observed by the _Spanish_ Clergy, in the Time of _Syricius_, as evidently appears from the Words of his Letter, or Answer to _Himerius_ of _Tarragon_. I said, by the _Spanish_ Clergy, for no such Injunction had yet been laid on the Ecclesiastics of any other Country or Nation. About Fifteen Years after, was held the Council of _Ancyra_, in which it was decreed, That _if any Deacon did not declare at his Ordination, that he designed to marry, he ought not to be allowed to marry after but might, if he made such a Declaration, because, in that Case, the Bishop tacitly consented to it_. The Council of _Neocæfarea_, which assembled soon after that of _Ancyra_, and consisted, in great Part, of the same Bishops, commanded _such Presbyters as married after their Ordination to be degraded_. In the Year 325. was held the Council of _Nice_; and, in that great Assembly, it was moved, perhaps by _Osius_, who acted a chief Part there, that Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Subdeacons, should be debarred from all Commerce with the Wives they had married before their Ordination. But this Motion was warmly opposed by _Paphnutius_, who had himself ever led a chaste and single Life, and was one of the most eminent and illustrious Prelates, at that time, in the Church. He represented, that the Burden they proposed laying on the Clergy, was too heavy; that few had sufficient Strength to bear it; that the Women, thus abandoned by their Husbands, would be exposed to great Dangers; that Marriage was no Pollution, but, according to St. _Paul_, commendable; that those therefore, who were not married, when first admitted to the Sacerdotal Functions, should continue in that State; and such as were, should continue to live with their Wives. Thus _Sozomen_[1240], _Socrates_[1241], and _Suidas_[1242][N22]. ----- Footnote N22: I am not unapprised, that this Account is rejected by _Baronius_[N22.1], and _Bellarmine_[N22.2], as fabulous; but, notwithstanding the Pains they have both taken to make it appear incredible, _F. Lupus_ allows it to be true[N22.3], though a no less zealous Stickler for the Discipline of the Church of _Rome_ than either of them. _Ruffinus_, I own, takes no Notice of this Transaction, as _Valesius_ well observes. But has no true Transaction been, either wilfully or ignorantly, omitted by that Writer? _Valesius_ well knows, that many have; and had he perused that Author with a little more Attention, he would not have so positively affirmed, that no one ever named _Paphnutius_ among the Bishops of _Egypt_, who assisted at the Council of _Nice_, since he is named among them by _Ruffinus_, and with great Commendations[N22.4]. Footnote N22.1: Bar. ad ann. 58. n. 21. Footnote N22.2: Bell. de cler. l. 1. c. 20. Footnote N22.3: Lup. in can. p. 114. Footnote N22.4: Ruf. l. 1. c. 4. -----