Of the Marriage of Priests.
BISHOPS, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.
De Conjugio Sacerdotum.
EPISCOPIS, presbyteris et diaconis nullo mandato divino præceptum est, ut aut cœlibatum voveant, aut a matrimonio abstineant. Licet igitur etiam illis, ut cæteris omnibus Christianis, ubi hoc ad pietatem magis facere judicaverint, pro suo arbitratu matrimonium contrahere.
Section I. — History.
IT admits of evident proof, that in the earliest ages of the Church bishops, priests, and deacons, were allowed to marry. St, Polycarp speaks of Valens, a presbyter, and his wife. Chæremon, Bishop of Nilus, a man of very great age, is mentioned by Eusebius as flying from the Decian persecution, together with his wife. The same Eusebius, speaking of Phileas, Bishop of Thmuis, and Philoromus, says that they were urged, in the persecution under Diocletian, to have pity on their wives and children, and for their sakes, to save their own lives. St. Clement of Alexandria, in which he is followed by Eusebius, says, that the Apostles Peter and Philip begat children, and that St. Paul also was married, but did not take his wife about with him, that he might not be hindered in his missionary journeys. The same statement, namely, that St. Peter, St. Paul, and the other Apostles, were married, occurs in the interpolated epistles of St. Ignatius; a spurious work indeed, and no doubt of much later date than the real Ignatius, but not altogether valueless on that account; as forgers always aim at verisimilitude, and would hardly express an opinion which was universally exploded and condemned at the time they wrote. Origen also appears to have believed that St. Paul was married. Tertullian, on the contrary, thought St. Peter was the only married Apostle. Eusebius, after Hegesippus, clearly records that St. Jude was married, for he speaks of his grandchildren. Epiphanius considered Peter, Andrew, Matthew, and Bartholomew, all to have been married men.
There is no doubt but that in very early times second marriages were considered as disqualifying for ordination. Thus Origen says, that “no digamist could be a bishop, presbyter, deacon, or widow in the Church.” And Tertullian adduced this custom, as an argument against second marriages generally. This, of course, was derived from the rule laid down by St. Paul, that a bishop should be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. iii. 2). Yet many eminent fathers did not so interpret the words of the Apostle. For instance, St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact understand, that the custom so common among the Jews of divorcing one wife and marrying another is that which the Apostle is forbidding, when he would have no one ordained, save those who were monogamists. And it appears, that in the earliest times it was by no means universal to refuse ordination to those who had been married twice.
It is not to be concealed, however, that very soon an exaggerated esteem for celibacy crept in. The ascetic views of the Essenes, of the Montanists, of the Gnostics, and of other sects external to the Church, affected more or less the Church itself. The dread of heathen vices, felt especially by those who had themselves once been heathens, made many attach some notion of impurity even to marriage. Hence, the language of our Lord (in Matt. xix.) and of St. Paul (in 1 Cor. vii.) was pressed to its utmost consequences. They had spoken of a single life as more favourable to piety, inasmuch as it separated more from worldly distractions and gave more leisure for attending to the things of the Lord. But the primitive Christians by degrees fell into the notion, that though marriage was a state permitted, it was still, if possible, to be shunned. It was not actually unholy, but it was inconsistent with a high degree of holiness. Hence, by degrees also, the belief began to prevail, that the special ministers of God ought to choose the higher condition, and devote themselves to celibacy. Hence, some of the clergy began to separate from their wives. Hence, too, some laymen were disposed to withdraw themselves from the ministrations of the married clergy.
But these errors, when first they sprang up, were opposed by councils and canons. The Canons of the Apostles order, that “A bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall not put away his wife under pretext of religion. If he does, he shall be separated from communion; and, if he persevere, he shall be deposed.” The Council of Ancyra (A. D. 314) decrees, that those who, at the time of ordination as deacons, declared their intention to marry, should be allowed to marry and to remain in the ministry; but it forbids the marriage of those who professed continence at the time of ordination. The very important Council of Gangra, the canons of which were received throughout the East and West (A. D. 324), anathematizes “those who separate themselves from a married priest, as though it were not right to communicate in the oblation, when such an one ministers.” But especially observable is the decision of the first and greatest of the general councils, the Council of Nice (A. D. 325). There it was proposed, that the clergy should be obliged to abstain from the society of their wives, whom they had married before ordination. But Paphnutius, an eminent Egyptian prelate, himself unmarried, earnestly protested against putting so heavy a burden on the clergy; for he said, that marriage was honourable in all men, and that it ought to suffice, that the clergy should not marry after ordination, but that they should never be required to separate from their wives. Thereupon, the whole council assented to the words of Paphnutius; and the motion was repressed.
