Dear Sirs: I see very well that the game is going beyond me. I said before that I was present not to dispute, but as the representa- tive of my gracious Lord to speak kindly if any dissension arose on account of the disputation. ‘Thus I very well see things are going with me as the wise man said, the foolish are easily caught in their words, but it is perhaps the fault of my folly that I undertook to speak not as a wise man. Since I have been summoned to answer by Master Ulrich, I will say that some hundreds of years ago it happened, my dear sirs, that heresy and dissension arose in the Church, the causes and beginners of which were Novatians, Montanists, Sabellians, Ebionites, Marcionites and others, under whose false teachings and error many articles like these of our times were planted in men, and by their teachings many believing folk went astray. Among these some asserted that praying to the dear saints and their intercession, as also of the mother of God, and that purgatory, too, did not exist, but were man’s invention, and the like. In order to close up such misleading roads and ways of error many pious bishops and fathers met in many places, at one time in Asia, then in Africa, then somewhere in Greece, that they might hold synods and councils, and to avoid and stop heresy and such things. And afterward constitutiones (that is, ordinances and decisions,) were made, prescribed and com- manded about those matters by the holy fathers and the popes that such (heretical views) should not be held, having been rejected by the Christian Church. And although this was firmly and irrevocably ratified a long time ago by decrees of the popes and bishops, and considered wrong in Christian churches, still later schisms, dissenting parties and sects have sprung up in THE FIRST ZURICH DISPUTATION. 65 Europe, as, to mention their names, the Bohemians, Picards, who were led astray by such heretics as Wyclif and Hus, living contrary to the decrees and ordinances of the holy popes, acting contrary to the regulations of the Christian Church and not putting any faith in the intercession of the saints, or still less in purgatory. And although such heresy and error were later rejected by all men of Christian belief, and although those who live and remain in such error were considered, recognized and proclaimed by the holy councils as sundered members of the mother of Christian churches, still one now finds those who stir up these things anew, and undertake to bring into doubt that which many years ago was recognized and decided upon as untrue and erroneous by,.
pope and bishop. They undertake to drive us from old customs, "_ ei © which have endured and- stood. in: honor these seven hundred, a years, planning to.overturn and upset all things. For first oe went at the pope, cardinals and bishops, then they turned all, cloisters topsy-turvy, after that they fell upon purgatory. Ad. when they had left the earth they at last ascended to heaven and went at the saints and great servants of God. Saint Peter with his keys, indeed our dear Lady, the mother of God, could not escape their disgraceful attacks. And I know some places where they had gone so far as even to Christ Himself.
Shall it now go so far that not only the authorities and eccle- sıastics on earth, but also God and the chosen in heaven, must be punished? If so, it is a pity. Shall not all that be nothing and count as nothing which the pious, holy fathers assembled in the holy spirit of God have made and unanimously decided? It cannot but have grown up to the great injury and disgrace of all Christendom. For the holy fathers and all our ancestors must have erred, and for now fourteen hundred years Christianity must have been misled and ruled in error, which it were un- christian to believe, I do not need to say. Now if the interces- sion of the dear saints has ever been ratified as necessary and useful by popes, bishops, fathers and councils, and if since the er ot ee re oe.
fi Ever wees ae at Li/ “ oo) SOMERS ee a 1 wo we ZWINGLI SELECTIONS.
time of the holy pope Gregory (II.) it has continued in use among all Christianity, it seems strange to me that now for the first time people desire to consider this wrong and erroneous, contrary to Christian ordinance, although there are few men who do not feel the aid of the mother of God and the dear saints, not alone among us Christians, but also among some unbelieving heathen. If we here at Ziirich are now to speak and fight against such customs common to all the world, and especially those pre- served so long by Christians, let each one think for himself how that would please those in the Orient, the Occident, from sunrise to sunset, also those in Hibernia, Mauritania, Syria, Cappadocia or in the Cyclades. I do not need to mention countries nearer „ our lands. ‘Truly, dear sirs, it would be well to consider beforehand what dangers and dissensions might arise for Christianity if one were not in harmony and agreement with the whole com- munity in these matters. For you see, as also a heathen called Sallust in “ Jugurtha” testifies, that small things arise from unity, xX \but from dissension great things decrease and fall away. There- ; wy of iR fore my advice would be, not to consider anything of these affairs which pertain to the whole Church, but to save them for a general council. And although Master Ulrich refers to Bibles in Hebrew, Latin and Greek, and thereby consoles himself, which Scripture also those here present being taught sufficiently well in the three languages should examine, and such Scripture as is pertinent to the case they should judge and consider, still I say, in the first place, that is not a small gift of God to (be able to) expound the above-mentioned languages, and I do not boast that I possess it. For these are especial gifts of God, as also Paul says to the Corinthians (xii. 7-10): Unique datur manifestatio spiritus ad utilitatem, to each is given the manifestation of the spirit for use, to the one faith, to the other eloquence, to this one the interpretation of languages, etc. Of these graces or gifts I cannot boast of possessing any, as I know nothing of Hebrew, am not well taught in Greek, and understand Latin only tolerably.
