Good morning, everyone. It's good to see you here. If you have a copy of God's Word, turn to 2 Thessalonians 2. As I said in my email, I intended for there to be someone else participating this morning. And then when that fell through, I thought, well, there's a little bit of hype in some quarters right now, not just because there's been the election of a new Pope, but because he's American. I want to just to refresh your minds on the historic position of the Protestant church in relation to our view of the papacy. So I thought we'll just review this. There's not gonna be anything really revolutionary here. I'm not gonna address anything that has not been stated before. I will say, before we read God's word, that The cynic in me might be perceiving the election of an American Pope at this particular time as a little bit Of course, you know, when they all gather there in the conclave and we have no idea what's discussed. I haven't checked to see whether they take minutes. I imagine if they do, those minutes are not public and all the discussion. I have no idea. I don't know much about that. But just given the context in which we're in, It seems a little bit like a strategic move. America is, you know, if it wasn't for Latin America pouring into the US, the Roman Catholic Church would be on a tremendous demise and has been over many, many years. So sometimes when numbers are given about the numbers of people who are Roman Catholic in America, if you took away the immigration that's happened, the pouring in of Latin America into the US, you find that those numbers are very different. But in the midst of what there has been, a real polarization that is happening in our nation over the last 10 years or so, Increasingly, part of that, of course, is affecting the Catholic Church in terms of the liberal wing, the more socially, let's see, liberal, just put that word out there, in terms of wanting to change, change policy, change doctrine, change dogma. And then, of course, the rising of a more conservative wing. as well. And then you have all these news individuals and journalism who are very much at the forefront of conservative political conversation. Many of them are Roman Catholic as well, and they're very much vocal about their support of Roman Catholicism and tend to be traditionally conservative as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. And it seems, you know, if you were to assess whether there's going to be some kind of increasing schism within the Catholic Church in America due to liberal social perspectives and old-fashioned dogma and returning to Latin masses and so on. Having an American Pope seems to galvanize and just let's stay on the same page. That's me looking at it again, a little cynically. I can't prove anything, but it just is an interesting timing. to have the first American Pope. Anyway, we'll read God's word, we'll pray, and reflect a little on this this morning. 2 Thessalonians chapter two is where we are. Please open in God's word there. 2 Thessalonians two. We'll read from verse one. Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and by our gathering together unto him, Let ye 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 man of sin be revealed the son of perdition. He 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 until he be taken out of the way, 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 receive 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 that they all might be damned to believe not the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness. Amen. We'll end the reading there at verse 12. Let's seek the Lord. Let's pray for his help. Father, we're thankful this morning to return to thy day. We thank thee for the Lord's day and for its benefit to us. We see in it so much truth as we remember that God rested on the seventh day and he sanctified it. And we pray that thou wilt help us to reflect upon not only thy great work of creation, but also thy great work of redemption. Because we see again our Lord Jesus rising on that first day of the week, communicating to us all our confidence that God not only made us but has redeemed us to himself by the finished work of his son. And so this morning we pray for the renewal of our inner man, the strengthening by the spirit in the inner man, that the means of grace communicated in this place would help us and provoke us to love and good works and encourage us to live godly in Christ Jesus. Remember all the other classes, encourage them and be with us in this class as we reflect on this. Guide us and keep us and instruct us and above all, maintain fidelity to thy word at all costs. May we be willing to suffer for the truth, no matter what. Be with all our sister churches. We're thankful for our visitors with us today. Encourage them today, and especially our brother, as he will bring us the word. Hear us in Jesus' name. Amen. All right, so what I want to do this morning is go through a number of things in relation to this whole subject of the papacy or the fact that we have a new pope. And what I'm going to reflect on is the confessional view, first of all, and then the Reformed and Puritan heritage, and then the Catholic claims that support the Reformed position. And then if we get this far, the Reformed and Puritan view articulated by Jonathan Edwards. But I want to begin by reading to you a statement The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster released a statement. In fact, a number of the denominations in the UK released a statement at the death