2 Thessalonians chapter 2 and in this second chapter of the second book of Thessalonians we have a description of the rise of Antichrist that's what it's about and it begins in verse 1 now we beseech you brethren by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and by our gathering together unto him that you be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means, for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first." And that phrase comes from the Greek which refers to the apostasy. That's what it's talking about. the falling away, the great apostasy, departure from the faith. And it says, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye not that when I was yet with you I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, only he who now letteth will let, that means he who now hindereth will hinder, until he be taken out of the way, or be up from the midst. And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, and actually the definite article is in the Greek, which means that they should believe the lie, the great lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. On the day of my ordination, I swore to believe and to receive not only the entire Old and New Testament as being the Holy Scriptures but I subscribed by signing my signature to the formula that I believe and receive the doctrines contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and in the Articles of Faith of the Free Presbyterian Church to be founded upon and to be agreeable to the Word of God and in the Westminster Confession of Faith it says under one of the sections concerning the church that the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof but is that Antichrist, that man of perdition, that son of perdition and as Paul puts it here in this chapter, the son of perdition who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped. Now, that belief is not shared by many Christians, and I don't necessarily criticize them for that. There are those who believe that in accordance with that statement in the Westminster Confession, that he is Antichrist in the Church. Personally, I don't believe that's what the formulators of the Westminster Confession meant when they said that he was Antichrist, that he was just Antichrist in the Church. I believe that those who drew up the Westminster Confession of Faith believed and taught that the dynasty of Popes, that the position of the papacy is the Antichrist of which the Apostle Paul spoke. Now, there are those who accept and believe that the Church of Rome is an anti-Christian system, and that's good. But more than that, the reformers to a man, the Puritans to a man, and many, many leaders in church history believed, all of them, that the system known as the Papacy is anti-Christ. that it was a fulfillment of the words of the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 24 verse 5 where he said, for many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ and shall deceive many. Now if you look back in the history of the Roman Catholic system right from the time when that first Pope declared himself to be the Vicar of Christ upon the earth, every one of them since has declared himself to be Christ. I am Christ. I am the vicar of Christ. I am the sole representative of the Lord Jesus Christ on earth. I am the visible head of the church. That is what the papacy claims. You'll notice that the Lord did not say many shall come in my name saying we are Christ. But many, a succession would come. All of them saying I am Christ. There you have a dynasty. There you have a list of people. There you have one after another taking the same position. Now, this is Reformation Sunday and I felt that it would be most appropriate, considering of course that we have been looking at the doctrine of the end times, to see what the historical interpretation of the words of the Apostle Paul has been. Now I say not all Christians, not all preachers have taken this view. And that's true to this day. There are many good and godly men who do not believe that the papacy is the final manifestation of Antichrist. There are those who are what we call futurists who believe that there is yet a final Antichrist to come. Many of them will teach that he is a political superman, that he will be an economic superman, that he will be one who will virtually rule over the entire earth and be looked to by all men. People also go further than that and say that there will actually be a literal mark, a literal mark that people will have to take in their hand or on their forehead. Now I think that that is spiritualizing the book, or that is literalizing the book of Revelation beyond what God wanted us to do. Because it says of the Lord's people that they are sealed in their foreheads with the name of the Lord. Now I don't have the name of the Lord stamped across my forehead. But what it is, is another way of saying that these are people who are followers of Antichrist. These are the followers of the beast. Those who receive his mark. and those who are the followers of Christ are sealed in their foreheads, they have the name of Christ stamped on their forehead that He is their Saviour and their Lord. The early Christians, and I mean those in the time of the Roman persecutions, believed that the Roman Empire under the Caesars would fall. They also believed that the fall of the empire under the Caesars, those ten emperors, those ten kings, those ten kingdoms, that their fall would bring on the arrival of Antichrist. And with the decline and fall of the Roman Empire came the rise of the papacy. And though it is true that the picture didn't become clear all at once, the passing of time, I believe, has demonstrated that the papacy did become a persecuting power It did wear out the saints of God, it did make blasphemous claims, and it did the things that the prophecies said the Antichrist would do. Incidentally, there's only one person in the Bible who has ever been described as the son of perdition. And that person was Judas Iscariot. And isn't it very interesting that Judas Iscariot was a bishop. He was a bishop. He was in the professing church. He was one of the twelve. He was an imposter. He was not a true apostle, but he was appointed by Jesus Christ as being one of the twelve. And what do we read of him in Acts chapter 1? That when Judas went out and hanged himself and his bowels gushed out, a terrible picture of a man in torment who went out and committed suicide because he had betrayed innocent blood. And it says there in verse 20 of Acts chapter 1, it is written in the book of Psalms, here's a quotation by the Apostle Peter. Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein, and his bishopric let another take. He was a bishop of the church. Now we often think of a bishop as being a guy with a pointy hat and wearing clothes that belong more to a woman than a man. But that's not what a bishop is according to the New Testament. A bishop is an overseer. A bishop is the same person as is described as an elder. The word that is used means the same thing. I don't want to get into that today, but suffice to say that Judas Iscariot was a bishop. And how is he described in Scripture? The Lord Jesus described him in John 17 and verse 12 as the son of perdition I think that's interesting that the only man in the Bible who's called the son of perdition was in the office of a bishop and yet the Antichrist in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 is described in verse 3 as that man of sin who will be revealed the son of perdition and henceforth I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility that he also be a bishop, that he take the position of Bishop of Rome. You see, that's where the whole papacy started, with the one who was a Bishop of Rome, who was just a bishop among bishops, but he took on more power than he had ever taken on before. And that power began to increase and to grow until we have what we have today, where the Pope of Rome and the papacy claims to have jurisdiction over all Christians. Maybe you didn't know that, but that is the claim of the Roman Catholic system. There's a writer called From, F-R-O-O-M, who says this. In the centuries just preceding the Reformation, an ever increasing number of pious persons began openly to express the conviction that the dire prophecies concerning Antichrist were even then in the process of fulfilment. they felt that the following way had already taken place. They declared that Antichrist was already seated in the churchly temple of God, clothed in scarlet and purple, the reference of course being to the papacy. Now of course people will look at 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 and immediately they will say, ah, but doesn't it say that this is going to be an individual because the personal pronoun is used all the way through the chapter. So therefore this must be, this must be a single individual that is in view. Well, it's interesting that when we go back to the book of Daniel that when Daniel saw the vision of the kings and the kingdoms in Daniel chapter 7 He spoke of four great beasts in Daniel 7 verse 3 who came up out of the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion and had eagle's wings. The second beast was like a bear. The third beast was like a leopard. And there was the fourth beast and it had ten horns. And I believe with all my heart that that is speaking of, first of all, the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. the kingdom of the Babylonians, first of all. Secondly, there was the kingdom that succeeded it, which was the kingdom of the Medes and the Persians. And then there was the kingdom of the Grecians, who succeeded the Medes and the Persians. And who succeeded them? The Romans. And there were ten Roman emperors. Ten kings. But isn't it interesting how these kings, you might say, well these are individuals, aren't they? These are individuals that it's talking about. when you come down to verse 17 of Daniel 7 it says these great beasts which are four are four kings you say okay they're four individuals but when you come down to verse 23 it speaks of the fourth beast that the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth which shall be diverse from all kingdoms so it's not an individual merely that is in view but a kingdom a dynasty In fact, under the Medes and the Persians, there wasn't just one king, there were four kings. You had Cyrus, and he's mentioned in Daniel 6 verse 28. You have Darius I, and there was Darius II, and there was another king. But the kingdom of the Medes and the Persians was described in Daniel 7 as one king. Then when we come to Revelation chapter 17, I think if you have a good sniff at Revelation chapter 17 you will smell the church of Rome I mean to me this is so clear as to hardly need any exposition and isn't it remarkable how the translators of the authorized version felt it necessary in describing Babylon the great the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth chose to put it in the upper case in our Bibles chose to put these words in capital letters so that people would not miss the message. Revelation 17 verse number 3, let's read it. So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness and I saw a woman. Now, is this one individual? Is this a person? No, this is a system. This is a system which is in view. And we read on, I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication. And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots. and abominations of the earth. It's in