the Pope be said to have sustained Rome Pagan during the height of her attractiveness and glory— for such is the relation of the Beast to the woman whom he bears; or when did the Pope gain such power over all the ten kingdoms of the Roman World as for them, after suddenly destroying her, to give their kingdom and power unto him, until the words of God shall be fulfilled? So far from all this being true, the Pope was not heard of until ages after the fall of Pagan Rome.

Nor can the woman represent Rome Papal; for what Empire, or System, or Individual, has first sustained Rome Papal, and then, after receiving power from her destroyers (these destroyers being all the ten kingdoms of the Roman earth) been elevated into supreme authority over them allnever to be relinquished till the Lord shall come?

We have seen also that the Beast cannot represent Imperial Rome. But suppose it could, in what sense could Imperial Rome be represented either as sustaining or destroying Papal Rome? In its Pagan state it could not sustain Popery, for in the first place it would not be so minded; and secondly, Popery did not exist, and therefore could not be sustained. And very soon after the Empire ceased to be Pagan, it became divided, and so never concurred in the support of Popery at all. Nor have its ten kingdoms (for they do not yet exist) united to destroy Popery; nor have any ten kingdoms, after destroying Popery, united in

giving their power to Imperial Rome until the end.

We have seen also that it is impossible for the Beast to represent the Pope. But if it were possible, how could the Pope be considered as the subordinate sustainer of Rome Papal; or when has he together with all the ten kingdoms of the whole Roman earth destroyed the Papacy, and thereby risen into a supremacy to be retained by him until the end?

If then the Beast, and the woman sustained and afterwards destroyed by him, represent nothing that has been, they must represent something that is to be. May we remember, in all solemnity of spirit, that such a scene is about to open before us, and that "the time is at hand."

ON THE WORD MOUNTAIN, AS CONNECTED WITH BABYLON.

IN considering this question it is needful to remember that there is not one word in the Revelation that implies that Babylon physically was builded on mountains. The eighteenth chapter is that which describes the city physically-and there, no symbolic city builded on mountains is seen, nor is the word "mountain" used in the chapter. This omission in the eighteenth chapter would be in itself sufficient to prove that physical position on mountains is not to be distinctive of THE CITY spoken of. If it were to be distinctive, it would have been mentioned there.

It is in the seventeenth chapter, where Babylon morally, ie., as to its governmental system, is described, that the expression "seven mountains" Occurs. In that chapter the woman is said to be seated,

I. On many waters, which are explained to mean peoples and multitudes.

II. On a Beast.

III. On seven mountains.

Now, inasmuch as no one has ever thought of