of the Pope. And of course, there'll be statements in relation to a new Pope as well. And all around that time, people giving their views and reflecting in some fashion upon this whole event as it affects much of the world. And so I'm going to read to you what our brethren in Ulster read. This is part of our broader family of denominations, three Presbyterian denominations. And we all have fraternal relationship. And in Ulster, where we originate, on the 8th of May, they released this public statement. Our confessional standard, the Westminster Confession of Faith, describes the Pope of Rome as, quote, that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalts himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God. Chapter 25, and that's paragraph six. One of the great heresies of the Roman Catholic church is their exaltation of a man to the place of Christ. For the purpose of saving his people, our Lord Jesus Christ exercises each of the major Old Testament offices of prophet, priest, and king. However, the Pope of Rome masquerades at each of these levels and so usurps positions that are the sole prerogative of Christ. Invoking the authority of Peter, the Pope or Bishop of Rome claims to speak infallibly on matters of faith or life, placing his own words on the level of the words of Christ. However, the Bible maintains that Christ alone holds this office of prophet in his church. John 1 verse 1, Hebrews 1 verses 1 and 2. The Pope was also called Pontifex Maximus meaning supreme or high a great high priest when the Bible says our great high priest is Jesus alone the Son of God Hebrews 4 14 The Pope assumes titles vicar of Jesus Christ and supreme pontiff of the Universal Church Meaning that he acts as Christ's representative ruling as a supreme head of the church on earth when in fact Christ is depicted in Colossians 1.18 as the head of the body of the church, that in all things he might have the preeminence. The Lord Jesus Christ warned that false Christs and false prophets will come, Matthew 24.24. Paul identified one such prominent example as being the man of sin, the son of perdition, who would exalt himself to the place of God in the temple, 2 Thessalonians 2, verses three and four. The Westminster divines responsible for drafting our confession of faith believe that the office of the papacy, not any one individual Pope, fulfilled these prophecies. We believe the same, which is why we reject the Pope and all his fake claims, echoing the words of the godly Archbishop Thomas Cramner, and as for the Pope, I refuse him as Christ's enemy and antichrist with all his false doctrine. So that was a statement that was released and gives you an idea of where we stand as a denomination. And though not released by the FPCNA, we would be in full agreement with that language. And there's an interesting aspect to the history of our denomination that I just want to put out there. Some of you will remember, some of you may not know, that back in the 1980s when Dr. Ian Paisley function in a role as a member of the European Parliament, there was an event in which Pope John Paul II was invited to address the House of the European Parliament. And with such invitations, there was, as if I understand the whole context, the President of the Parliament is allowed, or the Chairman, or whatever his name is, his title is, he's allowed to invite outside speakers. but is also allowed to put it out to a vote as well, so that the members get to vote on whether or not this person should come and address the body. And of course, if there's something controversial, you imagine it might be wiser just to put that out there and see what the members think. Well, with Dr. Paisley, when there was, you know, the fact that there was going to be an invitation extended to Pope John Paul II. He said, look, if you put it to a vote, then I will put my objection in a vote. But there was no vote. And so as we now are well aware, and as you can still see on YouTube, his protest in the midst of the parliament as John Paul II got up to begin his speech, Dr. Paisley stood up and started denouncing him as the Antichrist. And so Dewing received much negative response and physical abuse right there before he was protected by the parliament security. But in doing so, I wonder, and maybe Dr. Sidwell's the person to confirm or deny or check this out, but I wonder if he may be the only person on record to have called a Pope Antichrist to his face. in the same space. And if so, then we have in the legacy of our denomination a very unique role in standing against the papacy. That's to be confirmed. The doctor said, well, there's some work for you. You can confirm or deny or see whether or not that has been the case. Of course, we don't know what goes behind closed doors. We certainly know what has been written, but to have a record of someone actually saying this to his face Again, it's quite a unique thing indeed. The statement that I read to you again draws heavily from the confessional view, which I'll read that paragraph in its entirety. In the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25, paragraph 6, there is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalted himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God. So that's the historic statement, 1647. And we have an additional statement in our confession that just recognize a slight nuance that may be held for officers in our denomination, the FPCNA. And the additional statement reads as thus. United in the belief that the Pope of Rome is not in