Priest's Marriage and Single Life. 121
Jerome, epist. 30, ad Oceanum, disallows them in Fabiola, but he goes not so far as to disannul the marriage which he himself excuses.
It was a use to enjoin a public penance upon this act, and that was used also upon smaller faults. The fathers used to note such second marriages as they held lawful with penance, and they punished the husband that kept his wife after her adultery, with three years penance. (3. 2. q. 1, ca. Siquis) The Council of Arles, cap. 10, counsels the guiltless person of the two, to abstain, but does not compel or command him to it. And this the church afterwards did for one while allow of and follow. For in one place of the Decretals, 31, q. 7, c.
Concubuisti, it is appointed as lawful for the innocent person to join with another, after that his first yokefellow has polluted the marriage bed. And this is also allowed, 31 q. 1, cap. Siqua mulier, if either party have endeavored to kill the other.
4. Afterwards, Augustine and others held these marriages of no force at all. And yet Augustine, De fide & operibus, cap. 19, writes that, "He that finds his wife in adultery and puts her away, seems not to be equaled with him, that puts her away for some other cause, and marries again. And it is so doubtful in the Scriptures themselves, whether he (who doubtless may put away his wife for adultery) be an adulterer if he marries again, that surely I am of opinion, that any man may herein be pardonably mistaken." Thus says Augustine.
Priest's Marriage and Single Life 1. The marriage of the clergy for the space of 300 years after Christ was a thing always freely allowed, without prohibition or vow of perpetual continency. If there were any that lived single, it was out of some private and unbinding purpose, or else for some custom taken
up out of a good and honest end. This cannot be disproved out of any lawful authority, whereas There are these testimonies to confirm it. "There are many of the bishops," says Athanasius (Ep. ad Drac.), "that have not married, and contrariwise many monks we see daily become fathers of children.
Again, you may observe many bishops to be fathers of children, and many monks that have not sought to see their own generation, for this is lawful, and the other is not forbidden, but everyone as he likes, let him undertake to live." "Whereas we read," says the decretals
(dist. 26, c. Caeno.), "that the sons of priests have come to the honor of the papacy, we must not understand them to be begotten by fornication, but by lawful marriage, which was lawful for the priests everywhere, until the time of prohibition, and in the east churches is allowed unto them as lawful until this day." And Cyprian (or the author of the sermon, de nat. Christ) says that there is neither command nor necessity to compel us unto continency or virginity.
And Cassiodorus (in Psal. 57) says it is free to vow virginity, or not to vow it. "We impose no necessity hereupon," says Epiphanius
(Haeres. 4), "but out of good will we counsel it, exhorting him that is able to take it upon him, but not compelling him that is not able, nor rejecting him from salvation." "Virginity only," says Ambrose
(exhort. ad virginis), "is to be persuaded, not to be commanded, being a thing rather of vow, than of precept." "In the east," says
Socrates (Hist. Tripart, lib. 9, ca. 38), "all, even the bishops, do abstain of voluntary choice, not of any necessity; and many of them in the time of their being bishops, have had children by their lawful wives."
2. But in these aforesaid ages, there were promises of continency used to be made publicly in the church. For Clement (Stromat., lib.
