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