any sense head of the church, but is that antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalted himself in the church against Christ, the church leaves open to conscience the question of whether there may be an additional personage who may fulfill the prophecies of 2 Thessalonians 2, Revelation 13 and 17, and Daniel 7, 8, 9, and 11. The church accepts, as within the pale of Christian orthodoxy, both those who believe that the pope or the papacy is the final Antichrist, and those who believe that while the pope and the papacy are properly described as Antichrist in the church, there will be a secular Antichrist in the last days, immediately prior to the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. So again, that's just leaving something open. Of course, the Pope is himself, and this would be argued by those who would say such, is a secular ruler as well. He's head of an actual state, head of state. So sometimes when he comes into a nation, he comes as head of state, or he speaks within a context as head of state, not always as the religious head of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, why has this been the view, or how common is this view of the papacy being anti-Christ? Obviously, those who gathered to formulate the Westminster Confession of Faith put this statement together. And of course, they're putting it in a statement in which they can all agree. A room full of theologians struggle at times to agree on language and will argue over language. And so what you're finding is this is a general statement that they all are able to get on board with. And so you have all these Protestants gathering together in the middle of the 17th century and saying, this is so. This is what we believe. Now, in thinking about some of that heritage, you have the reformed and Puritan heritage is very clear. So you have the magisterial reformers. We sometimes refer to them in that way. Martin Luther explicitly identified the papacy as anti-Christ, so giving rise to maybe a more popular view. But he wasn't the first to do so. John Calvin, as well, and his institutes, Philip Melanchthon, Henry Bullinger, Theodore Biza, John Knox, all of these men who were there in the middle of the early part of the 1500s and middle part of the 1500s, wrote that the Pope is the Antichrist. And of course, many of them, they're coming out of that system and they're looking back and making this assessment. The Puritans and later reformed theologians that came after as well didn't. I mean, they're a little bit more distant from some of the persecution and the difficulties that the reformers may have faced. But William Perkins, Thomas Manton, John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, Matthew Poole, John Gill, all these took the same position. And I was tempted to give some quotes, again, from perhaps the only saint that the Protestant has within the English-speaking world, that of Charles Spurgeon. If he speaks, then it must be authoritative. But give you quotes from him as well, because he is a number of quotes just in the midst of his sermons in which he addresses this matter and makes a plea of the the rightness of perceiving the Roman Catholic pontiff as fitting the description of the anti-Christian system revealed in the Word of God, and uses very strong language against it. So then you're dealing with, of course, the middle of the 1800s into the latter part of the 1800s with him. This is not something that has gone away. didn't just fade with the persecution. After persecution, when life was a little more normal in England and so on, and there isn't persecution as a Protestant nation, then still, they're holding to this view that the Pope is part of the anti-Christian system, that each Pope fits within what the scripture warns against. Now, again, what was said in the statement from our brethren in Ulster, identifies some aspects of the claim of the Pope in the three offices of prophet, priest, and king. John Owen goes into great length when he addresses this matter, again showing the fact, the disparity or the unbiblical nature of the Pope presenting himself in these offices to the degree that he is presented in that way. So you have in the Catholic claim that the Pope is the head of the church. Quoting from the catechism, the Roman pontiff, and I sort of leave a little bit out here, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. So he's that visible foundation, the unity of all of those who serve in the Roman Catholic Church. He is the head of the whole church, it goes on to say as well. So again, this reference was made to Colossians 1 verse 18, where it refers to Christ as the head of the body, the church, that in all things he might have the preeminence. The scripture is plain, that the preeminent one is Jesus Christ, that all who serve are part of the priesthood of all believers, function in this subordinate role to Christ. And there's no great number one figurehead left on the church, but Jesus Christ alone is that head. Ephesians 1 verse 22, gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body. He oversees the whole body of the church, including those who hold like clergy positions. He is the head over all of them, and there's an equality among believers that must be expressed. Yes, there are offices. Yes, we ordain men to office within the church, but not to have this superior role and function in any way as a head of anything, just that they have administrative or certain responsibilities within the body. The Pope is necessary for salvation. We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for the Pope, or for salvation, that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff. That's Pope Boniface VIII. So again, if you reject the Pope, then there's no salvation. Again, you come back to John 14, verse six. I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me. Acts 4.12, neither is there salvation in any other. There's none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. It's the Lord Jesus Christ is the one we are directed to salvation through him. The Pope may forgive sins. In fact, the whole clergy of the Roman Catholic Church is in this business of forgiving sins. The church through bishops and priests exercises the power of forgiving sins in the name of Jesus Christ. Again, that's the catechism of the Catholic Church. Mark 2, seven, who can forgive sins but God only? 1 John 1, nine, if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins. You think about this, you think about the practice of Protestant churches, you think about what we give ourselves to. When we gather for church, we gather to worship, there are a few things that go on. There is the corporate body singing praises to God. there is prayer that is offered, and there is the reading and the preaching of the word. These three things, in addition to the observance of the two sacraments given by Christ, baptism and the Lord's Supper, these are the things that pertain to the life of the body. And with one other additional thing, the aspect of church discipline. But in terms of the function regular of the church, these are the things that it gives itself to. And you start looking then through the life of the New Testament church and asking yourself, what do we see them doing? Well, we see them preaching, we see them praying, we see the centrality of the scripture, we see the exhortation that Paul gives to Timothy, that to focus upon the word of God, teaching the word of God, instructing men from the word of God. And you see all these things, but you do not see at any point where men are going around in the business of pronouncing people forgiven and in any way taking on this kind of authority. They are directed through the preached word to the only one who can forgive sins and pardon. And so really our opposition to the papacy, and I'll maybe close with this if we have time, but just to state it right now, our main opposition to the papacy is because you have an office that is pushing forward a false gospel. Whatever one says about the position or the so-called authority of the position, the primary anathema and judgment of God is because the message is false. that there is no hope, no security, no assurance in the system that pushes what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. And I will say to you, given I'm not going to cover all angles here, if you have ever struggled or wondered about these things, I'm going to ask you before you think anything about being sympathetic to the Church of Rome, any thought of sympathy whatsoever, which I fear is an increasing influence within Protestantism, a certain sympathy. Before you ever do that, you do a thorough, when I say thorough, I'm emphasizing thorough study of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness by faith alone to the believer. You must thoroughly study that before there's any sympathy. Because if you study that, you're going to come out the other side and say, this is the gospel. And if you come to the conclusion that men who are sinners receive by faith the righteousness of Christ and put it to them freely gifted, received in an instant by faith, you cannot uphold or support any aspect of the system, whether that pertains to the office of the papacy, or anything that they communicate, you will come away and say the whole thing is a sham from top to bottom. Now of course there are certain doctrines which we agree on, certain things that we don't deny. Doctrines of the Trinity and so on. Upholding the deity of Jesus Christ and these kind of things, we don't deny that they articulate that with precision. but on the centrality of men receiving from God, pardon for their sins, and how that comes about through the work of Jesus Christ, you're gonna find a great disparity. Again, especially if you focus, there is, they have no answer to the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. You must thoroughly study that before there's any sympathy. Then, if any sympathy arises within you, And you go and you read Galatians 1, if you preach any other gospel, God's curse is upon such a person. You realize, I have no right to extend sympathy. to a false gospel. So I want to close here with looking at the view articulated by Jonathan Edwards. And I use Edwards in part because, well, he is a theologian of the Americas. I mean, let's not keep it just with those Europeans, those on the continent, and so on, those Englishmen and Scotsmen who are maybe a little, because of a lack of vitamin D and sunlight, maybe a little crazy. Let's look at someone who was here on these shores and is one of the most prolific theologians here in this nation. Jonathan Edwards. So he has a work called A History of the Work of Redemption. And in that he argues for the divine authority of the scriptures And he, in doing so, presents two areas of fulfillment of biblical prophecy in order to argue for the authority of the scriptures. One of those sections, one of those areas, relates to the preservation of the church. God has promised to preserve his people, and he goes through the scriptures