按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
Omnipotence； would hurl them into hell unless they repented。
No man in Europe at the time had a more lively and impressive sense
of the necessity of a general reformation than the monk of St。
Mark； but it was a reform in morals； not of doctrine。 He saw the
evils of the dayyea； of the Church itselfwith perfect
clearness； and demanded redress。 He is as sad in view of these
acknowledged evils as Jeremiah was in view of the apostasy of the
Jews； he is as austere in his own life as Elijah or John the
Baptist was。 He would not abolish monastic institutions； but he
would reform the lives of the monks；cure them of gluttony and
sensuality； not shut up their monasteries。 He would not rebel
against the authority of the Pope； for even Savonarola believed
that prelate to be the successor of Saint Peter； but he would
prevent the Pope's nepotism and luxury and worldly spirit；make
him once more a true 〃servant of the servants of God；〃 even when
clothed with the insignia of universal authority。 He would not
give up auricular confession； or masses for the dead； or prayers to
the Virgin Mary； for these were indorsed by venerated ages； but he
would rebuke a priest if found in unseemly places。 Whatever was a
sin； when measured by the laws of immutable morality； he would
denounce； whoever was guilty of it； whatever would elevate the
public morals he would advocate； whoever opposed。 His morality was
measured by the declaration of Christ and the Apostles； not by the
standard of a corrupt age。 He revered the Scriptures； and
incessantly pondered them； and exalted their authority； holding
them to be the ultimate rule of holy living； the everlasting
handbook of travellers to the heavenly Jerusalem。 In all respects
he was a good man；a beautiful type of Christian piety； with fewer
faults than Luther or Calvin had； and as great an enemy as they to
corruptions in State and Church； which he denounced even more
fiercely and passionately。 Not even Erasmus pointed out the vices
of the day with more freedom or earnestness。 He covered up
nothing； he shut his eyes to nothing。
The difference between Savonarola and Luther was that the Saxon
reformer attacked the root of the corruption； not merely outward
and tangible and patent sins which everybody knew； but also and
more earnestly the special principles of theology and morals which
sustained them； and which logically pushed out would necessarily
have produced them。 For instance； he not merely attacked
indulgences； then a crying evil； as peddled by Tetzel and others
like him； for collecting money to support the temporal power of the
popes or build St。 Peter's church； but he would show that penance；
on which indulgences are based； is antagonistic to the doctrine
which Paul so forcibly expounded respecting the forgiveness of sins
and the grounds of justification。 And Luther saw that all the
evils which good men lamented would continue so long as the false
principles from which they logically sprung were the creed of the
Church。 So he directed his giant energies to reform doctrines
rather than morals。 His great idea of justification could be
defended only by an appeal to the Scriptures； not to the authority
of councils and learned men。 So he made the Scriptures the sole
source of theological doctrine。 Savonarola also accepted the
Scriptures； but Luther would put them in the hands of everybody； of
peasants even；and thus instituted private judgment； which is the
basal pillar of Protestantism。 The Catholic theologians never
recognized this right in the sense that Luther understood it； and
to which he was pushed by inexorable logic。 The Church was to
remain the interpreter of the doctrinal and disputed points of the
Scriptures。
Savonarola was a churchman。 He was not a fearless theological
doctor； going wherever logic and the Bible carried him。 Hence； he
did not stimulate thought and inquiry as Luther did； nor inaugurate
a great revolutionary movement； which would gradually undermine
papal authority and many institutions which the Catholic Church
indorsed。 Had he been a great genius； with his progressive
proclivities； he might have headed a rebellion against papal
authority； which upheld doctrines that logically supported the very
evils he denounced。 But he was contented to lop off branches； he
did not dig up the roots。 Luther went to the roots； as Calvin did；
as Saint Augustine would have done had there been a necessity in
his day； for the theology of Saint Augustine and Calvin is
essentially the same。 It was from Saint Augustine that Calvin drew
his inspiration next after Saint Paul。 But Savonarola cared very
little for the discussion of doctrines； he probably hated all
theological speculations； all metaphysical divinity。 Yet there is
a closer resemblance between doctrines and morals than most people
are aware of。 As a man thinketh； so is he。 Hence； the reforms of
Savonarola were temporary； and were not widely extended； for he did
not kindle the intelligence of the age； as did Luther and those
associated with him。 There can be no great and listing reform
without an appeal to reason； without the assistance of logic；
without conviction。 The house that had been swept and garnished
was re…entered by devils； and the last state was worse than the
first。 To have effected a radical and lasting reform； Savonarola
should have gone deeper。 He should have exposed the foundations on
which the superstructure of sin was built； he should have
undermined them； and appealed to the reason of the world。 He did
no such thing。 He simply rebuked the evils； which must needs be；
so long as the root of them is left untouched。 And so long as his
influence remained； so long as his voice was listened to； he was
mighty in the reforms at which he aimed；a reformation of the
morals of those to whom he preached。 But when his voice was
hushed； the evils he detested returned； since he had not created
those convictions which bind men together in association； he had
not fanned that spirit of inquiry which is hostile to
ecclesiastical despotism； and which； logically projected； would
subvert the papal throne。 The reformation of Luther was a grand
protest against spiritual tyranny。 It not only aimed at a purer
life； but it opposed the bondage of the Middle Ages； and all the
superstitious and puerilities and fables which were born and
nurtured in that dark and gloomy period and to which the clergy
clung as a means of power or wealth。 Luther called out the
intellect of Germany； exalted liberty of conscience； and appealed
to the dignity of reason。 He showed the necessity of learning； in
order to unravel and explain the truths of revelation。 He made
piety more exalted by giving it an intelligent stimulus。 He looked
to the future rather than the past。 He would make use； in his
interpretation of the Bible； of all that literature； science； and
art could contribute。 Hence his writings had a wider in