Estimate of Wickliff's Character. 465 It is easy to believe that he would be regarded by the Romanists as the personification of all that is evil. Thus Walsingham describes his death in the following terms: "On the day of St Thomas the Martyr, Archbishop of Canterbury, that organ of the devil, that enemy of the Church, that confusion of the populace, that idol of heretics, that mirror of hypocrites, that instigator of schism, that sower of hatred, that fabricator of lies, John Wickliff, when on the same day he would have vomited out blasphemies which he had prepared in his sermon against St Thomas, being suddenly struck by the judgment of God, felt all his limbs invaded by the palsy. That mouth, which had spoken monstrous things against God and His saints, or the holy Church, was then miserably distorted, exhibiting a frightful spectacle to the beholders. His tongue, now speechless, denied him even the power of confessing. His head shook, and thus plainly shewed that the curse which God had thundered against Cain was now fallen upon him. And, that none might doubt of his being consigned to the company of Cain, he shewed, by manifest outward signs, that he died in despair." It No other judgment could have been expected from an embittered Romanist, for Wickliff must certainly have been a thorn in the sides of the clergy. But even Protestant writers have not spared him. Milner describes him rather as a political agitator, than as a devout and spiritual servant of Christ. is certainly to be admitted, that during the greater part of his life politics had a considerable share in his actions; and, restricting ourselves to this period alone, we might be disposed to admit that the censure of the Church historian is not altogether without foundation. But not only were his politics those of a patriot and deserving commendation, he was besides, at least in his later years, a true religious reformer, zealous in inculcating evangelical truths, and unsparing in his attacks upon the doctrinal perversions of Rome, and is certainly to be classed along with Calvin and Luther. It is to err in the other extreme to assert, with Lord Macaulay, that he was the greatest of the reformers. The estimate which Professor Lechler gives of him is probably not far from the truth, as the greatest of the pre-reformers who expressed the tendencies of his own times, and permanently influenced the future history of the Church. Our space forbids more than a short statement of the religious views of Wickliff. Melancthon complains that in his writings there is no recognition whatever of the great doctrine of justification by faith. In one sense this is true; this doctrine is not enunciated in technical terms, nor has it that supreme importance with which Luther invested it. But the idea is certainly taught by Wickliff; his views were not only evangelical, but highly so; indeed to use an anachronism, strongly Calvinistic. He exalted the death of Christ; he taught the supreme necessity of faith; and he referred all spiritual blessings and good works to the grace of God. And we have no right to expect the logical clearness and precision with which Calvin enunciated the doctrines of the Reformation. In opposition to the worship of saints, Wickliff expresses himself in the following eloquent terms: "When only Christ is invoked, the other saints at His bidding help with their spiritual intercessions; and, however much they may be worshipped apart, still they will assist none except in the measure they are commanded to do so by Christ. It seems a folly to leave the fountain, which is assuredly more ready to bestow itself on every one, and turn away to the distant and troubled brook, and especially when faith does not teach that such a brook originates in the living fountain.”1 He indicates, in several passages, that the celibacy of the clergy is an unbiblical, hypocritical, and morally destructive precept. Neither Christ nor his apostles, he observes, condemns the marriage of the clergy; they rather commended it. He recognised ecclesiastical orders as properly twofold—episcopacy being supposed by him to be a human invention. "I boldly affirm," he observes, "that in the early Church, in the time of the apostle Paul, two orders of the clergy were sufficient, priests and deacons. In the time of Paul, bishop and presbyter were the same." "By the institution of Christ, priests and bishops were all one; but afterwards the emperor divided them, and made bishops lords, and presbyters servants." His Presbyterian notions are certainly not agreeable to the Anglican admirers of the Reformer. Le Bas wonders that a man of so much penetration, of such a powerful and independent mind, should have tamely surrendered itself to the captivity of this miserable prejudice; and he expresses his thankfulness that the Reformation was not effected by him; for, if he had lived in the sixteenth century, he would not have been found under the banners of Cranmer and Ridley, but would have perished "in the gainsaying of such men as Knox or Cartwright." This deadly sin of Presbyterianism is, according to this writer, hardly atoned for by his other 'Neander's "Church History," vol. ix. p. 243. 2 Le Bas's "Wiclif," pp. 335, 366. The Influence of Wickliff. 