But the Prior of St. Mark did not confine himself to constitutional questions and issues alone.  He would remove all political abuses; he would tax property, and put an end to forced loans and arbitrary imposts; he would bring about a general pacification, and grant a general amnesty for political offences; he would guard against the extortions of the rich, and the usury of the Jews, who lent money at thirty-three per cent, with compound interest; he secured the establishment of a bank for charitable loans; he sought to make the people good citizens, and to advance their temporal as well as spiritual interests.  All his reforms, political or social, were advocated, however, from the pulpit; so that he was doubtless a political priest.  We, in this country and in these times, have no very great liking to this union of spiritual and temporal authority:  we would separate and divide this authority.  Protestants would make the functions of the ruler and the priest forever distinct.  But at that time the popes themselves were secular rulers, as well as spiritual dignitaries.  All bishops and abbots had the charge of political interests.  Courts of law were presided over by priests.  Priests were ambassadors to foreign powers; they were ministers of kings; they had the control of innumerable secular affairs, now intrusted to laymen.  So their interference with politics did not shock the people of Florence, or the opinions of the age.  It was indeed imperatively called for, since the clergy were the most learned and influential men of those times, even in affairs of state.  I doubt if the Catholic Church has ever abrogated or ignored her old right to meddle in the politics of a state or nation.  I do not know, but apprehend, that the Catholic clergy even in this country take it upon themselves to instruct the people in their political duties.  No enlightened Protestant congregation would endure this interference.  No Protestant minister dares ever to discuss direct political issues from the pulpit, except perhaps on Thanksgiving Day, or in some rare exigency in public affairs.  Still less would he venture to tell his parishioners how they should vote in town-meetings.  In imitation of ancient saints and apostles, he is wisely constrained from interference in secular and political affairs.  But in the Middle Ages, and the Catholic Church, the priest could be political in his preaching, since many of his duties were secular.  Savonarola usurped no prerogatives.  He refrained from meeting men in secular vocations.  Even in his politics he confined himself to his sphere in the pulpit.  He did not attend the public debates; he simply preached.  He ruled by wisdom, eloquence, and sanctity; and as he was an oracle, his utterances became a law.