then we behold the rise of the septimo-octave head of the beast: a matter so evident, that a writer, in this respect certainly unprejudiced, was naturally

led

tinction to the Pope, who claimed and was allowed to be the Vicar of Christ in spirituals), “and that jurisdictions are de“rived from him, as from the fountain, calling him dominum "et caput totius orbis" (Mackenzie's Observations on Precedency, Chap. I.). This last matter Sir George naturally enough refuses to allow, though he readily concedes a precedency of rank to the Emperor. His whole treatise may be found in Guillim's Display of Heraldry. See also Mod, Univ. Hist. vol. xlii. p. 80-195.

the Roman beast.

It is not unworthy of notice, that Cardinal Baronius speaks of the coronation of Charlemagne in language, which strongly though undesignedly marks the rise of a new head of "Quod autem ejusmodi translatio imperii "ab Oriente in Occidentem, ubi posthac semper stetit et hac"tenus perseverat, divino consilio facta fuerit magno reipub"licæ Christianæ emolumento, et imperii Orientalis desolatio, "et alia eventa, satis superque demonstrârunt. Nec vero id potuisse convenientius fieri quam per Romanum Pontificem "totius Christianæ religionis antistitem, et summum Ecclesiæ "catholicæ visibile caput, pastoremque universi gregis Chris

tiani; nec decentius quam in Carolum magnum, regem "totius Occidentis potentissimum, eumdemque Christianissi"mum, piissimum, justissimum, fortissimum, doctissimum, de

66

religione Christiana, ecclesia catholica, sede apostolica, "statu publico, semper in omnibus optimè meritum; nec de"nique opportuniori tempore, quàm cum jacerent absque "possessore jura Orientalis Imperii, et periculum immineret "ne caderent in schismaticos principes a fide catholica ex"torres, aut in Christianæ religionis infestissimos hostes Sara"6 cenos, nemo prudens et rerum æquus æstimator non affirma"bit, nec inficias ire poterit, totum id Dei opus fuisse, ejus"que mirabili consilio sapientissimè dispositum." Annal. Eccles. A.D. 800.

led by circumstances to bestow this very title upon Charlemagne. Pointing out the motives, by which the Popes were induced to espouse the cause of the French monarch in preference to that of the Byzantine emperors, he observes, that "the name of "Charlemagne was stained by the polemic acri

mony of his scribes: but the conqueror himself "conformed, with the temper of a statesman, to "the various practice of France and Italy. In his four pilgrimages or visits to the Vatican, he embraced the Popes in the communion of friendship and piety; knelt before the tomb, and con"sequently before the image, of the Apostle; and

66

joined, without scruple in all the prayers and "processions of the Roman liturgy. Would pru"dence or gratitude allow the pontiffs to renounce

their benefactor? Had they a right to alienate

his gift of the exarchate? Had they a power to "abolish his government of Rome? The title of "Patrician was below the merit and greatness of

Charlemagne; and it was only by reviving "the Western empire, that they could pay their "obligations or secure their establishment. By "this decisive measure they would finally eradi"cate the claims of the Greeks: from the debase"ment of a provincial town the majesty of Rome "would be restored: the Latin Christians would "be united under a supreme head in their ancient "metropolis*: and the conquerors of the West "would

Though Charlemagne in a great measure united the Latin Christians under one head, by reigning at the same time in

19

France,

"would receive their crown from the successors of "St. Peter. The Roman church would acquire a "zealous and respectable advocate; and, under "the shadow of the Carlovingian power, the "bishop might exercise, with honour and safety, "the government of the city

To this interpretation of the prophecy respecting the septimo-octave head of the beast, it is possible, that three objections may be urged-First, that it does not accord with my own plan of exposition to suppose, that a king of France should be a head of the beast, because France is one of the ten horns: consequently, in making the patricio-imperial dignity of Charlemagne to be the last head, I

make

he

France, part of Spain, Italy, Germany, and Hungary, yet never made Rome his metropolis; nor can I think with Mr. Gibbon that the Popes ever wished him to do it. Those subtle politicians were too well aware, that the immediate presence of a sovereign prince would grievously impede their schemes of aggrandisement, ever to desire that Rome should behold any other masters than themselves. With the title of Emperor of the Romans they were perfectly satisfied, so long as the Emperor remained at a respectful distance from the seven-hilled city.

*Hist. of Decline and Fall, vol. ix. p 170, 171. Charle magne's devotion to the Papacy appears from this passage in his laws. "In memoriam beati Petri apostoli, honoremus "sanctam Romanam et apostolicam sedem; ut quæ nobis "sacerdotalis mater est dignitatis, esse debeat ecclesiastica magistra rationis. Quare servanda est cum mansuetudine humilitas; ut, licet vix ferendum ab illa sancta sede imponatur jugum, tamen feramus, et pia devotione toleremus." A sentence, says Baronius, worthy of being inscribed in letters of gold! Eccles. Annal. A.D. 801.

make that prince at once both a head and a horn, the very error with which I charge Bp. Newton in the case of the Exarchate-Secondly, that, while I am unwilling to allow the Pope to be the last head on the ground of his temporal supremacy never having been acknowledged by the sovereigns of the Roman empire, I find no difficulty in supposing the Emperor to be this last head, notwithstanding his temporal supremacy, except so far as conceding to him a mere empty precedence, is as little allowed by any of the great powers as that of the Pope himself Thirdly, that the imperial dignity of Charlemagne and his successors even to the present day, is nothing more than a continuation of the sixth head; and therefore that it cannot be esteemed a new and distinct head-These three objections shall be answered in their order.

1. It is undoubtedly true, that I denied the possibility of the Exarchate being typified both by a head and a horn of the same beast: but I denied it on this account, and I see no reason to retract my opinion in the case of that government, the same power is represented by Bp. Newton, as being, in the selfsame capacity, both a head and a horn of the Roman beast, which is a manifest unnecessary repetition: whereas Charlemagne was not both a head and a horn, in the same capacity; but, like all his successors, in two entirely different capacities. As king of France, he was a horn of the beast; as emperor of the Romans, he was its

last

last head*. It is evident indeed, that, since the septimo-octave head was to spring up when the empire was in a divided state, there would be, as it were, no room for it among the ten horns, unless it were, although a distinct thing itself, in some manner attached to one of them. Accordingly the Carlovingian imperial dignity, although generally attached to one of the ten horns, is yet so perfectly distinct from them all, that the French successors of Charlemagne continued to be kings of France when they ceased to be Emperors of the Romans; and the imperial dignity itself was afterwards sometimes borne by one family and sometimes by another, each however, so long as it enjoyed it, claiming and being allowed precedence†. Hence it ap

pears,

*The Pope might undoubtedly have been a horn of the beast in his ecclesiastical capacity, and a head in his temporal, if he had ever been, what Bp. Newton styles him, a king of kings as well as a bishop of bishops: but this, as I have already shewn from history, he never was; and yet this is the only way, in which it is possible for him to be the last head as well as the little horn. Mr. Mede's language is very inaccurate. He represents the little horn as being absolutely the same as the last head—“ the "Anti-christian horn with eyes and mouth; that is, qui, cum revera cornu tantum sit, pro capite tamen scse gerit, cujus est proprium os et oculos habere." Works, B. iv. Epis. 24. The imperial title lately assumed by General Buonapartè, even supposing it to be something different from the regal title, no more affects the present scheme of interpretation, than the division of the Old Roman empire into its eastern and western branches does the universally acknowledged opinion that the sixth head is the ancient imperial dignity. The present title however of that usurper is manifestly no more than that of king. Whatever he may please to style himself, France is still