3, who wrote in the year 170) says that continency is a despising of
the body, κατά τ¾ν τέρας θέον ὁμολογίαν, according to the promise, or covenant made unto, or with God. Their manner of covenant was thus: It was asked of these that were to take ecclesiastical orders, whether they would abstain from marriage or no? If they said they would, it was not thence lawful for them to marry (Dist. 27, cap. diacon). If they said they would not, it was allowed them after their election to take them wives (Council Aucyr, c. 10). But the election was deferred, that if it might be possible, they might have a single man to elect (Dist. 28, ca. de Cyracus). Now these promises were exacted, not that marriage in this case was held an unclean thing, or that the clergy were bound from it by vow, but especially because of the poverty of the churches, wanting sufficient means to maintain so many families of bishops, priests, and deacons (d. 28, c. de Syr.), where Pelagius I says that the singleness of priesthood was instituted because that the goods of the church should not be dispersed among the priests' wives and children. This is to be marked diligently. But Leo says very well in those words (Novel. 2): "I sometimes have occasion to wonder much that some are not afraid utterly to abrogate many holy and divine laws, and institute others, as though these were not absolute. For whereas the holy canons treating of the election of bishops, do ordain that he that has children by lawful matrimony (if there be no impediment in other of his actions) may be made an archbishop, these men dare set down the contrary, that it is not possible for these encumbrances, that any that have children
(though they be the blessing of lawful marriage) should undertake the dignity episcopal. It may be these lawgivers supposed, that the natural affection unto their children (for what
Other thing can be alleged for them?) would be a great annoyance to their ecclesiastical maintenance. But this reason is founded upon false grounds; for if it were so, the like reason might convince, that none that has either brethren or other kinsmen alive, should be made
bishops, for consanguinity begets the same union of love between them. Moreover, the holy canons foreseeing this, gave the bishops authority, that if they had any poor alliance, they might relieve their miseries out of the revenues of their bishopric. Wherefore our imperial majesty (which is of God, if we keep ourselves to God's commandments) perceiving that to be far more convenient, makes a law agreeable to the holy canons, that as it seemed good unto them, that he might be promoted to be bishop, who in other respects was worthy of that honor, although he had children (provided they were legitimate), so it shall be lawful now. And that with this resolution, that we do from henceforth abrogate forever, to punish their boldness, any law that gainsays hereto." This he. Now if the priests, or bishops broke these promises (we spoke of before) they were deposed, and put to penance among the twice married, but their marriages still did continue indissoluble. And in this sense are the Councils of Ancyra and of Neocaesarea to be understood. Wherefore at the beginning, marriage was not forbidden the priests by reason of any vow annexed unto their order, but by reason of the greater freedom, and conveniency.
3. The perpetuity and necessity of this vow of continence was established first in the western church, and annexed unto orders about 380 years after Christ. It was used before, but out of private and particular devotion, not by any public and decretory judgment of the church. But then, by a common decree (if that decree be not a counterfeited forgery) priest's marriage was prohibited in all the western churches, as a thing impure and unsanctified, and that by Pope Siricius (Dist. 82), which decree, Innocentius I (Dist. 82, c.
Proposuesti), renewed, but yet with grant of pardon to all such as had not seen the epistle of Siricius. So that the gloss (dist. 82, c. 3,
Cum in praeterite, ad gloss. verb. qui sacramentis) shows plainly that Siricius was the first author of this prohibition in the church of God,
in these words: They say that these chapters were made before Gregory's time, who enjoined continency upon the ministers (31 dist. ca. Ante triennium), that is, unto the subdeacons. But Siricius commanded the priests and deacons to observe it. Nay, they say that before Siricius's time the priests might marry, and so did Moses.
Wherefore they expound it thus: "The apostles taught this doctrine of continency in work, example, and counsel," as Hugo says, "not in constitution and ordinance, as others say." Now the censure of friar
Thomas Mantriq published by command of Pius V, pope in the year 1572, commands this gloss to be razed out, together with the marginal note, which says that priests might once marry. And indeed
Augustine (lib. 6, confess. 3) greatly admires the single life of Ambrose, so that single life was more rare among the priests of those times than marriage. Gratian also (Dist. 28, ca. de Syracus.) yields that before the Ancyran Council, anno 308, the vow of continency was never proposed unto the priests. Wherefore the decree was neither of Calixtus, nor Lucius's framing.
4. Now as for this decree, it had no universal admission until the time of Pope Hildebrand, in the year 1007, for hereof speaks
Aventine, in history Boiorum lib. 5, in these words: "The priests at that time as other Christians, had wives in public, and begot children, as appears in the instruments of the Donatians which they gave to the churches, priests, and monks, where these wives and their husbands are named as witnesses, and they are called by the grave and honest name of presbyteresses." Sigebert also testifies the same in his chronicle upon the year 1074: "Pope Gregory," says he,
"forbad The married priests to use their function, and prohibited the laity to hear their masses, a deed without example, and (as many thought) done unadvisedly against the opinion of the holy fathers, who have
written, that whether the sacraments be ministered by good or evil persons, yet they are neither amplified by the merits of the good minister, nor lessened by the sins of the evil", by which act arose such a scandal that never in the heat of any heresy was the church rent in sunder with a greater schism and division. And truly it is a thing of worthy memory that Florentius, a monk of Worcester, has recorded in his chronicle, ad ann. 1106, of this Gregory, that being upon his death bed, he confessed unto almighty God, and Saint Peter and unto the "whole Church, that he had offended greatly in his pastoral charge, and by the persuasion of the devil, had stirred up anger and wrath among mankind, and that he sent his confessor to the emperor and to the whole Church to pray for pardon for him, that he did loose the bands of all that were outlawed, and all his excommunications against the emperor, and all other Christian people, clergy and laity, quick and dead," etc. And indeed, "Marriage of priests was allowed here in England until 970 years after Christ," as the history of Iornall records in the life of Edgar: "Alfer, King of Mercia," says it, "and many others, casting forth the monks out of the great monasteries which king Edgar had lately founded, brought into them the clergy and their wives." And Fabian, in Chron. page 263, relates that, "Bishops and priests were married for a thousand years together, no law enjoining the contrary." And Florentius aforenamed testifies that, "The English clergy married for 997 years together, which marriages were never forbidden by law or edict, until
Anselm's time." "In the same year (1100)," says Henrie Huntington, lib. 7, "Archbishop Anselm held a council at London, wherein he forbade the English priests to marry, who were never forbidden before. Which law seemed most pure unto some, but most dangerous unto othersome, lest that endeavoring continency above their power, they should fall into more horrible and more unchristian impurities."