capital letters in your Bible. Look at verse 6. And I saw the woman, drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. When you go down there to verse 9, we read, And here is the mind which hath wisdom, The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth. It is a historical fact that Rome is built on seven hills. That is a fact. That the city of Rome is built on seven hills. And it's very clear, to me at least, and to many others in church history, that this chapter is talking about the church of Rome. It's talking about spiritual Babylon. I don't have time to develop the links or if you like the associations between ancient Babylon and the Church of Rome but let me tell you there are many many many parallels Babylon had its system of worship which involved the worship of the mother and the child Tammuz was his name and his mother and they worshipped the mother and child. It doesn't take somebody with a string of letters after their name to figure out what the Church of Rome has always emphasised and Catholicism of various shades, the mother and child. And there are many, many parallels. Babylon had a system of priests. The Church of Rome had a system of priests. And when you follow through the Babylonian practices, many of those have been Christianised and brought into the Roman Church. Let me just very quickly move through some of the thoughts of men in history because I think this is very important for us to do this. People think well this is only a recent thought you know that the papacy is undecreased. Eberhard II, Archbishop of Salzburg from 1200 to 1246 set forth the teaching that the little horn of Daniel chapter 7 was the Pope, that the Pope was a wolf in shepherds garb, the Antichrist, the son of perdition. He did not look forward to the coming of an unidentified individual Antichrist. Instead, he looked back over the centuries, since Rome's dismemberment, that's the Roman Empire, and saw in the historical papacy as a system or succession, the fulfilment of the prophecies concerning Antichrist. And not surprisingly, Eberhard II was excommunicated by the Pope and died under the ban in 1246. John Fox, the noted writer of Fox's Book of Martyrs, and by the way, if you've never read Fox's Book of Martyrs, read it on an empty stomach and pray that God will help you to get through it. Because if you read it in one sitting, I'm telling you, it will bring goosebumps on you that are bigger than golf balls. That is some book. Fox's Book of Martyrs. It tells about how God's people through the ages have suffered persecution to death and some of the most horrible means of death at that. But John Fox, the writer of the book, gives a list of learned men between 1331 and 1360 who contended against the false claims of the Pope. One of these, a man called Michael of Sussena, who had numerous followers, not a few of whom were slain, declared the Pope to be the Antichrist, and the Church of Rome to be the whore of Babylon, drunk with the blood of the saints. John Wycliffe, a noted English reformer, is often referred to as the morning star of the Reformation. He taught that the persecuting little horn of Daniel had found fulfilment in the papacy that arose out of the fourth kingdom, Rome. Why is it necessary, in unbelief, to look for another Antichrist? In the seventh chapter of Daniel, Antichrist is forcefully described by a horn arising in the time of the fourth kingdom, wearing out the saints of the Most High." Wycliffe's book, The Mirror of Antichrist, is filled with references to the papacy as Antichrist. And from the ministry of Wycliffe sprang the English Law Lords. They were preachers, they ministered, in the hundreds of thousands. And one of them was a man called Lord Cobham. When he was brought before Henry V, the King, he was admonished to submit to the Pope as an obedient child. Cobham replied, as touching the Pope and his spirituality, I owe him neither suit nor service, for as much as I know him by the Scriptures to be the great Antichrist, the son of perdition. That was a century before Martin Luther. A hundred years before. Walter Brute, a noted scholar, prophetic expositor and an associate of John Wycliffe, was accused in 1391 of often times and commonly claiming the Pope is anti-Christ and a seducer of the people. Sir John Oldcastle, 1360-1417, famous Christian of Herefordshire, spoke of the Pope in these I know him by the scriptures to be the great Antichrist, the son of perdition. Rome was the very nest of Antichrist, and out of that nest come all the disciples of him. He was sentenced to death for naming Antichrist. Though the sentence was not immediately carried out, in 1417 he was dragged to St. Giles, suspended in chains, and slowly burned to death as his voice ascended in praise to God. John Huss of Bohemia 1369-1415, again a century before Luther, was a very well educated man. These men were not fools, they were not idiots, they were not somebody who came in on the last load of hay. These people knew what they were talking about. He came under the influence of the writings of John Wycliffe and it caused him to break with the Church of Rome. Huss of Bohemia labelled the Pope as the Antichrist of which the scriptures had warned. His writings constantly referred to the Antichrist as the enemy of the church, not as a Jew, not as a pagan or a Turk, but as a false confessor of the name of Christ. Pope Martin V issued a bull in 1418 in which he ordered the punishment of both men or women who held to the teachings of Wycliffe and Huss. 60 miles from Prague, which is in Czechoslovakia, on a steep mountain, the city of Tabor was built, to which the Hussites could flee from Antichrist. Huss himself was condemned as a heretic. He was delivered to the secular arm for execution, and accompanied by a guard of 1,000 armed men and a vast crowd of spectators, he was led through the churchyard where a bonfire of his books was in the public square. As he knelt and prayed, The hands of Huss were tied behind him and a rusty chain wound around his neck. Straw and wood were piled around him. The name Huss meant goose in the Bohemian tongue. At the place of execution Huss reportedly said, This day ye are burning a goose, but from my ashes will arise a swan, which ye will not be able to roast. An expression that was later quoted by Martin Luther. Huss began to sing, writes Froome, but the wind swept the flames into his face and silenced his words. Only his lips moved until they too were stilled in death for his stand against the Antichrist of Bible prophecy. I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. Martin Luther we will speak of in our service this morning. But when Luther was being loosened from the bondage of the Roman system, he began to wonder if the Pope and the position of the papacy was anti-Christ. And he wrote a book called To the German Nobility. And he was, by his friends, begged to suppress the book. They feared what would happen to him. And this is what Luther said in August the 18th, 1520. We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist. Personally, I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist. And friends, the Lutheran Church has just made a decision to rejoin the Church of Rome with the Pope as the head of that church. The Reformation was a mistake, they say. It was something that should never have happened. It was a misunderstanding. And now we're all going back to Mother Church. How quickly people's memories fail them. Luther wrote in 1540, O Christ, my Lord, look down upon us and bring upon us thy day of judgment and destroy the brood of Satan in Rome. There sits the man of whom the Apostle Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians 2, 3 and 4. that he will oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God that man of sin, that son of perdition he suppresses the law of God and exalts his commandments above the commandments of God. So to Luther the scriptures didn't portray Antichrist as an infidel or a super politician but that he would rise within the church realm that is in the midst of Christendom. You see that it says in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 that he sits in the temple of God showing himself that he is God. Futurists will tell us there's going to be a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and that the Antichrist who is yet to come will sit in that temple. I don't believe that's what the Bible is talking about here. The temple of God, God says in the New Testament, which temple ye are? The church. You say, well, Rome is not the church. I know that, but Rome and its system grew up within the church. The anti-christian system came up through the church, the true church, and became an apostate system. In fact, 2 Thessalonians speaks of anti-christ in connection with the apostasy. It's not in connection with political shenanigans. He doesn't speak of anti-christ in connection with economic initiatives. He speaks of anti-christ in connection with the falling away. That's what he's talking about. So Luther didn't believe the Antichrist would be some lone individual at the end of time, for he said, and I quote, the Antichrist of whom Paul speaks now reigns in the court of Rome. There are many others that I could mention. Nicholas von Amsdorff, who was a close friend of Luther, believed that the Antichrist was to rise within the church realm and that the Pope is the real true Antichrist and not the vicar of Christ. Philip Melanthon, associated also with Luther said, since it is certain that the Pontiffs and the monks have forbidden marriage, look at 1st Timothy 4 verses 1 to 3, forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats, fish on Friday. It is most manifest and true without any doubt that the Roman Pontiff with his whole order and kingdom is very antichrist. What about John Calvin, the French reformer? Again, originally a son of the Romish Church, about 1532 he embraced the Protestant faith. His published works fill 50 volumes. I have them at home. But anyway, he said concerning the Pope, I deny him to be the Vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the Gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist. I deny him to be the successor of Peter. I deny him to be the head of the Church. And you would read in his Institutes that Calvin showed, or believed that he showed, that Paul's words in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 were not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Pope. That's what he believed. I'm telling you what the Reformers taught, what the Reformers believed on Reformation Sunday. What about John Knox? favourite reformer of mine for obvious reasons. 1505 to 1572, especially known for his reformation work in Scotland, he was persecuted from country to country until finally the affairs of Scotland were in Protestant hands. A lot of people don't know that Knox was once taken as a slave on a ship, a French galley, and he was one of the row men. And one day One of the papist priests was going around with an image of the Virgin and said to John Knox, here, pray to Our Lady. Knox lifted that piece of porcelain and just threw her into the water. He said, let her sink or swim. And he said, she can't save herself. So there's no way will she save me. So he certainly was not afraid to stand up for the truth. But this is what Knox said. He said that Romish traditions and ceremonies should be abolished, as well as that tyranny which the Pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the Church, and that he should be acknowledged as the very Antichrist, the son of perdition of whom Paul speaks. John Napier, who was a noted Scottish mathematician, very clever man, and an adherent of the Protestant cause, he wrote a commentary on Revelation which the Encyclopædia Britannica refers to as the first important Scottish work on the interpretation of scripture, and he taught that the Antichrist was the Pope, for he must sit, said Paul, in the Church of God. What about Huldrych Zwingli? Zwingli was a prominent figure in the work of the Reformation that broke out in Switzerland. He taught in reference to the papacy, and I quote, I know that in it works the might and power of the devil, that is, of the Antichrist. The papacy has to be abolished, but by no other means can it be more thoroughly routed than by the word of God. Henrik Bullinger, who was a friend of Zwingli, was regarded as one of the greatest prophetic expositors of the time. He explained that the Kingdom of the Popes rose up among the divisions of Rome, that the Pope is Antichrist, because he usurps the keys of Christ and his kingly and priestly authority. There are so many folks that I could mention and I'm running out of time. William Tyndale, first translator of the Bible from Greek to English, reformer and martyr, a man who was strangled at the stake and then burned. Why? Because he dared to translate the Bible into the common vulgar tongue of the people. He held that the Romanist church was Babylon and that the Pope was a man of sin or Antichrist seated in the temple of God. Repeatedly he cited 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 in this connection. Nicholas Ridley, one of the martyrs of England, one of the five martyrs, he said of the deceptions of Romanism that the head under Satan of all mischief is Antichrist and his brood. He spoke of Rome as the seat of Satan and the bishop of the same, that maintaineth the abominations thereof as Antichrist himself. Indeed, a friend of Ridley, John Bradford, who was also a noted preacher, was also martyred for his Protestant stand. He was taken from prison late at night, all the prisoners tearfully bidding him farewell. As he passed along, there were great crowds waiting, many weeping and praying for him. And standing by the stake where he was going to be killed, John Bradford raised both his hands in the air and called England to repentance. He wrote a farewell in which he acknowledged that he was condemned for not acknowledging the Antichrist of Rome. To be Christ's Vicar General and Supreme Head of the Catholic and Universal Church, he spoke of the Papacy as being undoubtedly that great Antichrist of whom the Apostles do so much admonish us. his friend John Hooper. He was also burned to the stake, slowly burned while he prayed. He believed that the Pope was the Antichrist. Hugh Latimer, who was a fervent preacher, commenting on the words of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2, he said in 1552, The Lord will not come till the swerving from faith cometh, which thing is already done and passed. Antichrist is known throughout all the world. Thomas Cranmer, who was the first Archbishop of Canterbury. The present Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, has along with his church signed a document saying that they are perfectly happy to have the Pope of Rome as the head of a future church. The Church of England has gone the same way as the Lutheran Church. You have a lot of people today looking way into the future to some unknown time when somebody somewhere will arise as a champion who will be Antichrist. I want to tell you friends the system of Antichrist is with us. It's with us. It may have a greater and final manifestation but it is with us. Thomas Cranmer was burned to the stake. Before he was burned he had actually recanted. He signed a recantation. in which he said he was going back to Rome but he realised that he was wrong asked God to forgive him and he said this evil hand that signed the recantation will burn first when I'm burnt to the stake because the church of Rome burnt him anyway because they realised that he probably was not truly repentant when they realised that he denied his recantation they took him to the stake And it was said that when he was led to the fire, he stood there holding that hand that signed the recantation until it became burnt to a stump. And he perished in the flames. What did he say just before he died? This is his dying testimony now at the stake. And as for the Pope, I refuse him as Christ's enemy and antichrist with all his false doctrine. One of the great intellectuals of the English Reformation was John Jewell and he also taught that the man of sin was the Pope, that it was a succession of men and not one individual. I could go on and on speaking of the Puritans. The King James Version as it is often called, which I think is an unfortunate name for it, for King James was a rascal. I prefer to call it the Authorised Version, that's its proper name. but in 1611 that Bible was issued the translators of that Bible in their little preface to the Bible actually referred to the man of sin and they spoke of being produced by certain Popish persons at home or abroad I don't know if you've ever read the Epistle Dedicatory if it's in the front of your authorised version but it's no wonder that one of the catholic cardinals called the authorized version that vile protestant version but they refer in that preface to the man of sin you can read it for yourself they certainly believe that the church of rome was antichrist how about sir isaac newton we've heard of him haven't we sir isaac newton a brilliant man especially known in connection with his teachings and findings on the laws of gravitation. He was a writer, mathematician, philosopher and a student of Bible prophecy. He studied for 42 years and he wrote a thing entitled Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of Saint John. It was published six years after his death. He identified the little horn of Daniel 7 with the papacy rising among the ten kingdoms into which the Roman Empire fell. and went on to speak of the Pope of Rome and that position of the papacy as Antichrist. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism and the Methodists, if anything, are nearly worse than the Church of England. They're completely sold out to the Church of Rome today. Priests occupy the pulpits of Methodists all the time. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, said that the prophecies regarding the Antichrist, the man of sin, had found fulfilment in the Romish papacy. He is, of the Pope he said, he is in an emphatical sense the man of sin. He is too properly styled the son of perdition. And he said he claims the prerogatives which belong to God alone. I've mentioned already the Westminster Confession of Faith and other confessions, the Savoy Declaration of the Congregational Church, the Baptist Confession of 1689, The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, the Moreland Confession of 1508, which was of the Waldensian Brethren, all taught that the Antichrist is the Church of Rome. The Helvetic Confession of 1536 taught that the papacy is the predicted Antichrist. The Lutheran Statement in the Small Cold Articles says the Pope is the very Antichrist. and in 1680 the churches of New England right here in this country drew up a confession of faith which stated that Jesus Christ is the head of the church and not the Pope of Rome who is indeed Antichrist and the son of perdition and Froome tells us this was the commonly accepted American position As Samuel Lee, a learned minister of New Bristol, Rhode Island said, it is agreed among all maintainers of the Evangelical Church that the Roman Pontiff is Antichrist. John Cotton, a Puritan minister of Plymouth and Boston, taught that Revelation 13 was a picture of the papacy. Roger Williams, you've heard of him perhaps? Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, the pastor of the first Baptist church in America. I hear all these Baptists today talking about this future anti-Christ, this atheistic superman that's going to arrive. The first Baptist pastor in America spoke of the Pope as the pretended vicar of Christ who sits as God over the temple of God exalting himself not only above all that is called God but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals yea over the spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea in God himself speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws. But he is the son of perdition. Second Thessalonians 2 Cotton Mather, a congregational theologian, wrote in his book The Fall of Babylon that the Pope of Rome was to be considered as Antichrist. Samuel Cooper, while delivering a series of lectures at Harvard, said, If Antichrist is not to be found in the chair of St. Peter, he is nowhere to be found. He believed that Antichrist was the succession of bishops in Rome. You've heard of Jonathan Edwards, the revival preacher, Jonathan Edwards in 1703 to 1758, the third president of Princeton, identified the Pope and his clergy as the power prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2, Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 and 17. The futurist view of an individual antichrist was unknown among the Protestants of North America prior to the 19th century. I think that's a very telling thing. I think it's very interesting. And I wonder then that today there is very little teaching against the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. There is, as I find in my travels everywhere, a palpable and an appalling ignorance of what the Roman Catholic system is all about. People don't realize, you know, that the Pope is not under the jurisdiction of the Italian government, that in the city of Rome there is another state, a country, which is just a few miles square, and it belongs to the Roman Catholic Church. Italian Carabinieri police cannot go into that state. They have no jurisdiction there. Do you know that when Pope John Paul I died, I believe he was murdered, I believe he was poisoned, and there was a book written by a Catholic where he stated that he believed that to be true. Do you know that because of the laws of the Vatican there was no autopsy done on the body? Do you know that? And why was there no autopsy done on the body? Because he's the Vicar of Christ. But that's something for another day. But I leave it with you today. I'm not saying that you're to take my view or that you're to take the views of others. But I'll tell you one thing. I would be very, very careful how I formulated my views of Antichrist in the light of what these men taught and believed. I think that it is certainly significant. And anybody who says that it's not significant, I think, needs to get their head out of the sand. But we're leaving it for today, and I trust that the Lord will help us to take a biblical and a strong stand for truth and against error. Let's pray. Father, we thank thee for thy presence with us and ask thee to help us through today. We are taught in thy word that we are not only to preach the gospel, but we are to reprove, to rebuke, and we are to exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine I pray, Lord, that you will help us to have courage to speak the truth, speaking the truth in love, yes, but speaking the truth nevertheless, not holding back anything that is profitable in our preaching. Lord, help us to do that. And we pray today that you will bring Babylon down for your honour and glory. In Jesus' name.