and sees how God has done so, and then historically, that has been carried forth. The second relates to Antichrist. And he uses that also as an argument for the authority of Scripture, how it ties in the faithfulness of Scripture. And he gives 16 arguments in relation to this whole subject of the Antichrist. and he ties it again to the Roman Catholic Church and to the papacy itself. Now, if you want to do a study on this, I can give you a list of works, the Puritan Reformed view of these things. If you read pretty much any of the well-known Protestant commentators, whether it be Matthew Poole or Henry or any of them, if you come to the main sections that address this subject, such as we read here in 2 Thessalonians 2, you're going to find that they present the same argument. Now, in modern, just before I get to this, in modern context, there has been a rise of those who say, well, the papacy doesn't quite fit. It seems on a reading of certain passages that maybe someone like Nero more fits. And so you're dealing with the context, the timing of what was happening right there and then. But there are certain problems with that. And so when I have heard from these men, and maybe they have arguments for it, sometimes you can hear, you can see their presented position. and you have some questions at your eyes and you can't formulate those questions directly to them, so you're not sure how they would answer it. But the problem is, how did Nero die? Tell me how Nero died. He was assassinated, right. So, suicide, right. But the problem is with the scripture here, if you look at verse eight, look at verse eight. where, because we dealt with this in our Sunday school. We were going through some of R.C. Sproul's view of this. And Sproul kind of moved from amillennialism to a more post-mill view. And he, in doing so, was leaning in this way. But the problem I have, and I don't know how you would answer it, maybe Dr. Sidwell or someone else can answer how, verse eight. 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. Maybe they have an argument for this, maybe they're making distinct persons here, but it seems like the Lord Jesus is going to take on hand the judgment, not the person themselves, right? So if Nero died by suicide, then how does it fit with this prophecy? So just one question I have in relation to that position, as well as a few others. It seems to put an emphasis also upon Jerusalem. the place of seven hills and that seems a little bit of a stretch also so I'm not sure really about that position I just say that I just throw that out there now Edwards here's what he says number one the way that this Antichrist should arise is foretold by the falling away of the Christian church into a corrupt state. Now if your Bible is still open at 2 Thessalonians, if you look at verse 3, it says, So there's a prediction of a falling away of the Christian church, the visible church. We should expect certain corruption to arise in that context. Again, because our default position would be the church should be maintained and its visible representation will remain pure. But the prediction, the prophecy is, no, that's not the case. Secondly, it is prophesied that this man of sin should set himself up in the temple or the visible church of God, pretending to be vested with divine power as the head of the church. That's verse four. and all this is exactly come to pass in the church of Rome. Now what would be an argument there in relation to that, where he sets himself in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God? What might be an argument there that some might say, maybe this is what it means? Anyone, any suggestion? If you were living in the first century at this time, what would you think about when you think about the temple of God? You think about Jerusalem, right? And yet scripturally, there's nowhere where the temple is referred to in that kind of language. The apostles don't point to it in that way. In fact, when they tend to refer to any kind of a temple that is positive or still referred to as a temple of God, the focus tends to be then upon the believers and them being functionally as the temple in which God dwells. And so you start asking yourself, well, is Paul making an exception here, making reference then to the Jewish temple as a temple of God? Or is he staying consistent with his view of the temple of God as being, in some way, a representation of professing believers, or those who profess the faith of the Christian church? So again, Edward's position then, he sees, of course, as more of the Christian church. and here is one who's pretending to be vested with power within that context. Thirdly, he says, again, it is intimated that the rise of Antichrist should be gradual. That's from verse seven, where there's a sense of a of a gradual, for the mystery of iniquity doth already work. Here, presently, the beginnings of this is underway. He's acknowledging that what I'm pointing to or referring to here is already underway. Only he that now letteth or hindereth will let until he be taken out of the way. There's a sense of a hindrance or a waiting period here until this comes to pass. So he's saying again, well, this fits. what happened. It's a gradual process. It's not something that happens where everything's perfect and then one person arises and the whole thing just develops overnight. It's more of a gradual development in terms of this anti-Christian system. Fourthly, he says, again, it's prophesied that this mighty enemy of the Christian church, that he should