II. To the Initial Arguments

79. To the first argument [n.65] I say that, as concerns possessing grace and attaining glory, there is no distinction in the law of Christ between female and male, because she can have as much grace and attain as much glory as he can; but, as concerns possessing an excellent rank, it is well fitting that there is a distinction between man and woman in the law of Christ, because this is consonant with the law of nature.

80. To the second [n.66], perhaps in Greece, where priests licitly use a marriage contracted before [ordination], the wife of a priest can be called a priestess. But among us Latins, where there is not only conjugal chastity but chastity simply, priestess has been taken away. But some woman can be called a good matron, a widow, or perfect among other women, or perhaps in a college she who is superior over all the others, as an abbess among nuns. But by this she does not have a more excellent rank of order; nor indeed preeminence with respect to a man. The like can be said to the point about a deaconess, that she to whom, by ordination of abbess or the college, it belongs to read the homily at Matins can be said to be a deaconess; but that is not an act of any order.

81. To the next [n.67] it can be said as Gratian says in Decretum, p.1 d.4 ch.3: “In the case of the manners of those who use a contrary practice, several laws have been abrogated,” as he afterwards there proves through many examples, and especially when contrary manners rest on a new reason. So here. In the primitive Church children were not at once instructed in the things that pertain to divine cult and office; on the contrary, the fully adult were ignorant enough in such things. But now children are instructed and exercised at once in such things, and therefore someone of thirteen years is more sufficiently instructed now in such acts than perhaps was then a rustic of twenty-five years. And so it is not surprising that decrees about keeping to age limits have been abrogated.

82. And let it be that children should by right be assigned to due reception [of orders] in every way (which I do not believe), yet neither is it simply necessary to observe it by necessity of that precept, nor is it simply necessary by necessity of fact. Not but what if (setting this aside) order is conferred, it is truly received and a determinate rank of ministering in the Church is conferred - he being the author who, in this time, “from the mouth of babes and sucklings has perfected praise” [Psalm 8.3, Matthew 21.16]. To whom be honor and praise for ages of ages. Amen.