Uh, no. If a man is single (unless he's widowed, which is a different matter altogether), then he shouldn't have children. The qualifications in I Timothy 3 say what you have to be to even be a pastor or deacon. Sorry, but that seems pretty obvious when you read the Scripture simply for what it is, rather than what you want it to be.
if they did, then Paul himself, as well as many others could NOT have been leaders in the early church.
Paul was an apostle - that's another matter entirely, and doesn't bear on the qualification for someone who is a non-apostolic bishop. Further, you're argument is one in which we should ignore what Scripture actually says, and judge doctrine and practice on the basis of what some people somewhere have done or do. Frankly, it doesn't really matter what "the early church" did. They were just as prone to being wrong when they departed from Scripture as people are today.
So.... lets say a man marries and he and his wife cannot have children. Is it your opinion then that he’s not biblically qualified to lead a church?
Sorry, the "simple" interpretation is that that specific part of Timothy is talking about overseers and deacons who ARE married, and, in "simple" terms does make an injunction against them being single.
"Paul was an apostle - that's another matter entirely, and doesn't bear on the qualification for someone who is a non-apostolic bishop."
That's your belief, and you are entitled to it.
Further, you're argument is one in which we should ignore what Scripture actually says, and judge doctrine and practice on the basis of what some people somewhere have done or do.
No, that is not my argument; which instead is to understand "what scripture says".
Frankly, it doesn't really matter what "the early church" did. They were just as prone to being wrong when they departed from Scripture as people are today.
And so too has everyone (able/prone to error) who followed them; 25,50,75,100,200,500,1000,2000 years later; even now.