It is also vain and false philosophy to say the work of marriage is repugnant to chastity or continence,and by consequence to make them moral vices;as they do that pretend chastity and continence for the ground of denying marriage to the clergy.For they confess it is no more but a constitution of the Church that requireth in those holy orders,that continually attend the altar and administration of the Eucharist,a continual abstinence from women,under the name of continual chastity,continence,and purity.Therefore they call the lawful use of wives want of chastity and continence;and so make marriage a sin,or at least a thing so impure and unclean as to render a man unfit for the altar.If the law were made because the use of wives is incontinence,and contrary to chastity,then all marriage is vice:if because it is a thing too impure and unclean for a man consecrated to God,much more should other natural,necessary,and daily works,which all men do,render men unworthy to be priests,because they are more unclean.
But the secret foundation of this prohibition of marriage of priests is not likely to have been laid so slightly as upon such errors in moral philosophy;nor yet upon the preference of single life to the estate of matrimony;which proceeded from the wisdom of St.Paul,who perceived how inconvenient a thing it was for those that in those times of persecution were preachers of the gospel,and forced to fly from one country to another,to be clogged with the care of wife and children;but upon the design of the popes and priests of after times,to make themselves,(the clergy,that is to say,)sole heirs of the kingdom of God in this world,to which it was necessary to take from them the use of marriage,because our Saviour saith that at the coming of his kingdom the children of God "shall neither marry,nor be given in marriage,but shall be as the angels in heaven";that is to say,spiritual.Seeing then they had taken on them the name of spiritual,to have allowed themselves,when there was no need,the propriety of wives,had been an incongruity.
From Aristotle's civil philosophy,they have learned to call all manner of Commonwealths but the popular (such as was at that time the state of Athens),tyranny.All kings they called tyrants;and the aristocracy of the thirty governors set up there by the Lacedaemonians that subdued them,the thirty tyrants:as also to call the condition of the people under the democracy,liberty.Atyrant originally signified no more,simply,but a monarch.But when afterwards in most parts of Greece that kind of government was abolished,the name began to signify,not only the thing it did before,but with it the hatred which the popular states bore towards it:as also the name of king became odious after the deposing of the kings in Rome,as being a thing natural to all men to conceive some great fault to be signified in any attribute that is given in despite,and to a great enemy.And when the same men shall be displeased with those that have the administration of the democracy,or aristocracy,they are not to seek for disgraceful names to express their anger in;but call readily the one anarchy,and the other oligarchy,or the tyranny of a few.And that which offendeth the people is no other thing but that they are governed,not as every one of them would himself,but as the public representant,be it one man or an assembly of men,thinks fit;that is,by an arbitrary government:
for which they give evil names to their superiors,never knowing (till perhaps a little after a civil war)that without such arbitrary government,such war must be perpetual;and that it is men and arms,not words and promises,that make the force and power of the laws.
And therefore this is another error of Aristotle's politics,that in a well-ordered Commonwealth,not men should govern,but the laws.What man that has his natural senses,though he can neither write nor read,does not find himself governed by them he fears,and believes can kill or hurt him when he obeyeth not?Or that believes the law can hurt him;that is,words and paper,without hands and swords of men?And this is of the number of pernicious errors:for they induce men,as oft as they like not their governors,to adhere to those that call them tyrants,and to think it lawful to raise war against them:and yet they are many times cherished from the pulpit,by the clergy.
There is another error in their civil philosophy (which they never learned of Aristotle,nor Cicero,nor any other of the heathen),to extend the power of the law,which is the rule of actions only,to the very thoughts and consciences of men,by examination and inquisition of what they hold,notwithstanding the conformity of their speech and actions.By which men are either punished for answering the truth of their thoughts,or constrained to answer an untruth for fear of punishment.It is true that the civil magistrate,intending to employ a minister in the charge of teaching,may enquire of him if he be content to preach such and such doctrines;and,in case of refusal,may deny him the employment:but to force him to accuse himself of opinions,when his actions are not by law forbidden,is against the law of nature;and especially in them who teach that a man shall be damned to eternal and extreme torments,if he die in a false opinion concerning an article of the Christian faith.For who is there (that knowing there is so great danger in an error)whom the natural care of himself compelleth not to hazard his soul upon his own judgement,rather than that of any other man that is unconcerned in his damnation?
For a private man,without the authority of the Commonwealth;that is to say,without permission from the representant thereof,to interpret the law by his own spirit,is another error in the politics: