§ 42. WYCLIF AND THE SCRIPTURES. 347
scarcely an exaggeration to say that the name of Christ appears on every page of his writings. To him, Christ was the supreme philosopher, yea, the content of all philosophy. ^
In reaching his views Wyclif was, so far as we know, as independent as any teacher can well be. There is no indication that he drew from any of the mediseval sects, as has been charged, nor from MarsigliusandOckam. He distinctly states that his peculiar views were drawn not from Ockam but from the Scriptures.^
The Continental Reformers did not give to Wyclif the honor they gave to Huss. Had they known more about him, they might have said more.^ Had Luther had access to the splendid shelf of volumes issued by the Wyclif Society, he might have said of the English Reformer what he said of Wessel's Works when they were put into his hands. The reason why no organized reformation followed Wyclif's labors is best given when we say, the time was not yet ripe. And, after all the parallelisms are stated between his opinions and the doctrines of the Reformers, it will remain true that, evangelical as he was in speech and patriotic as he was in spirit, the Englishman never ceased to be a Schoolman. Luther was fully a man of the new age.
Note. — The Authorship of the first English Bible. Recently the priority of Wyclif's translation has been denied by Abbot Gasquet in two elaborate essays, The Old English Bible, pp. 87-155. He also pronounces it to be very doubtful if Wyclif ever translated any part of the Bible. All that can be attempted here is a brief statement of the case. In addition to Knighton's testimony, which seems to be as plain as language could put it, we have the testimony of John Huss in his Reply to the Carmelite Stokes, 1411, that Wyclif translated the whole Bible into English.
1 S'ummus philos., immo summa philosophia est Christus, deus noster, qxiem seqiiendo et discendo sumus philosophi. De ver. scr., I. 32.
2 De ver. scr., I. 346 sqq. See Loserth, Kirchenpolitik, pp. 2, 112 sq. Buddensieg, De ver. scr., p. viii, says, Waser war wissen wir, nicht wie er es geworden. We know what he was, but not how he came to be what he was. See, for a Rom. Cath. judgment, Hergenrother-Kirsch, II. 878, who finds concentrated in Wyclif the false philosophy of the Waldenses and the Apocalyptics, of Marsiglius and Ockam.
3 Melanchthon, in a letter to Myconius, declared that Wyclif was wholly ignorant of the doctrine of justification, and at another time he said he had foolishly mixed up the Gospel and politics.
348 THE MIDDLE AGES. A.D. 1294-1517.
No one contends that Wyclif did as much as this, and Huss was no doubt speaking in general terms, having in mind the originator of the work and the man's name connected with it. The doubt cast upon the first proposition, the priority of Wyclif 's version, is due to Sir Thomas More's statement in his Dialogue, 1530, Works, p. 233. In controverting the positionsof Tyndale and the Reformers, he said, " The whole Bible was before Wyclif's days, by virtuous and well-learned men, translated into English and by good and godly people, with devotion and soberness, well and reverently read." He also says that he saw such copies. In considering this statement it seems very possible that More made a mistake (1) because the statement is contrary to Knighton's words, taken in their natural sense and Huss' testimony. (2) Because Wyclif's own statements exclude the existence of any English version before his own. (3) Because the Lollards associated their Bible with Wyclif's name. (4) Because before the era of the Reformation no English writer refers to any translating except in connection with Wyclif's name and time. Sir Thomas More was engaged in controversy and attempting to justify the position that the Catholic hierarchy had not been opposed to translations of the Scriptures nor to their circulation among proper classes of the laity. But Abbot Gasquet, after proposing a number of conjectural doubts and setting aside the natural sense of Knighton's and Arundel's statements, denies altogether the Wycliffite authorship of the Bible ascribed to him and edited by Forshall and Madden, and performs the feat of declaring this Bible one of the old translations mentioned by More, It must be stated here, a statement that will be recalled later, that Abbot Gasquet is the representative in England of the school of Janssen, which has endeavored to show that the Catholic Church was in an orderly process of development before Luther arose, and that Luther and the Reformei-s checked that development and also wilfully misrepresented the condition of the Church of their day. Dr. Gasquet, with fewer plausible facts and less literature at command than Janssen, seeks to present the English Church's condition in the later Middle Ages as a healthy one. And this he does (1) by referring to the existence of an English mediajval literature, still in MSS., which he pronounces vast in its bulk ; (2) by absolutely ignoring the statements of Wyclif ; (3) by setting aside the testimonies of the English Reformers ; (4) by disparaging the Lollards as a wholly humble and illiterate folk. Against all these witnesses he sets up the single witness, Sir Thomas More.
The second proposition advocated by Dr. Gasquetthat itisdoubtful, and perhaps very improbable, that Wyclif did nothing in the way of translating the Bible, is based chiefly upon the fact that Wyclif does not refer to such a translation anywhere in his writings. If we take the abbot's own high priest among authorities, Sir Thomas More, the doubt is found to be unjustifiable, if not criminal. More, speaking of John Hunne, who was burnt, saidthathepossessedacopyof the Bible which was "after a AVycliffite copy." Eadie, I. 60 sqq. ; W^estcott, Ilist. of the Eng. Bible. Gairdner, who discusses