But to prove it,he allegeth first,this reason,"Kings and popes,clergy and laity,make but one Commonwealth;that is to say,but one Church:and in all bodies the members depend one upon another:but things spiritual depend not of things temporal:therefore temporal depend on spiritual,and therefore are subject to them."In which argumentation there be two gross errors:one is that all Christian kings,popes,clergy,and all other Christian men make but one Commonwealth:for it is evident that France is one Commonwealth,Spain another,and Venice a third,etc.And these consist of Christians,and therefore also are several bodies of Christians;that is to say,several churches:and their several sovereigns represent them,whereby they are capable of commanding and obeying,of doing and suffering,as a natural man;which no general or universal Church is,till it have a representant,which it hath not on earth:for if it had,there is no doubt but that all Christendom were one Commonwealth,whose sovereign were that representant,both in things spiritual and temporal:and the Pope,to make himself this representant,wanteth three things that our Saviour hath not given him,to command,and to judge,and to punish,otherwise than,by excommunication,to run from those that will not learn of him:for though the Pope were Christ's only vicar,yet he cannot exercise his government till our Saviour's second coming:and then also it is not the Pope,but St.
Peter himself,with the other Apostles,that are to be judges of the world.
The other error in this his first argument is that he says the members of every Commonwealth,as of a natural body,depend one of another.It is true they cohere together,but they depend only on the sovereign,which is the soul of the Commonwealth;which failing,the Commonwealth is dissolved into a civil war,no one man so much as cohering to another,for want of a common dependence on a known sovereign;just as the members of the natural body dissolve into earth for want of a soul to hold them together.Therefore there is nothing in this similitude from whence to infer a dependence of the laity on the clergy,or of the temporal officers on the spiritual,but of both on the civil sovereign;which ought indeed to direct his civil commands to the salvation of souls;but is not therefore subject to any but God Himself.And thus you see the laboured fallacy of the first argument,to deceive such men as distinguish not between the subordination of actions in the way to the end;and the subjection of persons one to another in the administration of the means.For to every end,the means are determined by nature,or by God Himself supernaturally:but the power to make men use the means is in every nation resigned,by the law of nature,which forbiddeth men to violate their faith given,to the civil sovereign.
His second argument is this:"Every Commonwealth,because it is supposed to be perfect and sufficient in itself,may command any other Commonwealth not subject to it,and force it to change the administration of the government;nay depose the prince,and set another in his room,if it cannot otherwise defend itself against the injuries he goes about to do them:much more may a spiritual Commonwealth command a temporal one to change the administration of their government,and may depose princes,and institute others,when they cannot otherwise defend the spiritual good."That a Commonwealth,to defend itself against injuries,may lawfully do all that he hath here said is very true;and hath already in that which hath gone before been sufficiently demonstrated.And if it were also true that there is now in this world a spiritual Commonwealth,distinct from a civil Commonwealth,then might the prince thereof,upon injury done him,or upon want of caution that injury be not done him in time to come,repair and secure himself by war;which is,in sum,deposing,killing,or subduing,or doing any act of hostility.But by the same reason,it would be no less lawful for a civil sovereign,upon the like injuries done,or feared,to make war upon the spiritual sovereign;which I believe is more than Cardinal Bellarmine would have inferred from his own proposition.
But spiritual Commonwealth there is none in this world:for it is the same thing with the kingdom of Christ;which he himself saith is not of this world,but shall be in the next world,at the resurrection,when they that have lived justly,and believed that he was the Christ,shall,though they died natural bodies,rise spiritual bodies;and then it is that our Saviour shall judge the world,and conquer his adversaries,and make a spiritual Commonwealth.In the meantime,seeing there are no men on earth whose bodies are spiritual,there can be no spiritual Commonwealth amongst men that are yet in the flesh;unless we call preachers,that have commission to teach and prepare men for their reception into the kingdom of Christ at the resurrection,a Commonwealth;which I have proved already to be none.
The third argument is this:"It is not lawful for Christians to tolerate an infidel or heretical king,in case he endeavour to draw them to his heresy,or infidelity.But to judge whether a king draw his subjects to heresy,or not,belongeth to the Pope.Therefore hath the Pope right to determine whether the prince be to be deposed,or not deposed."To this I answer that both these assertions false.For Christians,or men of what religion soever,if they tolerate not their king,whatsoever law he maketh,though it be concerning religion,do violate their faith,contrary to the divine law,both natural and positive:nor is there any judge of heresy amongst subjects but their own civil sovereign.