It is true, the Council of Miberis (Elvira in Spain, A. D. 300) had prohibited the clergy from the use of marriage. But this does not appear to have been a council of much weight; nor can its decrees, or those of such as agreed with it, be compared with the decrees of the Canons of the Apostles, the Council of Gangra, and the first great Council of Nice. It is certain, that for a long time, not only priests and deacons, but bishops also, were allowed to marry. Socrates says that, even in his day, many eminent bishops lived with their wives, and were the fathers of families. In the East, the Council in Trullo (A. D. 692) laid down the rule, that though bishops must observe celibacy, yet presbyters and deacons might live with their wives; and this rule has governed the custom in the Eastern Church from that day to this.
Yet this very canon of the Trullan council speaks of it as then a received rule in the Roman Church, that deacons and presbyters should profess before ordination that they would no more live with their wives. That council itself declares that, in decreeing otherwise, it followed the ancient rule of Apostolical order.
It is not easy, nor necessary, to trace exactly the progress of the principle of clerical celibacy in the West. There appears long to have been a struggle between the natural feelings of the clergy and the rigid discipline of the Church: the clergy, from time to time, in different parts of Europe, relapsing into the custom of living with their lawful wives, and the sterner disciplinarians among the bishops striving to repress it. Gregory VII. (A. D. 1073) is considered as having most effectually restrained the marriage of the clergy. He held several councils in Italy, and especially one at Rome, A. D. 1074: where the marriage of priests was condemned under the name of concubinage.
Two years afterwards (A. D. 1076), a synod of English bishops was held at Winchester, under Archbishop Lanfranc. That Synod decreed, that canons should have no wives, and forbade in future any priest to marry, or bishops to ordain such as would not declare that they were unmarried; but it permitted such priests as lived in the country, and were already married, to retain their wives. Under Anselm, the successor of Lanfranc (A. D. 1102), it was finally decreed in England, that neither priest nor deacon, nor even subdeacon, should be ordained, who did not profess chastity, i. e. celibacy: a decree which was further confirmed by the Council of London, A. D. 1108.
In general, it may be considered that the laity in the middle ages were favourable to the celibacy of the clergy; but many of the wiser prelates of the Church considered it a doubtful, if not a dangerous restraint. It perhaps tended, in a considerable degree, to dispose many of the clergy themselves to the doctrines of the Reformation. Yet nothing could be a more effectual instrument for uniting the priestly orders together, and giving them common interests. At the same time, no doubt, it often made them more efficient, and left them more disengaged from secular employments and pursuits.
The reformers were all opposed to the vows of continence. Luther, though a monk, and therefore doubly bound to celibacy, married. It was matter of much debate, whether those who had once bound themselves to a single life did well to abandon it, even though they had discovered that such vows were undesirable and wrong. Luther’s views were very peculiar. He held monastic vows to be impious and demoniacal: and marriage he sometimes speaks of as a duty incumbent on all men. Indeed, though we may probably make much allowance for the vehemence of his language and the impetuosity of his character, he says many things on this subject which no well instructed Christian can approve.
Our own Cranmer not only married, but married twice. He, however, had not been, like Luther, a monk. Monastic vows were much more stringent than the mere profession of celibacy made by the priesthood. Some there were, like Bishop Ridley, who, though disapproving of restrictions on marriage, thought it not decorous to contract matrimony after they had promised celibacy, even though it were in the days of their former ignorance. Of course, those who did marry, laid themselves open to the charge of embracing the reformed doctrines for the sake of worldly indulgences.
