« السابقةمتابعة »
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. Nuw 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 trvo regularly orgunized 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 disci“ pline : and the Anachorets, who indulged their “ unsocial, independent, fanaticism." And Mr. Whitaker adds, that in a later age the papal ailVol. II,
thority was more especially supp dicant orders of monks, the Dom ciscans~ This opinion seems to tenable for various reasonsarose in the East about the yeai passed into the West.
The beast however, or the catholice did not spring up out of the eart Consequently the original twofo monks in the East cannot make of a beast, which sprung up, loi sion, in the West-But it may though their extraction be ori inconsistency in supposing that wards become horns of the bea. extended themselves westward erted themselves in support of th: Here then another objection i readily allow, that the characte perfectly answers to the charact tical horn or kingdom. They w ganized body of men, bound by subject first to their superior ( through him to the Pope. But I of the characteristics of a horn These, so far from being unite government and from professir superior, « renounced the cor “ renounced the world;" and, deepest solitudes of the desert f of men, “indulged their uns “ fanaticism.” Such being th
chorets 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 conspi cuous 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 benst 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
“ orders and religious societies have always been • considered by the Roman pontiffs as the prin“ cipal 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 vo“ taries *.” 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 fra“ ternities governed, with an almost universal “ and absolute sway, both church and state; s filled the most eminent posts ecclesiastical and “ civil; taught in the universities and churches “ with an authority, before which all opposition “ was silent; and maintained the pretended ma
jesty of the Roman pontiffs against kings, prin
ces, bishops, and heretics, with incredible ardor " 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 "s both in the religious and political world t."
Mostieim's Eccles. Ilist. voi. iv. p. 184.