church of Rome under the line of those pretended universal bishops, the Popes. And here,we cannot but observe the wonderful exactness with which the two principal apocalyptic symbols, the first and the second beast, are contrived. The Roman empire, having existed under seven different constitutions, is described by a beast with seven heads; but the catholic church of Rome, never having existed under more than one form of government, namely the papal, is therefore described by a beast with only one head.

This head however is furnished with two horns. In the language of symbols, horns are kingdoms: consequently the horns of an ecclesiastical beast must be ecclesiastical kingdoms. Now I know not what idea we can annex to an ecclesiastical kingdom, subservient to the head of an ecclesiastical empire, except that of a regularly organized body of ecclesiastics subject primarily to their own immediate superior, and ultimately to the head of the whole empire. If the church of Rome then be intended by the second apocalyptic beast, and the Pope, by the head of that beast, it must comprehend two such ecclesiastical kingdoms; that is to say, it must comprehend two regularly organized bodies of ecclesiastics, distinct from each other, and subject primarily to their respective superiors, and ultimately to the Pope. Mr. Whitaker and Dr. Zouch suppose that the two horns are the monks, who were at first divided into two classes: the Cenobites, who (to adopt the language of Mr. Gibbon) "lived under a common and regular discipline: and the Anachorets, who indulged their unsocial, independent, fanaticism." And Mr. Whitaker adds, that in a later age the papal authority was more especially supported by two mendicant orders of monks, the Dominicans and Franciscans-This opinion seems to me by no means tenable for various reasons-Monasticism first arose in the East about the year 305, and thence passed into the West. The second apocalyptic beast however, or the catholic empire of the Pope, did not spring up out of the earth till the year 606. Consequently the original two-fold division of the monks in the East cannot make them the two horns of a beast, which sprung up, long after that division, in the West-But it

may be said, that, although their extraction be oriental, there is no inconsistency in supposing that they might afterwards become horns of the beast, when they had extended themselves westward, and mightily exerted themselves in support of the papal authority. Here then another objection presents itself. I readily allow, that the character of the Cenobites perfectly answers to the character of an ecclesiastical horn or kingdom. They were a regularly organized body of men; bound by certain laws, and subject first to their superior and in after ages through him to the Pope. But I can discover none of the characteristics of a horn in the Anachorets. These, so far from being united under a settled government and from professing obedience to a superior, "renounced the convent as they had renounced the world ;" and, plunging into the deepest solitudes of the desert far from the haunts of men, "indulged their unsocial, independent, fanaticism." Such being the case, the Anachorets can with no more propriety be esteemed a horn or regular ecclesiastical government, than men in a nomade state can be considered as constituting a regular secular government-Perhaps this part of the scheme may be given up, and it may be asserted that the Dominicans and Franciscans are the two horns exclusively, neither of those two orders being liable to be charged with the disqualification of the Anachorets. Here again fresh objections still arise. Both those orders are comparatively of a late date and are we to suppose, notwithstanding the early rise of monasticism, that the beast had no horns till the days of Dominic and Francis? Or even, if we venture to adopt such a supposition, were the Dominicans and Franciscans the only orders? That they were the most conspicuous orders during three centuries is no doubt perfectly true, but they were certainly very far from standing alone. As the ten horns of the secular beast represent precisely that number of kingdoms, though some of them were strong and some weak; so, arguing at least from analogy, had the horns of the ecclesiastical beast been designed to represent the monastic orders, there would surely have been just as many horns as there were orders, though some of those were strong and some weak-In opposition then to

this scheme which seems to me to be clogged with too many difficulties to be admissible, I am more inclined to think with Bp. Newton, that the two horns are the Romish clergy, regular and secular. The first of these classes comprehends all the various monastic orders; the second comprehends the whole body of parochial clergy. These two classes I conceive to be the two ecclesiastical horns or kingdoms of the catholic empire of the Pope. In every particular they answer to the character of horns, being two distinct regularly organized bodies, subject first to their own particular superiors, and ultimately to the Pope the head of the whole empire.

The manner, in which these two ecclesiastical kingdoms of the papal empire were erected, will best appear by adverting to history.