The Council of Trent has one canon condemnatory of those who would permit the clergy to marry. The Confession of Augsburg has not imitated the conciseness of the Romish council, having two very long Articles, one on the marriage of the clergy, the other on monastic vows.
At this day then, the Eastern Church allows presbyters, but not bishops, to marry: the Roman Church enjoins celibacy on all: the Reformed Churches leave all to marry at their own discretion.
Section II. — Scriptural Proof.
I. THERE are, no doubt, some strong arguments in favour of the celibacy of the clergy, which it may be well to consider before proceeding to the arguments on the other side.
Both our blessed Lord and St. Paul unquestionably give the preference to an unmarried life, as being a more favourable state for religious self-devotion than the state of matrimony. Our Lord’s words are, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” To some it is a gift of God, and those who have the gift are advised to abstain from marriage, “for the kingdom of Heaven’s sake” (Matt. xix. 12). I assume this to be the sense of the passage: first, because the whole stream of Christian antiquity so explained it; secondly, because I know no commentator of any credit in modern times, of whatever Church or sect, who has explained it differently. St. Paul’s language illustrates our Lord’s. He begins by saying, that it is a good thing for a man not to marry (1 Cor. vii. 1). Still, as a general rule, he recommends marriage (vv. 2‒5). He recommends it, however, as a matter of permission, not as giving a command, (κατὰ συγγνώμην, οὐ κατ’ ἐπιταγήν, ver. 6); for he would prefer to see all men as he was himself; “but every man has his proper gift, one after this manner, and another after that” (ver. 7). To the unmarried he says, it is good for them, if they abide as he abode (ver. 8). Celibacy is indeed particularly to be advised “for the present distress” (ver. 26). And as a general rule, he lays it down, that there is benefit in an unmarried condition, because it is less subject to the cares of this life, and causes less solicitude and anxiety, giving more time for religion and devotion to God. These are his words: “I would have you without carefulness. 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 that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend on the Lord without distraction” (vv. 32‒35).
Here then, though the Apostle is far from finding fault with marriage, he evidently prefers celibacy; not because there is evil in marriage, but because there is less distraction in an unmarried life. Such a life, undertaken and adhered to from religious motives, involves a stricter renunciation of the world, a greater abstinence from earthly comforts and enjoyments, a more entire devotion of the soul to the one end of serving God.
We may fairly conclude from such language of the Apostle, coupled with the words of our Lord, that the tone of popular opinion, concerning marriage and celibacy, is low and unscriptural. With us marriage is ever esteemed the more honourable state; celibacy is looked on as at least inferior, if not contemptible. “But the base things of the world, and things that are despised, hath God chosen” (1 Cor. i. 28). And a true tone of Christian sentiment would make us honour those who live apart from earthly joys, that they may live more to God.
Now these considerations, at first sight, seem to make for the celibacy of the clergy. God’s ministers should ever seek the most excellent way. Marriage may be good and honourable; but if celibacy be a more favourable state for religious advancement, giving us leisure, like Mary, “to sit at Jesus’ feet,” not “careful and troubled about many things;” then must it be well for Christ’s special servants to choose that good part, that they may “attend upon the Lord without distraction.”
We may add to this prime argument some motives of Church policy. An unmarried clergyman is expeditior, more readily moved from place to place, abler to go where his duty may call him, to do what his calling may require of him. He has no children to think about, no wife to carry about with him, no interests, but those of the Church and of the Church’s Head. His strength, his wealth, his intellect, he may devote all to one end; for he has no need to have anxieties to provide for his own, or to preserve himself for their sakes. He has no temptation to heap up riches for others; none to form worldly schemes and seek worldly interest, for the advancement of his family. “He careth only for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.”
II. Now, I do think, we ought not to underrate such arguments as these. They have, doubtless, much weight; and accordingly long prevailed to keep the clergy in a state of single life. But no inferences from Scripture, or apparent policy and expediency, can weigh against plain declarations to the contrary; and that more especially when the question concerns a penal enactment, —a restraint upon a law of nature, and upon instincts implanted in us by the Creator, and sanctified to us by His blessing. And we assert, that Scripture does contain plain and direct evidence that God Almighty not only sanctions and blesses marriage in general, but sanctions and blesses it in the clergy, as well as in the laity. “What God hath cleansed, that call not we common.”
