The scale was now effectually turned against the reformer. He was apprehended with mob-like violence, condemned by a cruel and arbitrary process, during which he was several times put to the torture, hanged upon a cross-shaped gibbet with two devoted adherents of his order (May 23, 1498), and burned. The ashes of the martyrs were cast into the Arno.

Savonarola died convinced of the righteousness of his cause. The excruciating pains of torture may have wrung from him some half-involuntary expressions which might be construed into a confession of error respecting his prophetical vocation. But he meant at heart no such confession, as he himself declared more than once when he was freed from the torments. The final ordeal was met by him with quiet heroism. The feeling with which he looked toward the shameful death is indicated by his own words. "My Lord," he said, "was willing to die for my sins; should not I be willing from love to Him to surrender this poor life?"

As powerfully emphasizing the need of reform, and stirring up thought in that direction, Savonarola may be numbered among the forerunners of the Protestant Reformation. It should be understood, however, that we find with him no distinct anticipation of the Protestant creed. He accepted the whole list of Roman Catholic dogmas which claimed general assent in his time. He revered even the prerogatives of the Roman pontiff, only claiming the right to appeal from a pope who, like Alexander VI., had been virtually discrowned by his iniquities. His affiliation with Protestantism was in spirit rather than in formal belief, and appears

especially in his attachment to the Scriptures, and his disposition to appeal directly to the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

to me.

Whatever errors of judgment he may be charged with, one cannot fail to recognize in Savonarola a man of rare piety and exemplary singleness of purpose. We are sure that we are presented with the genuine expressions of a deep and sincere heart, when we read such lofty sentiments from his pen as the following: "I will endure all things for the sake of that redeeming love which makes all other things sweet and pleasant This is sufficient for me, and fills up all my desires. This is my exceeding great reward." "Thou, Lord, art my supreme good, without admixture of evil; Thou art my joy without sorrow, my strength without weakness, my essential truth without error; Thou, Lord, art my all in all. Thou kindlest the affections into love, and canst beatify all the powers of the mind and the heart." "Behold, O my God, how great are Thy mercies! Time would be insufficient to enumerate them. No man can glory in himself. Let all the just in heaven and earth stand forth, that in Thy presence we may interrogate them, if it be by their own merits they have been deemed worthy to obtain salvation; assuredly will they all respond, Not unto us, but to Thy name, give glory for Thy mercy and Thy truth.""

Though condemned by the Pope in terms of strong denunciation, Savonarola has by no means been regarded with universal disfavor in the Roman Catholic Church. The publication of his writings was only temporarily estopped by Alexander VI. The Congregation of the

Index, which examined them in 1558, took but little exception to them. Not a few have been willing to grant the saintship of Savonarola. Even a Pope (Benedict XIV.) is said to have allowed that he was worthy of canonization.

THE

CHAPTER IX.

THE MEDIEVAL GREEK CHURCH.

HE more important events in the history of the Greek Church, after the close of the iconoclastic controversy, grew out of its relation to the imperial government. Schemes and projects of the Emperor gave rise to the principal agitations that occurred. It will be fitting, therefore, to take a glance at the fortunes of the Eastern Empire before directing our attention to ecclesiastical affairs.

A little more than a score of years from the close of the iconoclastic controversy, a distinguished dynasty came to the throne at Constantinople. The founder was Basilius I., whose deed of blood put aside the unworthy Michael III. The Basilian dynasty ruled for nearly two centuries (867–1057). During this time the Empire attained an unusual degree of prosperity. The wave of Mohammedan invasion was turned back, and encroachments from other directions were successfully repelled. "Antioch and Edessa were reunited to the Empire. The Bulgarian monarchy was conquered, and the Danube became again the northern frontier. The Slavonians in Greece were almost exterminated. Byzantine commerce filled the whole Mediterranean, and legitimated the claim of the Emperor to the title of

Autocrat of the Mediterranean Sea.'" This prosperity, however, was not without its offset. Under the Basilian line the government became, even more than in the preceding centuries, concentrated in the sovereign. Responsibility to the State was merged in responsibility to the Emperor, and self-respecting officials gave way very largely to the subservient creatures of an autocratic will.2

Following the Basilian line, we have a period reaching down to the conquest of Constantinople by the crusaders (1057-1204). During this period the house of Comnenus was in power. It is commonly characterized as a time of decline. The loyalty of the more distant provinces waned. Byzantine society in general was depressed by grievous burdens of taxation. That reserve power which belongs to a healthy moral tone was largely wanting, and tended to diminish more and more under the corrupting example of the court. Thus it came about that some twenty thousand crusaders were able to take possession of the throne at Constantinople, and that the domination of the Latin intruders was endured for upwards of half a century.

During the period of Latin rule the Empire was dismembered into a number of sections. Aside from Constantinople, Trebizond and Nicæa claimed each to have the true heir to the throne, and to be the seat of imperial sovereignty. The last city in the end verified its title. On the downfall of the Latin power, the sceptre was transferred from Nicæa to Constantinople by Michael

1 George Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire.

2 G. F. Hertzberg, Geschichte der Byzantiner und des Osmanischen Reiches.