Now at the promulgation of this law, these priests that were already married, were not divorced. Nay they continued marrying for all this,
two hundred years after Anselm, as M. Foxe shows in his history, publishing the very conveyances of those contracts then used.
5. Now this prohibition of marriage, there are many fathers that do not approve nor allow of, and namely these that follow.
1. Theodoret: "It is affirmed," says he, in 1 Tim. 3, "that the holy apostle says that he that lives chastely with one wife alone, is worthy to be elected a bishop, and, in 1 Tim. 4, rightly did the apostle put in (forbidden to marry), for he dislikes of continency and singleness of life, but he accuses those that will command and enjoin them by a law."
2. Ambrose: he says, Offic., lib. 2, cap. ultimo, that, "Unto the ministers of the altar it is allowed once to marry, not the second time."
3. Chrysostom: he says, in Tit. Hom. 2, that "Marriage is so honorable, that under it a man may come to ascend unto the holiest preferment and dignity."
4. Isidore: "The clergy," says he, Reg. de vita Cleric., dist. 23, c. His igitur, "ought to keep their bodies chaste and unpolluted for ever, or else to join themselves in one band of matrimony."
5. Bernard: "Take honorable marriage out of the church," says he, in Cant., Ser. 66, "and the unpolluted bed and do you not fill the church with fornicators, incestuous, unclean, effeminate, and sodomitical persons, and finally with all manner of uncleanness?"
6. Theophylact: "Husband unto one wife," says he, in 1 Tim. 3, "is taken in this sense, that he that is to undertake the function of a bishop, should not have many wives, but one."
7. Salvian: "Men of religion," says he (De provident, lib. 5), "do abstain from carnal copulation, but not from rapine and stealth. How are we deluded by foolish persuasion? It is iniquity and not matrimony, which God prohibits."
8. Gregory III: "Let no man maintain either harlot or concubine," says he, writing to the bishops of Bavaria (lib. 3, pag. 290), "but let him either live chastely, or take him a wife, whom it shall be lawful no way to refuse."
Besides, the whole Council of Nicea calls the priest's accompanying of his proper wife, chaste, lawful, and honorable. And Gratian says that this Council commended Paphnutius's opinion, and determined of marriage after every man's will, not imposing any necessity thereupon, or on the contrary, and cites the testimony of Socrates
(dist. 31, c. Nicaena). Now whereas it is objected that the Synod says that abstinence from marriage is a tradition of the church, I answer, that there was indeed such a tradition, but never universal, but particularly only. For the universality got first head in the Council of Ancyra (ca. 10), which was twenty years before the Nicene Council.
And the council of Gangra following that of Nicea, condemns their opinion, that held that the priests might not celebrate the divine mysteries, by reason of their marriage. And it is apparent out of the first Council of Toledo (c. 4 and 7), that the priests then married. And Patronus commands the institutions of the Nicene Council to be kept inviolate for evermore, in his preface to the said Council. Pope
Sylvester decreed that a priest should content himself with one order, and with one wife also. This Philippus Bergomensis records in his chronicle. And so does Sabellius also (Ennead. 7, lib. 8). The first
Council of Terwin (ca. 5, anno 460), after the prohibition of marriage, adds this: "Notwithstanding we being willing to moderate this strictness, and rightly to mollify it, do decree that a priest, etc.,
abiding still in fleshly concupiscence, and ceasing not to beget children, be not capable of any higher preferment…. But let it be sufficient for those, not to be separated from the communion." Now the 2nd Council of Terwin (c. 8 and 9), allows a bishop to have a wife as a sister, and calls her episcopa, a bishoppess. And Innocent III says this of married priests, about the year 1200 (Decretal, lib. 3, tit.
1, cap. ut clericorum): "Those that (according to their country's custom) have not abstained from the bond of wedlock, if they do fall, let them be severely punished, because they may use their lawful matrimony." And here are two worthy observations: First, that neither all priests, nor all places had then admitted this singleness.
Second, marriage of priests was then held lawful for such as pleased to undergo it. Pius II, pope, did determine (as Platina says) that even as matrimony was forbidden the priests for great reasons, as he thought, so it ought to be permitted them again for far greater reasons. "We think," says the said Pius, or Aeneas Sylvius (epistol.
308), "that you follow no bad counsel, if you take yourself to marriage, being not able to contain, though that this were to be considered of before your admission unto holy orders. But we are not all gods, that we should have knowledge in things to come. Since it is come to this, that you cannot resist the law of the flesh, it is better to marry than to burn." Leo (Novell. Con. 3) says that there is a tradition of the church, which commands that those that are to be elected priests, let them either vow singleness for their whole life (if they think to be able to keep their promise), or if they think it impossible to be kept, let them first marry lawfully, and then enter into the order of the ministry.
Epiphanius makes for this vow of perpetual singleness, but he cannot prove it out of Scriptures, but is fain to fly unto traditions. And the sixth Synod of Constantinople, cap. 13, condemns whatsoever the Roman Church has set down concerning the single life of priests.
And this Synod was held 50 years after Gregory the Great and is approved by the decretals of the canon. The words are these, dist. 31, c. Quoniam: "Because we know that it is taught in the order of the Roman canon, that those that are thought worthy to be ordained priests or deacons, should profess, that from thenceforth they would not use any more the fleshly company of their wives; we following the ancient canon of apostolic diligence, and the constitutions of holy men, will have these lawful marriages from henceforth to be of force, by no means dissolving their wedlock with their wives, or depriving them of familiar resort together, at convenient times."
By this canon we understand that for above 700 years together, the churches of the east did not approve (at least did not establish) this singleness of life in the ministers of the church. And hereunto add the testimony of Theodorus Balsamon, in Can. 5, Apost.: Before the sixth Synod in Trullo, it was lawful for the bishops to marry and have wives, yea, after they had received that dignity.
Besides, this interdiction is reproved by Volusianus (or, as others will have it, by Huldricus), in his answer unto Nicholas I: "Whether he be priest, deacon, or subdeacon," says Gratian in the decree, dist. 28, cap. de Syracus, "it is plain (by the opinion of Pope Pelagius) that being invested in the foresaid orders, they may use matrimony lawfully." And, dist. 31, cap. 1, about three years before, the subdeacons throughout all the churches of Sicily were according to the use of the Roman Church, forbidden to have any meddling at all with their wives, which seems unto me to be a very hard and incompetent thing, that he that has not attained unto the use of continency, nor made any former promise of chastity, should be compelled to forsake his wife, and by this means to fall more perniciously (which God forbid).
And Causa 26, q. 2, c. Sors: "Before the Gospel came to the luster and brightness, many things were permitted, which in the arising of more perfect discipline were utterly abolished, as the marriage of priests, and of cousin-germanes, which is not prohibited by any authority either of the law, gospel, or apostles, and yet is absolutely taken away by ecclesiastical constitution.
Leo, epi. 87, wills the priest to choose him a virgin to his wife, not a widow, so that thereby he allows priests to marry. And Panormitane says that continency is but of the positive law, and that the Greeks allow not that institution. Thomas, in 2.2, quest. 88, art. 11, affirms this, that the vow of continency is not added as an essential part of the solemnity of ordination, but only accidentally, by a statute of the church. Durand, in 4 Sent., dist. 37, q. 1, says that "Holy orders do hinder the solemnization of marriages and abolishes those that are already consummate, not absolutely, as they are orders, but as they are holy, and herein by disposing so of them,, but it hinders these marriages fully, out of the institution of the church."
"Neither probable by reason nor authority," says Cajetane (in opusc. tom. 2, tract. 31, de caelib. Sacerd.), "that a priest in marrying commits sin absolutely." Nay, reason rather draws a man to the contrary, because as we read in Lombard's sentences (dist. 37, lib. 4), neither orders as they are orders, nor holy orders as they are holy, do hinder matrimony. And in the western churches (dist. 28, c.
