which is denied;unless he mean by indirectly that he has gotten it by indirect means,then is that also granted.But I understand that when he saith he hath it indirectly,he means that such temporal jurisdiction belongeth to him of right,but that this right is but a consequence of his pastoral authority,the which he could not exercise,unless he have the other with it:and therefore to the pastoral power,which he calls spiritual,the supreme power civil is necessarily annexed;and that thereby he hath a right to change kingdoms,giving them to one,and taking them from another,when he shall think it conduces to the salvation of souls.
Before I come to consider the arguments by which he would prove this doctrine,it will not be amiss to lay open the consequences of it,that princes and states that have the civil sovereignty in their several Commonwealths may bethink themselves whether it be convenient for them,and conducing to the good of their subjects of whom they are to give an account at the day of judgement,to admit the same.
When it is said the Pope hath not,in the territories of other states,the supreme civil power directly,we are to understand he doth not challenge it,as other civil sovereigns do,from the original submission thereto of those that are to be governed.For it is evident,and has already been sufficiently in this treatise demonstrated,that the right of all sovereigns is derived originally from the consent of every one of those that are to be governed;whether they that choose him do it for it for their common defence against an enemy,as when they agree amongst themselves to appoint a man or an assembly of men to protect them,or whether they do it to save their lives,by submission to a conquering enemy.The Pope therefore,when he disclaimeth the supreme civil power over other states directly,denieth no more but that his right cometh to him by that way;he ceaseth not for all that to claim it another way;and that is,without the consent of them that are to be governed,by a right given him by God,which he calleth indirectly,in his assumption to the papacy.But by what way soever he pretend,the power is the same;and he may,if it be granted to be his right,depose princes and states,as often as it is for the salvation of souls,that is,as often as he will:for he claimeth also the sole power to judge whether it be to the salvation of men's souls,or not.And this is the doctrine,not only that Bellarmine here,and many other doctors teach in their sermons and books,but also that some councils have decreed,and the Popes have accordingly,when the occasion hath served them,put in practice.For the fourth council of Lateran,held under Pope Innocent the Third (in the third Chapter,De Haereticis),hath this canon:"If a king,at the Pope's admonition,do not purge his kingdom of heretics,and being excommunicate for the same,make not satisfaction within a year,his subjects are absolved of their obedience."And the practice hereof hath been seen on diverse occasions:as in the deposing of Childeric,King of France;in the translation of the Roman Empire to Charlemagne;in the oppression of John,King of England;in transferring the kingdom of Navarre;and of late years,in the league against Henry the Third of France,and in many more occurrences.I think there be few princes that consider not this as unjust and inconvenient;but I wish they would all resolve to be kings or subjects.Men cannot serve two masters.They ought therefore to ease them,either by holding the reins of government wholly in their own hands,or by wholly delivering them into the hands of the Pope,that such men as are willing to be obedient may be protected in their obedience.For this distinction of temporal and spiritual power is but words.Power is as really divided,and as dangerously to all purposes,by sharing with another indirect power,as with a direct one.But to come now to his arguments.
The first is this,"The civil power is subject to the spiritual:
therefore he that hath the supreme power spiritual hath right to command temporal princes,and dispose of their temporals in order to the spiritual."As for the distinction of temporal and spiritual,let us consider in what sense it may be said intelligibly that the temporal or civil power is subject to the spiritual.There be but two ways that those words can be made sense.For when we say one power is subject to another power,the meaning either is that he which hath the one is subject to him that hath the other;or that the one power is to the other as the means to the end.For we cannot understand that one power hath power over another power;or that one power can have right or command over another:for subjection,command,right,and power are accidents,not of powers,but of persons.One power may be subordinate to another,as the art of a saddler to the art of a rider.If then it be granted that the civil government be ordained as a means to bring us to a spiritual felicity,yet it does not follow that if a king have the civil power,and the Pope the spiritual,that therefore the king is bound to obey the Pope,more than every saddler is bound to obey every rider.Therefore as from subordination of an art cannot be inferred the subjection of the professor;so from the subordination of a government cannot be inferred the subjection of the governor.When therefore he saith the civil power is subject to the spiritual,his meaning is that the civil sovereign is subject to the spiritual sovereign.And the argument stands thus:the civil sovereign is subject to the spiritual;therefore the spiritual prince may command temporal princes,(where the conclusion is the same with the antecedent he should have proved).