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

day--yea, of the Church itself--with 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 supposed

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 those

false 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, and all to get 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 lasting 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 superstitions 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 themselves--their

own individuality--on 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, although it may utter platitudes. But

when the impassioned voice rings with trumpet notes through a vast

audience, appealing to what is dearest to the human soul, lifting the

mind to the contemplation of the sublimest truths and most momentous

interests, then there is _real_ eloquence, such as is never heard in the

theatre, interested as spectators may be in the triumphs of

dramatic art.

But I have dwelt too long on the characteristics of that eloquence which

produced such a great effect on the people of Florence in the latter

part of the fifteenth century. That ardent, intense, and lofty monk,

world-deep like Dante, not world-wide like Shakspeare, Who filled the

cathedral church with eager listeners, was not destined to uninterrupted

triumphs. His career was short; he could not even retain his influence.

As the English people wearied of the yoke of a Puritan Protector, and

hankered for their old pleasures, so the Florentines remembered the

sports and spectacles and _fêtes_ of the old Medicean rule. Savonarola

had arrayed against himself the enemies of popular liberty, the patrons

of demoralizing excitements, the partisans of the banished Medici, and

even the friends and counsellors of the Pope. The dreadful denunciation

of sin in high places was as offensive to the Pope as the exposure of a

tyrannical usurpation was to the family of the old lords of Florence;

and his enemies took counsel together, and schemed for his overthrow. If

the irritating questions and mockeries of Socrates could not be endured

at Athens, how could the bitter invectives and denunciations of

Savonarola find favor at Florence? The fate of prophets is to be stoned.

Martyrdom and persecution, in some form or other, are as inevitable to

the man who sails against the stream, as a broken constitution and a

diseased body are to a sensualist, a glutton, or a drunkard. Impatience

under rebuke is as certain as the operation of natural law.

The bitterest and most powerful enemy of the Prior of St. Mark was the

Pope himself,--Alexander VI., of the infamous family of the

Borgias,--since his private vices were exposed, and by one whose order

had been especially devoted to the papal empire. In the eyes of the

wicked Pope, the Florentine reformer was a traitor and conspirator,

disloyal and dangerous. At first he wished to silence him by soft and

deceitful letters and tempting bribes, offering to him a cardinal's hat,

and inviting him to Rome. But Savonarola refused alike the bribe and the

invitation. His Lenten sermons became more violent and daring. "If I

have preached and written anything heretical," said this intrepid monk,

"I am willing to make a public recantation. I have always shown

obedience to my church; but it is my duty to obey God rather than man."

This sounds like Luther at the Diet of Worms; but he was more

defenceless than Luther, since the Saxon reformer was protected by

powerful princes, and was backed by the enthusiasm of Northern Germans.

Yet the Florentine preacher boldly continued his attacks on all

hypocritical religion, and on the vices of Rome, not as incidental to

the system, but extraneous,--the faults of a man or age. The Pope became

furious, to be thus balked by a Dominican monk, and in one of the cities

of Italy,--a city that had not rebelled against his authority. He

complained bitterly to the Florentine ambassador, of the haughty friar

who rebuked and defied him. He summoned a consistory of fourteen eminent

Dominican theologians, to inquire into his conduct and opinions, and

issued a brief forbidding him to preach, under penalty of

excommunication. Yet Savonarola continued to preach, and more violently

than ever. He renewed his charges against Rome. He even called her a

harlot Church, against whom heaven and earth, angels and devils, equally

brought charges. The Pope then seized the old thunderbolts of the

Gregories and the Clements, and excommunicated the daring monk and

preacher, and threatened the like punishment on all who should befriend

him. And yet Savonarola continued to preach. All Rome and Italy talked

of the audacity of the man. And it was not until Florence itself was

threatened with an interdict for shielding such a man, that the

magistrates of the city were compelled to forbid his preaching.