467 orthodox views. Most certainly the Anglican notions of modern times were not shared in by Wickliff; he was far removed from being a High Churchman. It is not to be concealed that to the last Wickliff believed in Purgatory; only he thought that the prayers of a pious layman would avail as much for the good of the departed as those of a priest. Wickliff has left behind him numerous writings. We are informed that his manuscript writings would extend, if all were printed, to some four or five folio volumes. Professor Lechler, in an appendix of upwards of twenty pages, gives us a list of his works, so far as they are known; they amount to ninety-six works in Latin, and sixty-five in English, though many of them are simply tracts. Wickliff's greatest production is certainly the translation of the Bible. This was the first translation in the English language; and if Wickliff had done nothing more, it would have secured for him an imperishable name in literature. The translation is from the Latin Vulgate; for of Hebrew and Greek, Wickliff was in all probability ignorant. The translation of the New Testament appears to have been entirely the work of Wickliff; whilst the greater part of the Old Testament was translated by his coadjutor, Nicolas de Hereford. The translation was afterwards revised shortly after the death of Wickliff, probably by his curate, John Purvey. We had designed to say something on the influence of Wickliff, especially on the Lollards in England and the Hussites in Bohemia. But we must bring these remarks to a close. Wickliff did not effect the Reformation; this was reserved for his greater successor, Luther. His work, compared with that of Luther, was a comparative failure. The Lollards appear to have degenerated into a political body, and to have exerted little influence on the English Reformation; and the Hussites, after a heroic defence, were vanquished. We do not think that Wickliff's comparative failure is altogether to be ascribed to the state of the times. Popery was then peculiarly vulnerable; the residence of the Pope at Avignon had an enfeebling influence; and the subsequent great Papal schism was highly favourable to the attacks of enemies. Besides, in England the civil government was not hostile; Edward III., and especially John of Gaunt, were favourable to ecclesiastical reform; and Richard II. was at least indifferent. The hierarchy with all their enmity could not injure Wickliff. One reason why Wickliff's reformation failed was that it was too political. He did not, like Luther, attack Romanism at its centre, but at its outworks; he did not try to root out the tree, but to lop off its branches. Besides, he was more destructive than constructive. Luther's doctrine of justification by faith was a foundation, on which a Protestant system of theology could be constructed; Wickliff's opposition to transubstantiation was a negative proposition. But perhaps the great difference in point of success between the reformation of Wickliff and that of Luther is to be ascribed to the differences in the character of the men. Both were equally bold, equally earnest; but Luther had more heart, a more genial loving disposition, more sympathy with men, more popular talents, in a word, more humanity. There seems to have been some degree of coldness in Wickliff which repelled; Luther attracted all who came within the sphere of his influence. Wickliff's intellect was cool, impressive, logical; Luther's was warm, impulsive, diffuse. Wickliff was more of a scholar; Luther possessed that indefinable something which constitutes genius. The trammels of scholasticism confined the powers of Wickliff; Luther threw them aside, and proclaimed the truth in simple homely words. Wickliff bears a stronger resemblance to Calvin; and we cannot believe that Calvin without Luther would have effected the Reformation. The discovery of printing and the rise of learning, it is true, gave Luther an immense advantage. The time for the Reformation had not yet arrived; Wickliff was sent to prepare its way; he stood on the confines; he belonged neither to the old nor to the new; he was not a Romanist, but, on the other hand, he can hardly be regarded as a Protestant. All praise is due to him for the work which he has done, considering the tools he had to work with and the materials he had to mould. PATON J. GLOAG. NOTE. Since the above article was sent to press, we have learned that this most valuable work of Professor Lechler is to be translated by Dr Lorimer of London from a second edition. A second edition in Germany and a translation in England, being so early called for, are gratifying proofs of the great merit of the work. The Philosophy of the Unconditioned. ART. IV.―The Philosophy of the Unconditioned. Sir WILLIAM HAMILTON'S Discussions. Dean MANSEL'S Limits of Religious Thought. 469 CALDERWOOD'S Philosophy of the Infinite. Macmillan & Co. 1861. THE HE question regarding the relation of the Infinite to the Finite is one of the profoundest which can occupy human speculation; and at all times, ever since thought began to attempt a solution of the problems of the universe, the profoundest intellects have been occupied with it. In the ceaseless activity of the human mind, question after question presents itself for an answer, and field after field of observation is opened up, until we are startled by our own daring in attempting to solve problems which seem incapable of solution. Many a thinker, attempting to penetrate the mysteries of the Infinite, has had to acknowledge with the ancient sage: "The more I consider it, the more obscure the subject of contemplation. becomes" (Quanto diutius considero tanto mihi res videtur obscurior). Many another, leaving the quiet haven of Revealed Truth, and embarking on a trackless ocean of speculation, for a while guides his bark safely amid the shoals and quicksands that beset his way; but soon he is hurried along by the swift current of doubt, and a dark abyss of utter unbelief yawns to swallow him up. In such speculations as these "it behoveth our words to be wary and few." The line of demarcation which separates truth. from falsehood is often very faintly drawn. Every system of philosophy borders closely upon error. Cousin2 has well said: Chaque systéme est voisin d'une erreur; chaque route est sur le bord d'un précipice." Infinite, we must pre- In discussing the philosophy of the suppose the existence of the Infinite. endeavoured to obtain arguments for the existence of an Infinite Being. Arguments à priori and à posteriori have been brought forward as proofs of His existence; but most of them have failed logically to demonstrate what they were intended to do. 'Simonides, in Cicero, "De Natura Deorum," i. 22. 2 "Eloge sur Descartes," prefixed to the "Méditations" of that philosopher. VOL. XXII.-NO. LXXXV. E |