be a great prince or monarch of the Roman Empire. So he is represented in Daniel as a horn. of the fourth beast, or fourth monarchy, as the angel himself explains it, and there he refers to Daniel 7. He said, this also came to pass. So again, you have that sense of a state position as well, not just a religious figurehead, but a stately position also. Fifthly, he says, yet it's prophesied that the seat of this pretended vicar of God and head of the church should be the city of Rome itself. It is said expressly that the spiritual whore or false church should have her seat on seven mountains or hills. And here he's referring, of course, to Revelation 17. Verse nine, the seven heads or seven mountains on which the woman sitteth. Verse 18, the woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth. He says, then, which it is certain was at that time the city of Rome. This prophecy also has come to pass. And I think then that the historical writings outside the scriptures themselves, again, pointing to the city of Seven Hills being Rome, not Jerusalem. So you're looking for something that's happening there. In the sixth place, he says, further, it was prophesied that this Antichrist should reign over peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. Again, that's chapter 17 of Revelation. And that all the world should wander after the beast. It's chapter 13 of Revelation. This also was verified in the Church of Rome. And of course, you have the remarkable fulfillment in which you have a person who is taking this position over all nations. He's the head of all who profess within the Catholic realm in that setting, professing to be the head of them all. And so you start, well, how does this get fulfilled? What one person in the world places himself to have authority over people and over jurisdiction, regardless of geographic boundaries and borders. I am over you all. What other role fulfills that? Again, the Pope of Rome certainly should be arrested on suspicion, to use language paraphrasing Charles Spurgeon. Seven, Edward says, it was foretold that this Antichrist should be remarkable, For the sin of pride, pretending to great things and assuming very much to himself, here he goes back to 2 Thessalonians 2 verse four, that he should exalt himself above all that's called God or that is worshiped. Revelation 13 verse five, there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies. Daniel seven, the little horn is said to have a mouth speaking very great things and his look to be more stout than his fellows. This also is verified in the Pope and the Church of Rome. Now, historically, this was very much more on display. The language is much more In fitting with this, I think in today's modern context, there's perhaps a little more of a coy and careful presentation of the papacy these days. I think you'll still see it. You'll still see it in certain expressions, the lofty, proud position. holds to or is said about him, whether he professes it himself, but he has to believe it. He has to believe what's true about himself in that office. In the eighth place, Edward says, it was also prophesied that Antichrist should be an exceeding cruel persecutor. Daniel 7, 21, the same horn made war with the saints and prevailed against them. Daniel 13, verse seven, it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. So you have this language of one who has a history or was going to develop a history of making war with the people of God. Who fits that? Who comes into that role? What one person who claims to be over all the nations of the earth to have this authority across nations has made it his end to destroy those who love Christ. and you're going to search the history books and you're going to try, who fits that description? Certainly the Pope of Rome is there. Some of the most awful events that we can read about in history come by direct influence and command from the papacy. Again, we don't see it so much today. You don't see that increase. There's been a huge break of certain power over some of the key nations utilized before. The French Revolution, other things that transpired. Of course, the revolution in the British Isles as well. You have things that broke some of the power over the West and over key nations within the West. But at the same time, you say, who fulfills us? You have to ask the question, who fulfills us? Who can fit in this position? Who has made themselves drunk with the blood of the saints and the martyrs of Jesus? In the ninth place, Edward says, it was foretold that Antichrist should excel in craft and policy. This is from Daniel seven, verse eight. In this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man. Even that horn that had eyes, And again, he's seeing this in terms of knowledge and just the wisdom. Again, this also marks the Church of Rome, he says. In the 10th place, he says, it was foretold that the kings of Christendom should be subject to Antichrist. This is Revelation 17. The 10 horns which thou saw'st are 10 kings, which have received no kingdom as yet, but received power as kings, one hour with the beast, ease of one mind, and shall give their power and strength onto the beast. This also came to pass with respect to the Romanist church. I'll just read through quickly here, because I want to give a little bit of time before we come to the end. 11, it was foretold that he should perform pretended miracles and lying wonders. This is from 2 Thessalonians 2 verse nine. I'll not read it. Again, Revelation 13. And he doth great wonders so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast. This also designates the Church of Rome Fire come down from heaven seems to have reference to their excommunications, which were dreaded like fire from heaven, the authority and power which they would exercise over the souls of men. 12, it was foretold that he should forbid to marry and abstain from meats. First Timothy chapter four, verse three. Thirteenth place, he said, it was foretold that he should be very rich and arrive at a great degree of earthly splendor and glory. This is from Revelation. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand. Well, if you want to see pomp and ceremony that contends with British coronations, you look at Rome. In the fourteenth place, he said, it was foretold that he should forbid any to buy or sell, but those that had his mark Again, this is Revelation 13. And then in the 15th place, he said it was foretold that he should sell the souls of men. When he was enumerating the articles of his merchandise, the souls of men are specifically mentioned as one. Is not this also exactly fulfilled in the same church? And then it was foretold, he said in the last place, that Antichrist should suffer, should not suffer, pardon me, the bodies of God's people to be buried. So this is Revelation 11. Their dead bodies shall lie in the street for the great city, and they shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. So he takes that as literal fulfillment. So that was Edward's view, right? And again, we have additional statement within our confession because sometimes there are nuance within the minds of good men. But you really start having to ask the question, who fulfills this most accurately? And listen, I've thought about this at various times in the past a lot, and I have dabbled in looking at some, those within the kind of post-mill perspective, the Ken Gentry types, and I looked at what they have said, and I have tried to align it with scripture and said, it doesn't fit. There are key passages that just do not fit. And you try to figure out, well, what's the alternative? And maybe there's something yet to be revealed. Maybe there's something yet in the future that will make all of this more clear. But you come back to the reform in Puritan view and you say, there's certainly a lot, a lot of strong evidence and indication that this position can be argued from scripture. And there may be a little piece of language where you might look and say, well, how is that specifically? And you might struggle a little. But on the whole, you're looking at something else. Who fulfills this? Who represents, who stands as if they speak on God's behalf with government over the nations, claiming to have power over, again, with no limit of jurisdiction? Who fulfills that? And there's no one so far that has more accurately fulfilled that than the man, whoever he may be at any given time, that occupies the papacy, the Pope of Rome. There's just no one I'm aware of. So anyway, that's where I leave it. How to view the new Pope? View him the same way your forefathers did. with a tremendous sense of the wickedness of what he represents. Do not be sympathetic because the message damns the souls of men. It is careful enough, of course, that it can communicate as if, again, if it is outrightly heretical and obviously wrong, few get deceived. The careful way in which Satan works through this is because of the deception. And the deception is intended to be powerful because it's subtle. That's the power in it. The power's in the subtlety. So you say it should be obvious, it should be clear. But people are easily deceived because it is subtle. And I hear about those who go this way and end up in the Church of Rome, and their gospel is this. This is their gospel. The lifting up of the Eucharist. Their participation in the Eucharist. That's it. Good news is, if you take this, you'll be better off. Even that doesn't give justification. Even that doesn't promise. Salvation. There's still a purgatory. There's still a purging, a cleansing that must be done. And you start asking yourself, wherein lies the purpose of the sufferings of the Son of God? So, any questions? Just five minutes. Yes, ma'am. I grew up in the Catholic Church until age 22. And yet, like I say, I bore a Bible. For the people, yes. Don't misunderstand my concern for the individuals. They need the gospel. I have it in my own family, too. There are other individuals here in a similar position as yourself. Yeah, they need Christ. Yes, Jack. I, too, grew up in the Catholic Church to age 12. And one of the things that astounds me is that we were clearly taught that when the pope speaks ex cathedra, he is infallible, and that the Holy Spirit preserves the truth within his statements. But then in my 30s and 40s, after I became a believer, I began to look at history and the number of infallible truths that the Pope spoke were proven wrong. And it's just amazing that more people aren't aware of that. He's not infallible. Even when he speaks ex cathedra, in that. Which sometimes we make a mistake of assuming everything he says is in that context, but it's a very narrow context in which he speaks ex cathedra. But it's a bigger point. Right, argues against it. Of course, you go back then to the authority of the scriptures, you end up arguing that whole point. Yes, David. Right. Right. Right. Yeah, very, very much stronger distinctions. Sometimes, of course, to a bigotry that was unhelpful. But I think the sense of recognizing distinction, losing the sense of distinction