Diaconi), it was once lawful for the deacons to marry, besides, it is manifest that the priests and ministers of the eastern churches do marry (dist. 31, ca. Aliter). "Neither does priesthood take away contract in marriage, whether precedent or subsequent, if we seclude all constitutions ecclesiastical, and stick only unto that which we had taught us by Christ and His apostles." This teaches Cajetane; and so does Medina also (de Continentia, lib. secundo, cap. primo); and
Soto (de Jure, lib. 7, quest. 6, artic. 2). And this prohibition the whole clergy of Germany disallowed of in the year 1074, says
Schasnaburgensis.
Pope Hildebrand decreed in many synods that according to the ancient canons, no priest should have a wife. Such as had, should either put them away, or be put from their dignities. Nor should any be admitted hereunto that would not vow perpetual continency and singleness of life. Against this decree, the whole clergymen bent themselves extremely, calling him a heretic absolutely, and a man of a damned opinion, who (having forgotten the Lord's Word, that says, all cannot take this upon them; he that can take it, let him. And the apostles that said, he that contains not, let him marry, for it is better to marry than to burn) with a violent exaction, would constrain men to live like angels, and by denying them the accustomed course of nature, opens the way to fornication and uncleanness. But if he proceeded in confirming this decree, they had rather leave their priesthoods, than their wives, and then they should see, where he that despised men, could get angels to govern the people throughout the church of God. And afterwards he declares that it held a long time as a custom that the priests should take them wives.
6. The history of Paphnutius, delivered in writing by Socrates (lib. 1, cap. 8), and Sozomene (libr. 1, capi. 22), and approved by Nicephorus (libr. 7, cap. 19), Suidas in verbo Paphnutius, and Gratian (dist. 31, c. Nicaena), the papists of these times do reject and contemn most boldly, as if it were false and forged. Sotus for one (de
Jure, lib. 7, quest. 6, art. 2). Melchior Canus for another (in loc. comm., lib. 5, cap. ult.). And Bellarmine for a third (de clericis, lib. 1, cap. 20). Their first reason is that, "Sozomene," as Gregory says (lib.
6, epistol. 31), "fains many things. And Socrates lies flatly in the history of his time." I answer, Gregory accuses not Sozomene of
forgery in this thing by name, and in so famous a thing as this was, they could not err unwittingly.
Their second reason is this: it is the common consent of the Greek fathers, that none should be ministers of God's mysteries, but the chaste and continent. So says Origen (hom. 17, in Luk. and 4 in Levit.); Eusebius (l. 1, de Demonst. Evang. cap. 9); Epiphanius (in compend. doctr. & haeres. 59, con. Catharos); Cyril (catechis. 12);
Nyssenus (de Virginitate, cap. ult.); Chrysostom (hom. 2, de patientia Job); Basil (in Isa., c. 3); and Jerome (contra Vigil.). What shall the churches of the east do? What of Egypt, and of the apostolic see, who receive either virgin priests, or continent; or if they have wives, they leave to be husbands? I answer two ways: First, that the Greek priests did abstain from the use of their wives.
But only at such times as their course came to celebrate, not continually; and so some of these aforesaid fathers do require this temporal continency, not perpetual. Second, in the east their ecclesiastical customs were diverse. In some places the clergy contained, and in others they married. So says Socrates directly, lib.
5, c. 21. Thus are the aforesaid fathers reconciled with this history of Paphnutius.
7. The testimonies of the ancient writers concerning the single life of priests were but private opinions and conjectures. "Me thinks," says
Origen, hom. 23, in Numer., "that it is his part alone, to offer sacrifice, that has vowed himself unto endless and perpetual chastity." Neither do they confirm these opinions out of the Word of God, besides the great difference among them. Again, what they speak of single life, they speak it but of those that have this gift, and while they have it. And therefore, they require it not of those that are not willing, but of those that willingly promise continency. And by
those that are willing, they do mean them that know surely that they have this gift of continency. And in this manner was it that Cyprian kept his virginity free without vow, or monastical like.
8. The fathers do permit those that have made such vows to marry notwithstanding if they cannot contain, Cyprian, lib. primo, epistol.
