IV. Queries Resolved.  
I. Whether it be lawful to assist a Prince in the Persecution of the True Religion?  
But if you By't and Devour one another, take heed that ye be not Consumed one of another,  Gal. 5.15. 
Brother goeth to Law with Brother, and that before the unbelievers: Now therefore there is utterly a Fault amongst you, because you go to Law one with another.  1. Cor. 6.6. 
FRom these two Texts it will clearly and naturally follow, That as the Christians of all Ages were separated from, and hated by all the rest of the World; so they were under the strictest Obligations to have a very great Love and Affection each to other, and to do nothing that might in the least tend to the Ruin, Impoverishing or Destroying of each other.  
From hence I infer: That if one Christians going to Law against another for the Recovery of his just Right, was a Fault, when done before an Unbelieving Judge, that much more was it a Sin to betray a Brother into the Hands of such a Judge, in the Times of Persecution for Religion: And it was a greater Fault, yet to draw his Sword against a fellow Christian, to aid and assist a Persecuting Prince, in the very Act of Persecuting the Church.  
The Biting and Devouring one the other tended more naturally to the consuming of them, than any Force from those without; and in that lies the Force of the Apostolic Caution, which is so very plain and self-evident, that it cannot be enforced beyond what it at first appears.  
II. Whether it be Lawful to Desert a Persecuting Prince, when there seems to be no other way to Preserve the True Religion, or the staying with him may promote the Ruin of it?  
I say it is Lawful and Necessary. He that loveth Father and Mother more than me, is not worthy of me; Matth. 10.37. A Child is bound in this Case to forsake his Father, a Citizen his City, a Subject his Prince. To this Purpose Tertullian applies that Passage, No Man can serve two Masters; 
Concilium Arelat. can 3. de his qui arma projiciunt in pace, placuit abstinere eos a communion●. Those who refuse to bear Arms when the Church is in Peace, shall be Excommunicated. Which supposeth they might, or rather ought, to refuse, in time of Persecution. Cited by Grotius, de Jure Belli & Pacis, lib. 1. c. 2. § 9  de Corona, c. 1. And truly, without Doubt; for if my Prince will set himself in opposition to God, and make it his principal business to destroy the Church, and this is notorious and apparent, and not founded on Surmises; then I am free from those Obligations to assist and defend him in that, 
See Tertullian de corona, cap. 11. upon which Rigaltius hath this Note. Qui non permittit ut Christianus Ethnico, belligeranti, navaret operam, an permissurus est, ut Christiano, Christianos, he est fratres persecuture se militem adjungat?  and perhaps in any other thing, as long as I see him persist in that Course. Nay, I were a Persecutor, if I should any way Aid or Abet him in it. And I could not plead in my own Justification, That I was his Subject, and bound to assist and defend him, when he is persecuting and destroying my Brethren.  
But then, if by staying with him, and fight for him, he will be, and continue in a Condition of persecuting the Church; and on the contrary, my leaving him will disable him from the other, than I am bound to forsake him, because the not forsaking is a direct assisting and enabling him to persecute; which I had above proved to be utterly Unlawful.  
III. If the Persecuting Prince be forced to withdraw, or be vanquished and flee, is it lawful to submit to the Lawful Heir of that Prince?  
I say Yes. No Nation can subsist long in a state of Anarchy, and it is utterly unlawful to procure the Ruin of a Nation which involves in it the Ruin of the Church; so that if the Persecuting Prince flee, there must be some body set up in his Place; for without Government no Nation can subsist.  
The Roman Empire was Elective, and the Christians of the first Ages never concerned themselves for those Princes which persecuted them, but submitted and paid the same Obedience to all their Successors. So when Valerian became a Persecuter of the Church, and was after that taken Prisoner by Sapores King of Persia, they submitted to Galienus his Son. Etiam hoc ei accessit ad poenam, quod cum filium haberet Imperatorem captivitatis suae, tamen ac servitutis extremae non invenit ultorem, nec omnino repetitus est; saith Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum. He had this added to his punishment, that though he had a Son who succeeded him in the Empire, yet the extreme Slavery and Captivity in which he lived was never revenged; nor was he ever demanded of his Enemies. Though this was a Fault in his Son, yet it was none in the Christians who had been his Subjects. And after this, when Licinius did the same thing, and was taken Prisoner by Constantine the Great, and confined to Thessalonica, in the Year 324. we find no mention made of any scruple the Primitive Christians, who were his Subjects, made to submit to their Deliverer, though Licinius lived a year after this in Greece.  
The Fathers of the Council of Nice, many of which had been his Subjects, in their Eleventh Canon, have these Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it happened under the Tyranny of Licinius; It is not improbable he was then living: yet they made no scruple to call him a Tyrant, because he persecuted the Church of God. And I leave it to any rational man to judge, whether the Fathers of this Council would have ever thought themselves bound in Conscience to have recalled this Tyrant to the Throne, and to have suffered under him whatever mischief he could have inflicted upon them, only because he was once their lawful Prince. Or did any of their Ancestors ever Address to Galen to redeem, or demand Valerian his Father, though he lived in a most intolerable Slavery under the King of Persia?  
But we are sworn not only to the King in Being, but to his Heirs and lawful Successors; and therefore we are bound to set up the next Lawful Heir, and no body else, even by that Oath; but then we are not bound to recall one whom we have been necessitated not to assist, that we might not be accessary by so doing, to the Ruin of our Church.  
iv Whether it be lawful to resist such a Prince, in case he should attempt to recover his Throne by Force?  
I say Yes: If his Empire were not determined by his Flight, it were not lawful to submit to his Heir, because no man can serve two Masters at once. But after I have once submitted to the other, I am then become his Subject, and he my lawful Sovereign; and therefore I am under the same obligation to defend the Successor, as I was before to defend the Predecessor, that is, against all men who unjustly invade him.  
If therefore a Prince, by persecuting the True Religion, makes himself the Enemy of God, and of his Church, and the Justice of God overtake him, and he is driven out of his Country, by what means soever it happens; that Prince has by it lost all his Right to the Obedience of his Christian Subjects, and they not only may, but must submit to another, and defend him too, even against the former, if he shall attempt to put himself into a condition to renew and finish his former Persecution.  
Without this, the state of the Christian were the worst of all others; for he were bound to suffer the Rages of Persecutors, when he need not; to help them to ruin the Church, when they could not do it without him; to recall them when they were forced to flee; to set them up again when God hath cast them from their Thrones; In short, to promote the Ruin of the Church as far as in him lieth.  
FINIS.