} por PO Dh ye 4 Ben (| THE FIRST ZURICH DISPUTATION. 67 For I am no orator or poet, and do not pretend to be. Finally I say, the evangelical and apostolical Scripture is not found in the wise, brilliant or flowery, smooth words, but in the power of God, as Paul says, 1 Cor. ii. 4. Thus, as before, it seems to me not to be sufficient that one apply or bring forward Scripture, but it is also important that one understand Scripture correctly. With that in view perhaps one should attend to such matters at the universities (as at Paris, Cologne or Lyons, or elsewhere), as I said before.
ANSWER OF MASTER ULRICH.
Sir Vicar: There is no further need of such smooth and round- about words. I desire that you tell me only with what portion of Scripture you convinced the priest imprisoned at Constance, clergyman of Fislisbach, that he was not a Christian, and brought him to a revocation of his error. This is the point upon which ‚we desire to hear in kindness your answer. Show us simply where in the books heretofore cited by you in the matter of praying to the saints and of their intercession it is stated that they are our mediators. This we desire to know from you. Therefore I beg you for the sake of Christian love, do this with plain, unadulterated, divine Scripture, as you boast to have done in the case of the priest imprisoned at Constance. Indicate the chapter and answer the question as asked in simple words, saying here or there it is written. Then we will see if it is so, and in case we are persuaded and convinced of it we will gladly submit to instruction. There is no need of long speeches.* For your long quoting and citing of many writings of the ancients looks more like seeking the praise and favor of the audience than the furthering of the truth. Probably I also could bring in many narratives and essays of the ancients, but it is not to the point. We well know that many things were decided upon in times * [‘ Upon Fathers and councils one no longer depends, unless they prove their case by the Scriptures.’’ (Bullinger. )] 68 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS.
past by the fathers in council assembled which were afterward repealed and revoked by others who thought they assembled in the spirit of God, as is plainly found in the Nicene Council and that of Gangra,* in the first of which the clergy was allowed to marry, and all those who spoke against it were cursed, while the second decided upon the opposite.t It is als» a fact that many times ordinances (constitutiones) have been issued * [Held in the 4th century. Gangra was the capital of ten Asia Minor provinces of Paphlagonia. ] + [* ‘ Not a word is written concerning this in the canons of the council of Nicza.’ To be sure Zwingli said that Paphnutius in the council of Niczea had been, by which Zwingli means that marriage at that time (although he partly errs) was permitted. Nowin the council of Gangra you say in your report Zwingli had said it had been forbidden. How could you lose your memory in such fashion that you could write such? On the contrary he said that it had been permitted in the council of Gangra, and doubtlessly he based this upon another pamphlet, which he called ‘Apologeticum,’ and written in Latin quatering (see Latin version). Rogo nunc ut concilio parendum, etc. You do him wrong, now I must take his part. Furthermore beware, my pamphlet here will be read the sooner by those who are at Ziirich and accepted as good. Zwingli also has referred to the Carthaginian council. In the first place I showed how there are two kinds of councils, namely, those of the general Christianity, which are called ‘ oecu- menica’ or ‘universalia’ in Greek and Latin; then the ‘ particularia.” Now it is never found that in the matter of faith the ‘ universalia’’ were ever opposed to each other. The Carthaginian council was only a special one. And to every bishop was left his free will and opinion; and only later the council of Niczea was held by 318 Fathers, (thus) they may have had an honest excuse. Why have you omitted this report???’ (Faber.) Heinrich Wolf answered thereupon: “Zwingli simply said that in a council Paphnutius with difficulty had secured permission for the marriage of the priests, also spoke well against such statutes. Now you come forward and say that he placed Paphnutius in the Niczan council, although he said to-day (as I asked him about it) that he had never read about a council which had forbidden marriage, but about popes 500 years after the birth of Christ. But since the papists speak so consistently about the Niczan council he made his point, how he really had never read carefully the history of this council, and thus had believed you papists. And you have brought forth the Niczean council, and not Zwingli; then you opposed the Gangrensian council by saying that it was not a general one.’’ (‘‘Gyren- rupfen.’’) ] a: ee EEE TER EN - THE FIRST ZURICH DISPUTATION. 69 and ordered by the fathers in council to which their successors paid no heed. For example, that the mother of God conceived without sin was decided in public council at Basel, and yet no preaching monk is so foolish as to speak against it. Also many ordinances or rules of the fathers are found which were changed afterwards, especially in our times, and otherwise not kept or given up by the influence of money, so that such things are _ allowed which were formerly forbidden by the fathers. From this we can see that councils have not always acted in the spirit of the Holy Ghost, but sometimes according-to-human will and judgment, which is of course forbidden by divine Scripture. For the Holy Ghost does not say this to-day and to-morrow that, but its ordinances and regulations must remain everlasting and .) changeless.. The pious fathers whom we call holy are not for that’reason to be dishonored and attacked as to their piety or holiness. For nothing is easier or from native weakness more natural than to err, especially when out of conceit or over-hasty judgment depended upon their own opinion instead of upon the rule of God’s Word. This all shows us that the pillars and supports of many of the fathers, as Augustine and Jerome, are not in harmony in their writings; that often the one thinks not only something else, but by Scripture proves the contrary. But as to the fact that they say it would be too bad if we Christians, and especially our forefathers, had lived so long in error, since from the time of Gregory the intercession of the saints has been accepted and kept, I say that it is not a question of when a thing begun in the Church. We know well that the litany was estab- lished in the time of Gregory and kept down to the present. But all we desire is to hear the Scripture upon which my Lord Vicar bases his recommendation that we should pray to the saints. For if such a custom began at the time of Gregory then it did not exist before,* and if before that time men were Christians *[‘*I said even more about the time further back, especially in the time of Cyprian, 1300 years ago, there was intercession of the saints; yes, I shall try it still further back.’’? (Faber. )] [yw PRE By,’ vi; Br ore 70 ak ZWINGLI SELECTIONS.
and were saved, though they did not hold to the intercession of the saints, and perhaps knew little of it, then it follows that they did not sin who believed in Christ alone and did not consider the intercession of the saints.
For we know really from the Scriptures that Jesus Christ alone is the mediator between us and God, his heavenly Father, as has been stated before. Furthermore, I say that many learned men have spoken and fought against the ordinances, and especially against the so-called holy ones, useless and superfluous customs, also against great power and tyrannical show; but the great moguls, popes, bishops, monks and prelates, do not wish to be touched on their sore spots, and tell the unlearned crowd that their rule has been erected by God, and that He has ordered them to govern thus, hence all those opposing, or only having such thoughts, are not alone heretics and shut out from the rest of Christianity, but as cursed and the property of the devil they have been exiled, outlawed, condemned, and some have been sentenced to the stake and burnt. ‘Therefore, dear brethren, although one says to you—perhaps in order to frighten you the more—how our pious parents and ancestors have erred, and on account of such heresy have been deprived of salvation: I tell you (on the contrary) that the decisions and judgment of God are hidden from mankind and incomprehensible to us, and no one should impiously concern himself therewith. God knows that we all have faults and are sinners, yet through His mercy He makes up our deficiences and enables us to accomplish something, yea even such deeds for which perhaps our strength alone is not sufficient. Consequently it is in no wise befitting that we desire to judge and pronounce upon the secrecy of God in such mat- ters. He knows full well where He may overlook and pardon, and we must not interfere with His decision and compassion, in which manner He has treated and dealt with each one. We trust in Him as our eternally good Father, who can, as 2 Peter ii. g says, well protect His own, and deliver the godless over to a THE FIRST ZURICH DISPUTATION. 