11. Neither do they acknowledge any vow of continency wherein marriage is abjured, or by which it is annihilated. Augustine, De bono viduit, cap. 9, 10, 11, says that the breach of the vow is worse than adultery, but yet he will have these marriages that are made after the vow to be firm and lawful. "Such as do thus contract, do herein," as he says, cap. 10, "offend, not in the marriage, but in the breach of vow." Some answer that Augustine speaks not of the vow solemnly made, but of a simple vow. But I say that this distinction is frivolous, a trick of the schoolmen, unknown to the fathers, never found but in the schoolmen's writings, and in the sixth of the Decretals. Boniface VIII, lib. 3, tit. 15, says that the solemnity of vow has the original only upon the constitution of the church. So says
Scotus, Petrus de Palude, in 4 dist. 38; Cajetane, in 22 q. 88, art. 7; and Panormitane, in cap. Rursus. All these think that it is only a decree of the church whereby the solemn vow dissolves the contract of marriage made after the vow.
9. For 200 years after Christ, there was no received opinion in the church concerning the excellency and merit of single life above marriage. "He that has attained unto true perfection," says Clemens
Alexandrinus, Stromat. 7, "has the apostles for his patterns, and is truly counted a man, not in that he has made a choice of monastical life; but he conquers and excels men, that exercises himself in matrimony and increase of children, and in care and governance of his family, without either pleasure or sorrow."
10. But afterward, most of the ancient writers began to defend the excellency of virginity before marriage, and speak somewhat hyperbolically (beyond mean) in praise thereof. So says Cyprian, De bono pudicit, that, "Virginity is equal unto angels; nay, if we seek it willingly, it exceeds them, because in striving in the flesh, it obtains a victory against nature, which the angels have not." And Athanasius, de Virginitate, cries out: "O continency, the prophet's joy, the apostle's glory! O continency, the life of angels and the crown of sanctity!" But for all this, sometimes they speak more moderately of virginity. "Because we see," says Origen, lib. 8, in Rom., "that divers of the saints, yea, and some apostles, have had wives, we cannot think thus of virginity only." "Use your marriage with modesty and moderation," says Chrysostom, hom. 7, ad Hebr., "and you shall be the chief in the kingdom and enjoy the fullness of blessings." Now the fathers did sometimes ascribe this excess unto virginity, to make choice of the extreme which was most opposite unto the vice then predominant; for the heathen polygamists (having of many wives) were not as yet utterly cashiered from among the people. And besides, they did it to eschew the suspicion of disorderly copulation together, as also because that the single men had the least encumbrances, and so endured persecution with less grief.
11. Besides, the fathers took such pains in the praise of virginity, not because of itself, but by reason of the offices and duties of godliness, and hence sprung all these commendations of virginity. And this is hereby apparent, because that they will have matrimony (already contracted) to be dissolved by the entrance into religion. Look at Justinian's institutions, cap. de Episcopis & Cleric., lib. finali; Basil, in quest. fusius explicatis, qu. 12; Cassiannus, Collat. 21, cap. 9.
12. The fathers, urging the singleness of the priests, do sometimes detract from the praises of marriage, and sometimes reprove it as an
unclean thing. Syricius, epist. ad Hym. Episc. Tarra, stuck not to say that, "Those that are in the flesh," that is, in matrimony, "cannot please God." And in like manner, Tertullian, lib. de monogamia, says that, "It is evil to contract matrimony," and by the word evil, he means sin. And Jerome, Contra Jovin., lib. 1, goes thus far, that he says, "In the fulfilling the duty of a husband, I fulfilled not the duty of a Christian, and it is an evil thing to touch a woman." And Athanasius, lib. de virginitate, says that, "The woman's body is polluted by her husband's." "To the end," says Leo I, Epistol. ad
Anastasium, "that we may bring continency unto his perfect purity, we do not permit any carnal marriage so much as to the subdeacons."
Gregory, in Pasto., part. 3, admonit. 28: "I speak this as permitting, it is intimated to be a fault, which is forbidden to be favored." And Ambrose, Offic., lib. primo, cap. ultimo, will have the priests to be pure from marriage, and to be contaminated by marriage. "Let those that meddle with the holy mysteries," says Isidore, De offic. divin., lib. 2, c. 10, "be chaste, and continent, and free from all fleshly uncleanness." Arator, in Acta Apostol., says that:
The church's purest faith commands that all The priests live ever chaste, etc.
And Origen, homil. 23, in Num., makes chastity and marriage direct opposites. Look at his words in the seventh section before. Now
Rhonanus, in Argumento libri Tertullian, de exhortatione ad castitatem, acknowledges that all the fathers as well as Jerome were no equal judges in the value of matrimony.
13. The original of the popish singleness was thus: First, the votaresses (143) that married after their vow were found fault with for their inconstancy, but yet their marriages were not dissolved. "If that out of faith they have dedicated themselves unto God," says