The great orator mounted his pulpit March 18, 1498, now four hundred

years ago, and took an affectionate farewell of the people whom he had

led, and appealed to Christ himself as the head of the Church. It was

not till the preacher was silenced by the magistrates of his own city,

that he seems to have rebelled against the papal authority; and then not

so much against the authority of Rome as against the wicked shepherd

himself, who had usurped the fold. He now writes letters to all the

prominent kings and princes of Europe, to assemble a general council;

for the general council of Constance had passed a resolution that the

Pope must call a general council every ten years, and that, should he

neglect to assemble it, the sovereign powers of the various states and

empires were themselves empowered to collect the scattered members of

the universal Church, to deliberate on its affairs. In his letters to

the kings of France, England, Spain, and Hungary, and the Emperor of

Germany, he denounced the Pope as simoniacal, as guilty of all the

vices, as a disgrace to the station which he held. These letters seem to

have been directed against the man, not against the system. He aimed at

the Pope's ejectment from office, rather than at the subversion of the

office itself,--another mark of the difference between Savonarola and

Luther, since the latter waged an uncompromising war against Rome

herself, against the whole _régime_ and government and institutions and

dogmas of the Catholic Church; and that is the reason why Catholics

hate Luther so bitterly, and deny to him either virtues or graces, and

represent even his deathbed as a scene of torment and despair,--an

instance of that pursuing hatred which goes beyond the grave; like that

of the zealots of the Revolution in France, who dug up the bones of the

ancient kings from those vaults where they had reposed for centuries,

and scattered their ashes to the winds.

Savonarola hoped the Christian world would come to his rescue; but his

letters were intercepted, and reached the eye of Alexander VI., who now

bent the whole force of the papal empire to destroy that bold reformer

who had assailed his throne. And it seems that a change took place in

Florence itself in popular sentiment. The Medicean party obtained the

ascendency in the government. The people--the fickle people--began to

desert Savonarola; and especially when he refused to undergo the ordeal

of fire,--one of the relics of Mediaeval superstition,--the people felt

that they had been cheated out of their amusement, for they had waited

impatiently the whole day in the public square to see the spectacle. He

finally consented to undergo the ordeal, provided he might carry the

crucifix. To this his enemies would not consent. He then laid aside the

crucifix, but insisted on entering the fire with the sacrament in his

hand. His persecutors would not allow this either, and the ordeal did

not take place.

At last his martyrdom approaches: he is led to prison. The magistrates

of the city send to Rome for absolution for having allowed the Prior to

preach. His enemies busy themselves in collecting evidence against

him,--for what I know not, except that he had denounced corruption and

sin, and had predicted woe. His two friends are imprisoned and

interrogated with him, Fra Domenico da Pescia and Fra Silvestro Maruffi,

who are willing to die for him. He and they are now subjected to most

cruel tortures. As the result of bodily agony his mind begins to waver.

His answers are incoherent; he implores his tormentors to end his

agonies; he cries out, with a voice enough to melt a heart of stone,

"Take, oh, take my life!" Yet he confessed nothing to criminate himself.

What they wished him especially to confess was that he had pretended to

be a prophet, since he had predicted calamities. But all men are

prophets, in one sense, when they declare the certain penalties of sin,

from which no one can escape, though he take the wings of the morning

and fly to the uttermost parts of the sea.

Savonarola thus far had remained firm, but renewed examinations and

fresh tortures took place. For a whole month his torments were

continuous. In one day he was drawn up by a rope fourteen times, and

then suddenly dropped, until all his muscles quivered with anguish. Had

he been surrounded by loving disciples, like Latimer at the burning

pile, he might have summoned more strength; but alone, in a dark

inquisitorial prison, subjected to increasing torture among bitter foes,

he did not fully defend his visions and prophecies; and then his

extorted confessions were diabolically altered. But that was all they

could get out of him,--that he had prophesied. In all matters of faith

he was sound. The inquisitors were obliged to bring their examination to

an end. They could find no fault with him, and yet they were determined

on his death. The Government of Florence consented to it and hastened

it, for a Medici again held the highest office of the State.

Nothing remained to the imprisoned and tortured friar but to prepare for

his execution. In his supreme trial he turned to the God in whom he

believed. In the words of the dying Xavier, on the Island of Sancian, he

exclaimed, _In te domine speravi, non confundar in eternum_. "O Lord,"

he prays, "a thousand times hast thou wiped out my iniquity. I do not

rely on my own justification, but on thy mercy." His few remaining days

in prison were passed in holy meditation.

