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！
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 influence
than could be produced by the fascination of personal eloquence； on
which Savonarola relied； but which Luther made only accessory。
Again； the sermons of the Florentine reformer do not impress us as
they did those to whom they were addressed。 They are not logical；
nor doctrinal； nor learned；not rich in thought； like the sermons
of those divines whom the Reformation produced。 They are vehement
denunciations of sin； are eloquent appeals to the heart； to
religious fears and hopes。 He would indeed create faith in the
world； not by the dissertations of Paul； but by the agonies of the
dying Christ。 He does not instruct； he does not reason。 He is
dogmatic and practical。 He is too earnest to be metaphysical； or
even theological。 He takes it for granted that his hearers know
all the truths necessary for salvation。 He enforces the truths
with which they are familiar； not those to be developed by reason
and learning。 He appeals； he urges； he threatens； he even
prophesies； he dwells on divine wrath and judgment。 He is an
Isaiah foretelling what will happen； rather than a Peter at the Day
of Pentecost。
Savonarola was transcendent in his oratorical gifts； the like of
which has never before nor since been witnessed in Italy。 He was a
born orator； as vehement as Demosthenes； as passionate as
Chrysostom； as electrical as Bernard。 Nothing could withstand him；
he was a torrent that bore everything before him。 His voice was
musical； his attitude commanding； his gestures superb。 He was all
alive with his subject。 He was terribly in earnest； as if he
believed everything he said； and that what he said were most
momentous truths。 He fastened his burning eyes upon his hearers；
who listened with breathless attention； and inspired them with his
sentiments； he made them feel that they were in the very jaws of
destruction； and that there was no hope but in immediate
repentance。 His whole frame quivered with emotion； and he sat down
utterly exhausted。 His language was intense； not clothing new
thoughts； but riveting old ideas；the ideas of the Middle Ages；
the fear of hell； the judgments of Almighty God。 Who could resist
such fiery earnestness； such a convulsed frame； such quivering
tones； such burning eyes； such dreadful threatenings； such awful
appeals？ He was not artistic in the use of words and phrases like
Bourdaloue； but he reached the conscience and the heart like
Whitefield。 He never sought to amuse； he would not stoop to any
trifling。 He told no stories； he made no witticisms； he used no
tricks。 He fell back on truths； no matter whether his hearers
relished them or not； no matter whether they were amused or not。
He was the messenger of God urging men to flee as for their lives；
like Lot when he escaped from Sodom。
Savonarola's manner was as effective as his matter。 He was a kind
of Peter the Hermit； preaching a crusade； arousing emotions and
passions； and making everybody feel as he felt。 It was life more
than thought which marked his eloquence；his voice as well as his
ideas； his wonderful electricity； which every preacher must have；
or he preaches to stones。 It was himself； even more than his
truths； which made people listen； admire； and quake。 All real
orators impress themselvestheir own individualityon their
auditors。 They are not actors； who represent other people； and
whom we admire in proportion to their artistic skill in producing
deception。 These artists excite admiration； make us forget where
we are and what we are； but kindle no permanent emotions； and teach
no abiding lessons。 The eloquent preacher of momentous truths and
interests makes us realize them； in proportion as he feels them
himself。 They would fall dead upon us； if ever so grand； unless
intensified by passion； fervor； sincerity； earnestness。 Even a
voice has power； when electrical； musical； impassioned； alth