1. If we look at the old Testament, the priests were not only allowed, but encouraged to marry. This is not, of course, a proof that the clergy under the new Covenant may marry; but the Roman Church is especially fond of comparing all things concerning the Levitical priesthood with the priesthood of the Gospel.
2. That some of the Apostles were married is admitted by all. But it is asserted by the Roman Catholics, that they did not live with their wives after they were ordained to the Apostleship. St. Paul, however, says, “Have we no power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?” (1 Cor. ix. 5). It is true, that some of the fathers understood this, not of a wife, but of those Christian women who ministered to the Apostles, as some had ministered to our Lord when on earth (Luke viii. 2, 3). But the more ancient fathers understood it of carrying their own wives about with them. We have already seen that Clement of Alexandria so interpreted this passage; and his testimony is quoted with approval by Eusebius. Tertullian also distinctly asserts from the same passage of Scripture, “that it was permitted to the Apostles to marry, and to lead about their wives with them.” The earlier interpretation, therefore, according with the more obvious sense of the words, we cannot but suspect that the later fathers interpreted them otherwise, from the then unduly increasing esteem for celibacy.
3. But further St. Paul especially directs that bishops and deacons should be the husbands of one wife (1 Tim. iii. 2, 12; Tit. i. 6); and lays down special rules concerning their management of their children (1 Tim. iii. 4), and the conduct of their wives (ver. 11). A strange interpretation has been given to this passage by some of the Roman Catholics; namely, that the Apostle speaks figuratively, meaning that a bishop should have but one diocese. Yet I imagine that this would not be often pressed. St. Chrysostom, and after him Theodoret and Theophylact, as we have seen already, understand the Apostle to forbid that any should be ordained who had divorced one wife and married another; a custom which seems not only to have been common with Jews and heathens, but to have crept in even among Christians. Some indeed among the fathers held, that second marriages after baptism were thus forbidden by St. Paul; but the ancient Church always interpreted the passage, as permitting and sanctioning at least a single marriage to the clergy, though, in some sense, forbidding a second. St. Chrysostom has even been thought to express himself as though it might be a question whether St. Paul did not enjoin marriage, though himself declaring that he understood it of permission, not of injunction. And in another place he says, St. Paul speaks of the marriage of the clergy on purpose “to stop the mouths of heretics who condemned marriage; showing that marriage is not unholy in itself, but so honourable, that a married man might ascend the holy throne.”
Thus then the words of the Apostle, as interpreted by all the ancient Church, whatever they may say about a second marriage, unquestionably sanction a single marriage to the ministers of Christ. These words alone are fully sufficient to prove the truth of the Article we have in hand, — to prove that “bishops, priests, and deacons are not commanded by God’s law either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage.” And we may ask, if God has not bound us, what power in Heaven or earth has authority to bind? What can be more presumptuous than to add to the moral laws of the Creator, to forbid as sinful what He has ordained as holy?
Again, our Lord especially says, that “all men cannot receive the saying” that single life may be more profitable for the kingdom of Heaven (Matt. xix. 11). St. Paul says, that “every man has his proper gift” (1 Cor. vii. 7); and that he does not speak of the benefits of celibacy, “to cast a snare upon” us (1 Cor. vii. 35). It is therefore strangely presumptuous to impose that on whole bodies, which our Lord says some cannot receive, which St. Paul calls a peculiar gift, and which he will not enjoin on any, lest it be a snare to them.
4. There are some general considerations which much strengthen the above more particular arguments. “Marriage is honourable in all men” (Heb. xiii. 4). What is honourable in all, cannot surely be prohibited to any. The “forbidding to marry” is expressly spoken of by the Spirit, as a sign of the apostasy of the latter days, and as arising from “the hypocrisy of liars, whose own consciences are seared with a hot iron.” Above all, marriage is a type of the union of Christ and his Church (Eph. v. 23‒32). It is “consecrated to such an excellent mystery, that in it is signified and represented the spiritual unity of Christ and His Church.” Can we believe that to be unfit for the ministers of Christ, which Christ Himself has honoured with such high approbation and blessing?
5. Lastly, it is said that many benefits are derived to the Church from an unmarried priesthood. Such expediency, however, cannot be set up against the word of God. Romanists themselves have often admitted, that, if there were good reasons for the clergy not to marry, there were still better reasons why they should marry. And, but that such addition to our Scriptural proof seems unnecessary, we might easily bring many arguments from experience to show, that the snares of celibacy have been as great as those of matrimony; and that the charities of wedded life have been as profitable to the married, as the asceticism of single life can have been to the unmarried priesthood.
- Epist. Polyc. c. XI. ↑
- H. E. Lib. VI. c. 42. ↑
- Ib. VIII. c. 9. ↑
- Πέτρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ Φίλιππος ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο . . . . καὶ ὅγε Παῦλος οὐκ ὀκνεῖ ἔν τινι ἐπιστολῇ τὴν αὐτοῦ προσαγορεύειν σύζυγον ἥν οὐ περιεκόμιζεν, διὰ τὸ τῆς ὑπηρεσίας εὐσταλές. — Strom. Lib. III. p. 535; Potter, cf. Lib. IV. p. 607; Euseb. H. E. III. 30. ↑
- Coteler. Tom. II. p. 81. ↑
- “Paulus ergo (sicut quidam tradunt) cum uxore vocatus est, de qua dicit ad Philippenses scribens, Rogo te etiam, germana compar,” &c. — Origen. Com. in Rom. i. ↑
- “Petrum solum maritum invenio per socrum.” — De Monogamia, 8. ↑
- H. E. Lib. III. c. 20. ↑
- Hæres. LXXVIII. 10. Tom. I. p. 1042. Colon. See more such authorities in Cotelerius’s note 44, Tom. I. p. 80. ↑
- “Ab ecclesiasticis dignitatibus non solum fornicatio, sed et nuptiæ repellunt: neque enim episcopus, nec presbyter, nec diaconus nec vidua possunt esse digami.” Orig. Hom. XVII. in Luc. ↑
- Tertull. De Monogam. c. 11. ↑
- Chrysost. Hom. X. in 1 Tim.: Hom. II. in Tit.; Theodoret. Com. in 1 Tim. iii. 2; Theophyl. In 1 Tim. iii. 2. ↑
- So Tertullian, addressing the Catholics says, “Quot enim et diagmi præsident apud vos, insultantes utique apostolo.” — De Monogam. c. 12. See also other authorities; Bingham, E. A. Bk. IV. ch V. sect. 4. ↑
- Two extreme views are taken of this fact. The Romanist argues that, from the very first, the Church was in favour of clerical celibacy; therefore it must be right. The author of Ancient Christianity contends, that the exaggerated eesteem for a single life prevailed from the beginning; therefore the Church was corrupt from the very days of the Apostles. A little candour will lead us to a conclusion different from both of these. We may admit, that an undue esteem for virginity was a natural prejudice for the first Christians to fall ilnto; and accordingly, before very long, they gradually slid into it. But it was gradually. We find nothing of the sort in Clemens Romanus, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus. Any one who will read Clem. Alexand. (Stromat. Lib. III.) will see, how highly that learned father esteemed matrimony, and how little he made of celibacy. The first trace of the exaggerated notion in question is to be found in the writings of the ascetic Montanist, Tertullian. ↑
- Can. Apostol. Can .V.; cf. Can. LI. ↑
- Conc. Ancyr. Can. X. ↑
- Concil. Gangr. Can. IV. ↑
- Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. c. 11; Sozomen, Lib. I. c. 23, &c. ↑
- Concil. Illiber. Can. XXXIII. So the Council of Carthage (A. D. 390). Can. II. enjoins continence on all the clergy. ↑
- Socrates, Lib. V. c. 22. ↑
- Concil. Trull. Can. XIII. The Council in Trullo was held at Constantinople. It is also called Concilium Quinisextum, from being supplementary to the fifth and sixth councils. ↑
- Ἐπειδὴ ἐν Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν τάξει κάνονος παραδεδόσθαι διέγνωμεν, τοὺς μέλλοντας διακόνου ἢ πρεσβυτέρου χειροτονίας ἀξιοῦσθαι κατομολογεῖν ὡς οὐκέτι ταῖς αὐτῶν συνάπτονται γαμεταῖς · ἡμεῖς τῷ ἀρχαίῳ ἐξακολουθοῦντες κανόνι τῆς ἀποστολικῆς ἀκριβείας καὶ τάξεως τὰ τῶν ἱερῶν ἀνδρῶν κατὰ νόμους συνοικεσία καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἐῤῥῶσθαι βουλόμεθα, κ. τ. λ. — Concil. Trull. Can. XIII. ↑
- Concil. Winton. Can. I; Wilkins’s Concil. I. p. 367. ↑
- Wilkins’s Concil. I. p. 387. ↑
- De Votis Monasticis, Tom. II. p. 277. ↑
- See Ridley’s Life of Ridley, p. 293. ↑
- Sess. XXIV. De Sacr. Matrimon. Can. IX. ↑
- Sylloge, pp. 211, 219. ↑
- See for instance, Tertull. De Virginibus Velandis, c. 10; De Cultu Fœminarum, II. 9; Origen in Matt. Tom. XV. 4, 5; Chrysostom, Homil. LXII. in Matt.; Epiphanius, Hæres. LVIII. 4, Tom. I. p. 491; Theophylact. In Matt. xix., &c. ↑
- It may be a question whether “the present distress” means the state of persecution, to which the early Christians were exposed, or the distress and anxiety of the present life. — See above, p. 350, note 3. ↑
- “For the evil is not in the cohabitation, but in the impediment to the strictness of life.” — Chrysost. Hom. XX. in Matt. ↑
- Matt. xix. and 1 Cor. vii. have been considered in another point of view under Art. XIV. pp. 348‒351; which see. ↑
- See Theodoret and Theophylact ad h. l. Isidor. Pelus. Epist. CLXXVI. Lib. III. The same is the opinion of Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. ↑
- Clem. Strom. Lib. III. p. 535; Euseb. H. E. III. 30, cited in the first section. ↑
- “Licebat et Apostolis nubere et uxores circumducere.” — De Exhortat Castitat. c. 8. ↑
- From this interpretation arose that objectionable custom in the Church, that presbyters should have female attendants instead of wives, called mulieres subintroductæ, συνείσακτοι, &c. This was forbidden by the Council of Ancyra, Can. XIX. It is condemned by Epiphanius, Hæres. LXXVIII. See Suicer, Tom. I. pp. 28, 83, 810. ↑
- γυναῖκας in this verse does not certainly mean the wives of the bishops and deacons. It is interpreted by some of the widows or deaconesses. ↑
- Chrysost. Hom. X. in 1 Tim.; Hom. II. in Tit.; Theodoret in 1 Tim. iii. 2; Theophylact in 1 Tim. iii. ↑
- See Hammond on 1 Tim. iii. 2. ↑
- Origen, Hom. XVII. in Luc.; Tertull. De Monogam. c. 11, quoted in last Section. See also Ambros. De Offic. Lib. I. c. 50; Hieronym. Ep. II. ad Nepotian. ↑
- Δεῖ οὖν ϕησι τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἁνεπίληπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γύναικος ἄνδρα · οὐ νομοθετῶν τοῦτό ϕησιν, ὡς μὴ εἶναι ἄνευ τούτου γίνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀμετρίαν κωλύων. — Hom. X. in 1 Tim. See also Erasmus on 1 Tim. iii. 2. ↑
- τίνος ἕνεκεν τὸν τοιοῦτον εἰς μέσον παράγει; ἐπιστομίζει τοὺς αἱρετικοὺς τοὺς τὸν γάμον διαβάλλοντας, δεικνὺς ὅτι τὸ πρᾶγμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐναγὲς. ἀλλ’ οὕτω τίμιον ὡς μετ’ αὐτοῦ δύνασθαι καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἅγιον ἐπιβαίνειν θρόνον. — Hom. II. in Tit. ↑
- ἐν ύποκρίσει ψευδολόγων, κεκαυτηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν, κωλύοντων γαμεῖν, κ. τ. λ. — 1 Tim. iv. 2, 3. ↑