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.”