From the Council of Gangra, about A.D. 350

Canon I. If anyone reviles nuptials and detests or judges culpable a faithful and religious woman sleeping with her husband, as if she could not enter the kingdom of God, let him be anathema.

Canon IV. If anyone contends concerning a presbyter, γεγαμηκότος, married (that is, one who has taken a wife, certainly before ordination), that when he celebrates the Sacred things one ought not to communicate in his oblation, let him be anathema.

Since the Eustathians, against whom these canons are brought, simply detested nuptials, I do not understand why the interpretation of Baronius is called sophistical by Dr. Hefele at this canon, when Baronius denies that the matter concerns a presbyter who, having a wife, still continues to use her, but says that the matter concerns a presbyter who simply has a wife, even if he does not use her. Even this alone, that the presbyter was married (for the conjugal bond does not cease because of ordination), was a sufficient reason why those who abhorred nuptials would abstain from him. For the rest, the word γεγαμηκός, married, never demanded this, that it signify him who uses conjugal copula. Moreover, this same Gangran decree is repeated by the Convention of Mainz in the year 851 (see below), that is, at that age when Latin presbyters certainly were not marrying. Therefore the Fathers of Mainz interpreted this canon no otherwise than Baronius. Cf. this canon with the following.

Canon IX. If anyone, applying himself to virginity and continence, withdraws from marriage as though it were an abominable thing, and not on account of the beauty and holiness of virginity itself, let him be anathema.

Canon X. If any of those who are virgins on account of the Lord insult those who have married wives ... let him be anathema.

Canon XIV. If any woman leaves her husband and wishes to withdraw, execrating marriage, let her be anathema.

These canons are for the commendation of marriage, as was the preceding one.