At last the officers of the papal commission arrive. The tortures are

renewed, and also the examinations, with the same result. No fault could

be found with his doctrines. "But a dead enemy," said they, "fights no

more." He is condemned to execution. The messengers of death arrive at

his cell, and find him on his knees. He is overpowered by his sufferings

and vigils, and can with difficulty be kept from sleep. But he arouses

himself, and passes the night in prayer, and administers the elements of

redemption to his doomed companions, and closes with this prayer: "Lord,

I know thou art that perfect Trinity,--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; I

know that thou art the eternal Word; that thou didst descend from heaven

into the bosom of Mary; that thou didst ascend upon the cross to shed

thy blood for our sins. I pray thee that by that blood I may have

remission for my sins." The simple faith of Paul, of Augustine, of

Pascal! He then partook of the communion, and descended to the public

square, while the crowd gazed silently and with trepidation, and was led

with his companions to the first tribunal, where he was disrobed of his

ecclesiastical dress. Then they were led to another tribunal, and

delivered to the secular arm; then to another, where sentence of death

was read; and then to the place of execution,--not a burning funeral

pyre, but a scaffold, which mounting, composed, calm, absorbed,

Savonarola submitted his neck to the hangman, in the forty-fifth year of

his life: a martyr to the cause of Christ, not for an attack on the

Church, or its doctrines, or its institutions, but for having denounced

the corruption and vices of those who ruled it,--for having preached

against sin.

Thus died one of the greatest and best men of his age, one of the truest

and purest whom the Catholic Church has produced in any age. He was

stern, uncompromising, austere, but a reformer and a saint; a man who

was merciful and generous in the possession of power; an enlightened

statesman, a sound theologian, and a fearless preacher of that

righteousness which exalteth a nation. He had no vices, no striking

defects. He lived according to the rules of the convent he governed with

the same wisdom that he governed a city, and he died in the faith of the

primitive apostles. His piety was monastic, but his spirit was

progressive, sympathizing with liberty, advocating public morality. He

was unselfish, disinterested, and true to his Church, his conscience,

and his cause,--a noble specimen both of a man and Christian, whose

deeds and example form part of the inheritance of an admiring posterity.

We pity his closing days, after such a career of power and influence;

but we may as well compassionate Socrates or Paul. The greatest lights

of the world have gone out in martyrdom, to be extinguished, however,

only for a time, and then to loom up again in another age, and burn with

inextinguishable brightness to remotest generations, as examples of the

power of faith and truth in this wicked and rebellious world,--a world

to be finally redeemed by the labors and religion of just such men,

whose days are days of sadness, protest, and suffering, and whose hours

of triumph and exaltation are not like those of conquerors, nor like

those whose eyes stand out with fatness, but few and far between. "I

have loved righteousness, I have hated iniquity," said the great

champion of the Mediaeval Church, "and therefore I die in exile."

In ten years after this ignominious execution, Raphael painted the

martyr among the sainted doctors of the Church in the halls of the

Vatican, and future popes did justice to his memory, for he inaugurated

that reform movement in the Catholic Church itself which took place

within fifty years after his death. In one sense he was the precursor of

Loyola, of Xavier, and of Aquaviva,--those illustrious men who headed

the counter-reformation; Jesuits, indeed, but ardent in piety, and

enlightened by the spirit of a progressive age. "He was the first," says

Villari, "in the fifteenth century, to make men feel that a new light

had awakened the human race; and thus he was a prophet of a new

civilization,--the forerunner of Luther, of Bacon, of Descartes. Hence

the drama of his life became, after his death, the drama of Europe. In

the course of a single generation after Luther had declared his mission,

the spirit of the Church of Rome underwent a change. From the halls of

the Vatican to the secluded hermitages of the Apennines this revival was

felt. Instead of a Borgia there reigned a Caraffa." And it is remarkable

that from the day that the counter-reformation in the Catholic Church

was headed by the early Jesuits, Protestantism gained no new victories,

and in two centuries so far declined in piety and zeal that the cities

which witnessed the noblest triumphs of Luther and Calvin were disgraced

by a boasting rationalism, to be succeeded again in our times by an

arrogance of scepticism which has had no parallel since the days of

Democritus and Lucretius. "It was the desire of Savonarola that reason,

religion, and liberty might meet in harmonious union, but he did not

think a new system of religious doctrines was necessary."

Beacon Lights of History, Volume 06: Renaissance and Reformation · 第 8 / 24 段