in the same capacity; each exercising all the power of the first beast before him, each being a false seer or prophet, and each perishing in one common destruction with the first or secular beast.*

I. The second beast sprung up out of the earth, and is described as being another beast perfectly distinct from the first-In the language of the Apocalypse, the earth denotes the Roman Empire:† the spiritual power therefore, symbolized by the beast, must be sought for within the limits of that empire. There accordingly we find the eclesiastical empire of the Pope. The sixth head of the temporal beast long claimed and exercised supremacy over the Church: but, in the year 606, the tyrant Phocas constituted Pope Boniface supreme head in spirituals, and bestowed upon him the title of Universal Bishop. In this year then the second beast, or the universal empire of the Pope, arose out of the earth: and it has ever been the policy of its ruler to separate it from the temporal empire, to keep it perfectly distinct as an imperium in imperio, and never suffer it to lose its prophetic character of "another beast." To cite history for the purpose of proving so well known a fact seems almost superfluous, nevertheless I cannot refrain from noticing a single incident which amply explains the nature of this policy of the Popes.

Compare Dan. vii. 8, 11, 21, 25, 26. with Rev. xiii. 5, 7, 12, 15, 16, 17. and xix. 20.

+ Mr. Mede and Bp. Newton suppose, that the beast rising out of the earth means, that the power typified by the beast should grow up like a plant silently and without noise, intimating further that "the greatest prelates have often been raised from monks and men of the lowest birth and parentage." Mr. Whitaker and Dr. Zouch, confining without any just warrant the character of the beast to the monastic_orders, think that the phrase implies his rise in the East; and Mr. Whitaker adds, that it may partly allude to the rise of those orders in times of peace and prosperity. Both these interpretations seem to me to be needless, not to say unauthorised, refinements. Since the earth throughout the whole Apocalypse means the Roman empire, and no where more decidedly so than in the present chapter, what occasion is there to annex to it here a fresh idea? The prophet had just before declared, that the whole earth wondered after the great Roman beast, and that all that dwell upon the earth should worship him; (Rev. xiii. 3, 8.) and he now proceeds to inform us, that he beheld another beast coming up out of the earth, (Rev. xiii. 11.) teaching us afterwards that this other beast should deceive those that dwelt on the earth. (Rev. xiii. 14.) Now it is only reasonable to suppose, that what the word earth means in one part of a chapter, it should mean in another. Since then the earth which wondered after the Roman beast can only mean those who dwelt upon that earth, and since those who dwelt upon the earth can only mean the inhabitants of the Roman Empire; we must surely conclude, that, when beast is said to come up out of this very earth, the Roman empire is here likewise intended.

When Edward the first of England wished to impose a tax upon the Clergy, "Boniface the eighth, who had succeeded Celestine in the papal throne, was determined to resume the authority, which had been for some time relaxed by his predecessors, and to become the protector of the spiritual order, against all invaders. For this purpose he issued very early in his pontificate a general bull, prohibiting all princes from levying without his consent any taxes upon the clergy, and all clergymen from submitting to such impositions; and he threatened both of them with the penalties of excommunication in case of disobedience. No sooner therefore had the king made his demand on the clergy of the fifth of their moveables, than they intrenched themselves under the bull of Pope Boniface, and pleaded conscience in refusing to comply with the requisition. Edward avoided proceeding immediately to extremities on this account; but, having given orders to lock up all their granaries and barns, and prohibited all rent to be paid to them, he appointed a new synod to confer with him upon his demand. The primate, not intimidated by Edward's resolution, plainly told him, that the clergy owed obedience to two sovereigns, their spiritual and their temporal; but their duty bound them to a much stricter attachment to the former than to the latter: they could not therefore comply with his commands, which were directly contrary to the positive prohibition of the sovereign pontiff."* The subsequent steps taken by Edward to inforce obedience it is needless here to detail : enough has been said to shew in what manner the second beast which sprung out of the earth, was "another beast.”

2. He had two horns like a lamb-As the secular beast is represented with seven heads and ten horns, so the ecclesiastical beast appears with only one head and two horns. Now, since we have already seen, that the secular beast under his last head is the divided Roman empire under the line of Carlovingian emperors; the ecclesiastical beast under his single head, who has co-existed and co-operated with the secular beast, must necessarily be the corrupt

• Mod. Univ. Hist. Vol. xxxix. p. 205, 206.

church of Rome under the line of those pretended univers sal 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.