Luther, with palpable exaggeration, lays the charge at the door of
theology as a whole, even of the earlier school, and would have us
believe that the abuse was inseparable from ecclesiastical science.
He speaks to this effect more and more forcibly during the course
of his controversies. Thus in 1530 he says of the Scholastics, that
they “despised Holy Scripture.” “What! they exclaimed, the Bible?
Why, the Bible is a heretic’s book, and you need only read the
Doctors to find that out. I know that I am not lying in saying this,
for I grew up amongst them and saw and heard all about them.” And
so they had arrived at doctrines about which one must ask: “Is this
the way to honour Christ’s blood and death?” Everything was full of
“idle doctrines which did not agree among themselves, and strange
new opinions.”[317] Occam, he declares in his Table-Talk in 1540,
“excelled them all in genius and has confuted all the other schools,
but even he said and wrote in so many words that it could not be
proved from Scripture that the Holy Ghost is necessary for a good
work.”[318] “These people had intelligence, had time for work and had
grown grey in study, but about Christ they understood nothing, because
they esteemed Holy Scripture lightly. No one read the Bible so as to
steep himself in its contents with reflection, it was only treated
like a history book.[319]
It is true that the scholastic treatment of the doctrines of faith, as
advocated by Occam against the more positive school, disregarded Holy
Scripture to such an extent that, in the master’s subtle Commentaries,
it hardly finds any place; even in the treatment of the supernatural
virtues—faith, hope and charity—Scripture scarcely intervenes.[320]
But it was unjust of Luther, on this account, to speak of the
Schoolmen’s contempt for the Bible, or to say, for instance in his
Table-Talk, about his master, Gabriel Biel, whose Commentary on the
Sentences had become, so to speak, a hand-book: “The authority of
the Bible counted for nothing with Gabriel.”[321] Biel esteemed and
utilised the Bible as the true Word of God, but he did not satisfy
young Luther, who desiderated in him much more of the Bible and a
little less of philosophy. The “word,” he declares, was not cherished
by the priests, and this he had already shown in his Leitzkau
discourse to be the reason of all the corruption.[322]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account