"The imperious pontiffs," says Mosheim, "always fond of exerting their authority, exempted by degrees the monastic orders from the jurisdiction of the bishops. The monks, in return for this important service, devoted themselves wholly to advance the interests, and to maintain the dignity of the bishop of Rome. They made his cause their own; and represented him as a sort of god to the ignorant multitude, over whom they had gained a prodigious ascendant by the notion that generally prevailed of the sanctity of the monastic order."* The same historian further observes, "The monastic orders and religious societies have always been considered by the Roman pontiffs as the principal support of their authority and dominion. It is chiefly by them that they rule the Church, maintain their influence on the minds of the people, and augment the number of their votaries."+ Of this the following passage affords a remarkable instance. "The power of the Dominicans and Franciscans greatly surpassed that of the other two orders, and rendered them singularly conspicuous in the eyes of the world. During three centuries these two fraternities governed, with an almost universal and absolute sway, both church and state; filled the most eminent posts ecclesiastical and civil; taught in the universities and churches with Ibid. Vol. iv. p. 184.

* Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. Vol. ii. p. 172.

an authority, before which all opposition was silent; and maintained the pretended majesty of the Roman pontiff's against kings, princes, bishops, and heretics, with incredible ardour and success. The Dominicans and Franciscans were before the Reformation what the Jesuits have been since that happy and glorious period; the very soul of the hierarchy, the engines of the state, the secret springs of the motions of the one and of the other, and the authors and directors of every great and important event both in the religious and political world."* The complete distinctness of this first horn or ecclesiastical kingdom of the beast from the other, by means of their exemption from episcopal jurisdiction, will appear yet more evidently from the following passage. "While the pontiffs accumulated upon the mendicants the most honourable distinctions and the most valuable privileges which they had to bestow, they exposed them still more and more to the envy and hatred of the rest of the clergy; and this hatred was considerably increased by the audacious arrogance that discovered itself every where in the conduct of these supercilious orders. They had the presumption to declare publicly, that they had a divine impulse and commission to illustrate and maintain the religion of Jesus; they treated with the utmost insolence and contempt all the different ranks and orders of the priesthood; they affirmed without a blush, that the true method of obtaining salvation was revealed to them alone; proclaimed with ostentation the superior efficacy and virtue of their indulgencies; and vaunted, beyond measure, their interests at the court of heaven, and their familiar connections with the Supreme Being, the Virgin Mary, and the saints in glory. By these impious wiles they so deluded and captivated the miserable and blinded multitude, that they would not intrust any others but the mendicants with the care of their souls, their spiritual and eternal concerns." Thus it appears, that the monastic orders constituted a well organized body, governed by their own laws, exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, subject to their respective generals or superiors, but pay

* Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. Vol. iii. p. 195.

+ Ibid. p. 204.

ery

rets

ad t.

tan

Ty

ing at the same time an implicit obedience to the Pope. In short they perfectly answer to every idea that we can form of an ecclesiastical kingdom under the control of the head of an ecclesiastical empire.

The second horn of the beast I suppose to be the secular popish clergy. As the monks were subject, first to the superiors of their orders, and ultimately to the Pope; so the secular or parochial clergy were subject, first to their respective bishops, and ultimately to the sovereign pontiff. Various preparatory steps were taken towards the erecting of this second ecclesiastical horn or kingdom before the year 606, when the Pope was declared universal Bishop, and whence therefore I date the rise of the second beast or the papal catholic empire. The decrees of the Emperors, and the metropolitan dignity of Rome, gradually conferred upon the Popes an archi-episcopal authority over the western bishops, previous to the time when they were formally declared by Phocas the head of the universal Church. In the eighth century Germany was reduced under the yoke by an English friar named Boniface, whom Gregory the third consecrated Archbishop of Mentz; constituting him at the same time his vicar, with full power to call councils, and to constitute bishops in those places, which were by his assistance converted to the Christian faith. In the first of these councils, Boniface presiding in quality of legate of the Roman chair, the clergy signed a certain confession of faith, whereby they obliged themselves, not only to maintain the catholic faith, but also to remain in constant union with the Roman church, and to be obedient to the successors of St. Peter. "This Boniface," says Puffendorff, was the first, who put it upon the bishops of Germany to receive the episcopal pall from the Pope, who sent it to the bishops of France without their request, thereby to unite them with the Roman chair. And, when once these ornaments were become customary amongst them, they were put upon them afterwards as of absolute necessity; and the episcopal function was forbidden to be

The reader will find a very circumstantial account of the manner in which the Bishops of Rome gradually extended their authority over the West, in Sir Isaac Newton's Observ. on Daniel, chap. viii.