is the danger where we've gone today. Try to eliminate the bigotry by maintaining a sense of distinction too. I think that's the balance. And we've left one and gone to another. At least that's the context in which I grew up, in which it wasn't just a sense of distinction, there was an element of bigotry. And I think you just need to be careful with, you can dehumanize people as well, and that's, we don't want to fall into that. Any other comments or even, sorry, I'm missing, yes. Well, I mean, if you, how can we know for sure? I mean, what you're doing is marrying scripture with what you observe about the system. There are certain testimonies, whoever 2 Thessalonians 2 and the other passages are referring to, they have to fit some of, or they have to fit what's being described there. And so you start asking, do their own statements. make them align with what the Holy Spirit has revealed in the scripture. And so that's what we're all trying to do, Max. We're trying to marry what scripture has said, has revealed to us, and what these individuals or organizations and institutions have said about themselves. And when we look at them, we align them, we pair them up, we say, well, is this it? And then you have to make a conclusion. Like you say, like I mentioned, Spurgeon has a line, I can't remember exactly the context, but he's referring to the Pope and he said, he should be arrested on suspicion. Just because so much of it aligns so perfectly with what the Bible tells us to look for. So that comes down to Mary. Does that answer your question? Just, yeah. It's like what they're saying and what scripture says. So, yes, Beth. We've got a reference to the Southern Tradition requiring miracles to be abased for the the other accepted position that there may be a political leader or that there would be in both views the acceptance that there would be a final vote who would also perform their place that would precede the first. How it ends up looking, I don't know. The fact that the Catholic Church has no problem with miracles, and they look for miracles, and they confirm miracles with regularity. And so in their history, there are many, many, many things that have been done that are proclaimed to be miraculous. So how that gets looked at with the Pope that leads up to the return of Christ and what power he professes to have and what that looks like, how deceptive those actions are, I don't know. But there's definitely, whether they're actual miracles or satanic deceptions, that's another argument, whether some of these things are, are they actually miraculous? I mean, if you go back to the, the plagues. In Exodus, the argument is, did these Egyptians perform actual miracles or with the satanic illusions of looking like the real thing that Moses was doing under God. And so there's different views there. But either way, people get deceived by what's done. It's either actual miracle or it's the illusion of it that deceives people. So I don't know what it's going to look like in the end. So I'm not sure exactly. Yes, Wesley. How did he argue that? Well, he's not saying that it has to come out of Rome, except in the point that the city of Rome itself seems to be central, because it's the city of seven hills. So there's a key place there. And when you marry, then, all the other things with that descriptor that we're looking for, then you say, well, this fits again. You're fitting all the pieces together. It's not saying it has to be that way, but it's like, it has to be this and it has to be that. Well, who fulfills all these variations and specific criteria than you, yeah. Anything else? That's, go and read Galatians 1. See the judgment of one preaching something that's not the gospel. And, Again, if there's any temptation to be sympathetic, again, not to the people, but to the system and the message they proclaim, study the doctrine of justification, not just justification in the broad sense, I mean with the specific position of the believer as an Adam, all day, even so in Christ, all are made alive, and the fact that by one man's disobedience, many are made sinners, and by the obedience of one, Many are made righteous. How? And you start looking at that doctrine, you're going to come down and say, anything that does not propagate and push the fact that the believer stands as if they have lived the life of Christ, imputed to them by faith, then you're going to see that's not the gospel, if you deny that. So anyway, this is our hope. This is what we preach. Yeah, we'll leave it there. Let's pray. Lord, we ask that you'll give us grace to be resilient in the face of an increasing push to, it seems from my perspective anyway, a push to try and infiltrate and confuse poorly grounded Protestants and individuals who are looking for something substantial and are trying then to find it in tradition and history and not coming back to the word. They're not studying the word. We pray that souls who are seeking would be pointed to the word of God and that the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ would be pushed forth with clarity more and more in these days. We pray that we will do what we can and that you'll give us clarity on how we express the gospel of Christ to make the distinction between that which presents the fullness of Christ and that which, in addition, adds the works of men. Bless us this morning as we gather and continue in worship here. We pray that you'll be with us in this house as we assemble together to praise the triune God. In Jesus' name we pray, amen. Thank you.