71 eternal suffering. Nor does it do any good to say that there are few people who will not feel comfort through the intercession of the saints. I say, where such help comes from God, we will not judge why God acts thus and helps man in such fashion as He desires. But where this occurs from infatuation by the devil as a judgment of God upon the unbelieving man, what shall we say then? Ye know well what work the devil has sometimes done in many places, which if it had not been obstructed would have resulted in great deception and injury of all Christendom. Furthermore, that is an evil teaching which proclaims that other nations will not consider us Chritsians if we do not obey the ordinances, z. e., the laws of former times, as this is ordered and demanded by the papal decrees. For indeed there are many ordinances in the canons of the Roman bishops and popes which the aforesaid nations do not obey and still they are none the less Christians. Concerning the above I shall make use of the follow- Ww ing short comparison: Ecclesiastical property is (as they say) in the power of the Roman pope, and he may bestow and grant the estates to whomsoever he pleases. Now look ye how this ord- inance is obeyed in Spain and France; there the ecclesiastical benefices or estates are not granted to any foreigner, let the pope say what he pleases. But we foolish Germans must permit ” the sending of stablemen and mule-drivers from the papal court to take possession of our benefices and curacies and be our spiritual guides, although they are ignorant of and know naught concerning the Scriptures, and if we do not tolerate this we are disobedient to the Christian Church. But the above-mentioned nations do not obey the ordinance and still are without question © ‘pious Christians. Hence, Sir Vicar, I desire that you do not make use of bombastic speeches, which do not even bear upon my question, but, as I have asked before, tell at once where is written in the Scriptures concerning the holy invocation and intercession of the Virgin Mary, as you pretended you could show in Exodus, Baruch, etc. That is what we desire to hear. Hence 72 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS.
answer in regard to this obscure point. We do not ask what has been accomplished or decided in this or that council. This all does not bear upon the matters which we ask you, otherwise we will be speaking for a month concerning these matters.
VICAR.
Gentlemen: I am accused of speaking very evasively and not to the point. I have excused myself before for not being able to speak eloquently, and I have also listened to you (Master Ulrich). [Here Master Ulrich interrupted: There is no need of so much teasing.] That you accuse me of seeking to add to my own fame rather than the advancement of truth I cannot pre- vent. I wished to assist in making peace and doing the best. But when Master Ulrich claims that I say much concerning things settled by councils of yore, and then changed by later ones, I say that there are two kinds of councils referred to. Some are known as “ concilia universalia ” (these are common or general gather- ings), where many of the bishops and Christian leaders meet, as in the four foremost councils, Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon, and some others. Whatever was accomplished and done in these has never been entirely changed by the others, but has been preserved like the Gospel. Some are known as “ concilia particularia,” of which there have been many, not con- sisting of all the fathers of the common parishes about, but of special ones, as was the council of Gangra, and many others. In these probably something has at times been settled which later, perhaps not without cause, has been decided otherwise. But it never has been that the priests were permitted to have wives. And although the Eastern Church, especially in Greece, wished to have this considered just, the pious fathers of other nations would not permit this and forbade it, considering from weighty reasons * that the marriage of priests is detrimental to the * (‘Although I said that I wanted to defend it well against the destroyers of divine gifts and services. But I did not say it. You thought I would say it.
Although I did not think of the pope, the ceremonies and many other things, it is no proof that such are useless.’’ (Faber.)]
U [ a i? ped hd ene paper on oe THE FIRST ZURICH DISPUTATION. 73 churches and not for the good of the service of God, as also Saint Paul says, 1 Cor. vii. 32: “Qui sine sxore," etc: “* He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord.” vii. 27: “Solutus es ab,” etc. “Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife!” There he speaks of those who serve the Gospel as priests. Id. vii. 20: “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.” Such and many other causes have induced the holy fathers not to allow and permit marriage to priests. Indeed it could not happen without parti- tion of the property of the churches. cd ZWINGLI.
Marriage forbidden to priests is not found everywhere, as one pretends, but imposed by man contrary to a divine and just law, This is evident, first of all, in St. Paul, 1 Cor. vii. 2: “ Neverthe- less, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” Since he says “ every” undoubtedly he does not wish the priests to be excluded. For: he confirms and refers to the marriage of priests, especially im writing to ı Timothy iii. 2 [4]: “A bishop (7.¢., priest) then must: be blameess, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good: behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach, etc. One that ruleth: well his own house, having his children in subjection in all gravity.”” In the same fashion he speaks, iii. 8, concerning the deacon, whom we call evangelist. And Paul also writes to Titus i. 5, 6: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders (whom we Call priests or deacons) in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children,” etc. Undoubtedly the holy Paul, inspired by the Holy Ghost, recognized our inability.and-incapacity-to-remain. chaste by our own will except through the grace of God. Hence he says in the afore-mentioned place, 1 Cor. vii. 7: “For I would that all men were even as I myself,” and i. 1.: “It would be § rare Carr Ld t ‚wen rep Lit ie AAS. Df us ri A > a és "Few? os A ae af a ‚ K Of rt. } herr wi, #9 As () aa fi Wi 1 A NR li Pr x4 2 74 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS.
good for man to be thus,” but Paul adds, vii. 7, and says: “ But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner and another after that.” Therefore Paul places no restriction upon the marriage of priests, and indeed writes expressly: “A bishop (7. ¢., priest) and a deacon shall have a sober wife and well-bred children;” and furthermore he permits marriage to all people, and says, 1 Cor. vii. 28, 7: “But and if thou marry thou hast not sinned. But every man hath his proper gift of God,” etc. It is evident from this that marriage is not forbidden to \, priests by divine law, and that chastity is to be maintained, not - by means of our resolutions, but with the help of the grace of God. This real truth and wisdom of God Christ also proves to „us, Matt. xix. 10, 12: “His disciples say unto him, if the case \ Jof the man be so with his wife it is not good to marry. But No he said unto them, all men cannot receive this saying save they to whom it is given. And there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake (that is, due to the evangelical doctrine). He that is able to receive it let him receive it!’’ Do you hear that Christ says here that it is not possible for all people to keep chastity except such as have ‚received it from God? MHence He does not forbid the twelve apostles to marry. Nor did God in vain give Adam a woman as thelpmate; He could have given him a man as helpmate if He had wished to keep him chaste. But He said: “Crescite et . multiplicamini!’” And although this is known to every one, still the pope is able, by means of his ordinance, to demand from each priest or other ecclesiastic chastity and that he be unmarried contrary to divine law, and he can weigh down the poor con- sciences corrupted by sin and shame; and he permits public offense and sin contrary to the sunny and pure ordinance of God. I say that I know of no greater scandal in Christendom than that marriage is forbidden to priests (I am speaking about the pastors; the others let them lie, whatever they do), yet they are allowed to commit fornication publicly as long as thev give money.
; ie % ET 6. oe al Fi Kur f £0 oe OF shai ae ‚it Nol x Y; Be, Ly Poy u”, gr gi 5 N Age JE Senay (abies ee © a; I raferk M Lh ht A THE FIRST ZURICH DISPUTATION. 75 They pretend that if the priests had wives the property of the churches would be divided and disappear. My God, what sort of a reason is this? Do we then never spend the property of the churches uselessly? We will our real and movable property to the illegitimate wives and children, if we have any, contrary to God’s will. What would that harm the benefice if a priest had a dear wife and well-bred children brought up for the service of God out of the benefice? The benefice could retain its property and income, which it has, although the priests may at times have mismanaged. Priests have not always been forbidden to marly. This is proved by Pelagius,* in which is found a decree of the pope (Diss. XXXI., cap. ante trienn.) that the subdeacons of Sicily shall forsake their wives, which they had taken in accord- ance with the divine ordinance, and shall not have intercourse with them; which statute Gregory I. later on rescinded. Con- sequently if it was ordered in former times by Pelagius that priests shall have no wives, and this was rescinded by Gregory, then it could not always have been as at present, but the law must have been made by man, which God never required to be kept.
VICARIUS.
VICARIUS.
It has never happened since the time of Tertullian and the council of Niczea, 1200 years ago, that priests had wives or were allowed to have them Thereupon one of the council at Zurich said: But they are allowed to have mistresses.
