XVIII sermons on the second chapter of the 2d Epistle to the Thessalonians containing…

But here ariseth a Question, shall Antichrist be consumed no other way • but by the Spirit of his mouth? We read in the Prophecy, of Wars, by which the Antichristian State is brought to nought. I answer. The pure and powerful preaching of the Gospel is the principal means, whereby the Spirit of the Lord consumeth Antichrist in the hearts of men; but this is not exclusive of other means, which God in the ways of his Providence may use to weaken his Worldly Interest. But we must distinguish between the means God may use, ⟨p. 150⟩and we must use: Simply to put down a Religion by force of arms, is not our way, it is not lawful certainly to invade other Nations upon the pure and sole title of Religion: But if they invade us on that account, no doubt a Prince and People so invaded, may defend themselves. But when a War is commenced on other occasions, it is the most cheerful cause to engage in; when we War against the Abettors of Antichrist, we War against an Enemy whom God will consume. Constantine warred against Licinius, his Colleagues not because an Infidel, but because he persecuted the Christians, contrary to their Capitulations. Lewis the XII. caused it to be disputed in a Synod at Tours, Num liceret Papae absque causa Principi bellum infer? when it was answered, Non licet: a second Question, Num tali Principi sua defensione fas sit eu• invader? Their Answers were, Licet; which he undertook, and caused money to be stamped with this Inscription, Perdam Babylonem.

But here ariseth a Question, shall Antichrist be consumed no other way • but by the Spirit of his mouth? We read in the Prophecy, of Wars, by which the Antichristian State is brought to nought. I answer. The pure and powerful preaching of the Gospel is the principal means, whereby the Spirit of the Lord consumeth Antichrist in the hearts of men; but this is not exclusive of other means, which God in the ways of his Providence may use to weaken his Worldly Interest. But we must distinguish between the means God may use, ⟨p. 150⟩and we must use: Simply to put down a Religion by force of arms, is not our way, it is not lawful certainly to invade other Nations upon the pure and sole title of Rel•gion: But if they invade us on that account, no doubt a Prince and People so invaded, may defend themselves. But when a War is commenced on other occasions, it is the most chearful cause to ingage in; when we War against the Abettors of Antichrist, we War against an Enemy whom God will consume. Constamine warred against Licinius, his Collegue not because an Infidel, but because he persecuted the Christians, contrary to their Capitulations. Lewis the XII. caused it to be disputed in a Synod at Tours, Num liceret Papae absque causa Principi bellum inferre? when it was answered, Non licet: a second Question, Num tali Principi sua defensione fas sit eu invadere? Their Answers were, Licet; which he undertook, and caused money to be stamped with this Inscription, Perdam Babylonem.