the gods.

The Roman VESTA, for whom was erected a splendid temple in Rome, was but a new version of the Grecian Hestia. On the altar of this splendid temple perpetually flamed a holy fire, tended by six priestesses. Hence, at an early period, arose in the Christian churches the idea of having in the cloister connected with them. bands of females sworn to chastity and the Lord. These became SERIES III.-VOL. v.

16*

the archetypes of all the sisterhoods in all the abbeys, convents priories, nunneries, cloisters, in ancient and modern Christendom. The grand question which pioneered the way for the general admission into the church of these abominations, was, "Satan has his devoted widows and his virgin priestesses, and should not Christ have his?"

Concerning this much extolled institution, so canonized and glorified as the only path to the highest honors of Paradise, we have the opinion of almost all the early Greek and Roman Fathers. It is set forth in such terms as the following:-"The celestial or angelic excellence of virginity," cultivated by "the spouses of Christ," who, "in the celestial and apostolic practice of vowing virginity to the Lord," have arisen to the loftiest pinnacle in the temple as "Christ's jewels."

It would be disgusting rather than acceptable to most of our readers, to enter into the secrets of these holy vestal virgins, devoted to the church. Yet we must allude to the contaminations of sacerdotal virtue universally attendant on their existence, as expressed by their warmest advocates and apologists. Even Cyprian himself speaks of clerical paramours-of the spiritual intercourse of these father confessors with these immaculate angelic virgins, as to make the whole institution a public scandal, a disgrace to even Rome or Corinth in their most wanton days, and to make his nunneries or abbeys any thing but houses of prayer-the residence of virgin purity and piety.

These abuses, or rather legitimate fruits of the system, called forth many an excuse, and originated some singular expositions of scripture; a sample of which we will give from Tertullian--"The command, 'Increase and multiply,' is abolished; yet, as I think, (contrary to the Gnostic opinion,) this command in the first instance, and now the removal of it, are from one and the same God; who then, and in that early seedtime of the human race, gave the reins to the marrying principle until the world should be replenished and until he had prepared the elements of a new school of discipline.But now, in this conclusion of the ages, he restrains what once he had let loose, and revokes what he had permitted. In a thousand instances indulgence is granted at the beginning of things. So it is that a man plants a wood and allows it to grow, intending in due time to use the axe. The wood, then, is the old dispensation, which is done away by the gospel, in which the axe is laid to the root of the tree." So reasons the first man who, in any