The vicar was astonished for a while, but resumed: It is true that the subdeacons in Sicily who had taken wives previously contrary to the custom of the Roman churches were permitted by the aforesaid Gregory to keep them. But only on the condi- * Alvarus Pelagius, bishop of Silves, Portugal, d. at Seville, 1352, whose Summa de planctu Ecclesia (‘* The Chief Points of the Church’s Complaint ’’), written in 1332, published, Ulm 1474, Venice 1560, is a frank statement of the disorders of his time and a plea for the exaltation of the Papal See.
76 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS.
tion that in future no one would be consecrated who would not pledge himself to remain unmarried and chaste. ‘Thus also it was resolved in the council at Carthage that no bishop, priest or deacon should have intercourse with women, but remain chaste without wife. Hence I say that it will be no easy matter to show that marriage was ever permitted to priests.* ZWINGLI.
And even if you say since the time of the apostles, still mar- riage is not forbidden to priests by divine ordinance, but allowed * [““Don’t you recollect that I said I do not like to speak concerning the marriage of priests? On account of this I have kept quiet and have omitted to state a better reason. But where have you hidden the fact that I said that from the time of the apostles one does not read that one who was consecrated as subdeacon, deacon, priest or bishop could marry again after his wife had died? Did I not say further that it is thus understood, not alone in the Western, but also in the Eastern Church—in Crete, Corcyra, etc., also in India, in the case of the Presbyter John, and among the Russians? so that any one who took a virgin as wife may be consecrated as priest, but that if she die that he can take no more; in the same manner if he has no wife before he is conse- crated he can take none after the consecration; this I have shown. Why do you omit this? It was indeed necessary for you to include the subtile, honorable interruption of one who spoke about the prostitutes; and you also placed Gutschenkel t as a character in the comedy. Since the good Master Ulrich consoles himself much in his speeches and writings with a text which he found in XXVII. dist. c., ‘Si quis discernit,’ which is claimed to have been made in Gangrensian council, know then that there were not more than 16 bishops in that council; these made ig canons against the majority that even desired to abolish holy marriage. But therein they did not reject the state of virginity and widowhood, hence also the marriage of priests was not, as you think, admitted by the pious Fathers. They spoke about the priests who had wives before the consecration—and bethink yourself what councils over 18 bishops would prefer, even although they should prefer it were so, as it is not, as Zwingli says. Now see how the supplication issued by your and our common gracious lord of Constance shall be answered. About the marriage of priests I do not like to speak (several times repeated). Accu- sations of two wrong quotations were made.’’ (Faber.) ] + The half-witted fellow mentioned above.
THE FIRST ZURICH DISPUTATION. Th and permitted, as I have proved before. And that priests formerly had wives is sufficiently evident, since formerly many sons of priests have become popes and bishops, which could not have happened if they had not been born in wedlock. How is it that one always prefers human laws and human meddling, and always sets human traditions above the will of God? Although one finds that also the fathers have protested against many ordi- nances, and you know how vehemently the pious man Paphnutius * opposed such a statute and would not agree to marriage being forbidden to priests. Furthermore, Eusebius writes that some of the apostles had their wives with them, which facts are sufficient indications that the present custom was begun by people of later times, but that marriage was not forbidden by divine ordinance either to layman or priest. And although in the council of Nicza, as you say, it was forbidden to priests to have wives, still what about that? In former times baptism by heretics was considered by many fathers as just and valid, as Cyprianus tells us, but later in the council at Carthage this was declared to be worthless and was set aside.
To such varied arguments of Master Ulrich the vicar had nothing more to oppose and say, except in regard to the baptism by heretics, and that on account of the following reasons: Master Ulrich has said that the baptism of heretics was considered valid * Bishop of a city in Upper Thebais; had his right eye gouged out and his left knee-cap injured in the Maximian persecution (305), and was banished to the mines. He appeared in the Nicene Council 325, and was honored as a confessor. When it was proposed to enact a law which forbade the married clergy to continue to live with their wives, Paphnutius declared very earnestly that so heavy a yoke ought not to be laid upon the clergy; that marriage itself is honorable and the bed undefiled; that the Church ought not to be injured by an undue severity. ‘‘ For all men,’’ said he, “cannot bear the practice of rigid continence; neither perhaps would the chastity of the wife be preserved.’’ He favored dissuading clergymen from marrying after ordination, but allowing those who had married prior to ordination to retain their wives. His own known virginity and his sufferings for the cause gave so great weight to his words that he was unanimously sustained by the Council.
78 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS.