RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Wyclif
form of the universe. If the world-structure had edges, the circular movement would be impossible, since the edges could not pass through a space which was non-existent.
It immediately follows that Wyclif’s fundamental principle of the preexistence in thought of all reality involves the most serious obstacle to freedom of the will; the philosopher could assist himself only
by the formula that the free will of 3. Attitude man was something predetermined of toward God. In particulars he demanded a Speculation. strict dialectical training as the means of distinguishing the true from the false, and he asserted that logic (or the syllogism) furthered the knowledge of catholic verities; ignorance of logic was the reason why men misunderstood Scripture, since men overlooked the connection—the distinction between idea and appearance. In general, it may be said that Wyclif was not merely conscious of the distinction between theology and philosophy, but that his sense of reality led him to pass by scholastic questions as if they were empty shells. He left aside philosophical discussions which seemed to him to have no significance for the religious consciousness and {those which pertained purely to scholasticism, and found no enjoyment in the hairsplitting of a degenerate scholastic and in its inanities. He held that we ought not to roam around in the realm of mere possibilities: “‘ we concern ourselves with the verities that are, and leave aside the errors which arise from speculation on matters which are not.”” It is more wholesome to concern oneself with the study of verities than to be busy with fictions which one can prove neither to be possible nor useful to mankind; for vast is the number of solid and useful truths which yet are concealed from man.
Since it was from dealing with ecclesiastical-political questions that Wyclif turned to reformatory activities, naturally the former have a large part in his reformatory writings. It would be a mistake to suppose, however, that his opposition to the
Church was a continuation of that of
4. Doctrine the French under Philip the Fair (1285—
of Scripture. 1314) or of that of the Germans under
Louis the Bavarian (1314-46). While
he took his start in affairs of church policy from the English legislation which was passed in the times of Edward I., he declined the connection into which his contemporaries brought it under the lead of Occam. Indeed, he distinctly disavows taking his conclusions from Occam, and avers that he draws them from Scripture, and that they were supported by the Doctors of the Church. So that dependence upon earlier schismatic parties in the Church, which he never mentions in his writings (as though he had never derived anything from them), is counterindicated, and attention is directed to the true sources in Scripture, to which he added the collections of canons of the Church. [Wyclif would have had nothing to gain and everything to lose by professing indebtedness to “ heretical ’’ parties or to opponents of the papacy whose efforts had come to naught. His reference to Scripture and orthodox Fathers as authorities is what might in any case have been expected. So far as his polemics are accordant
with those of earlier antagonists of the papacy, it is fair to assume that he was not ignorant of them and was more or less influenced by them. A.H.N.] To these last, although in his later years he rejected them explicitly as being the laws of men, he frequently had recourse. But in those last years fully authoritative was the Bible alone, which, according to his own conviction and that of his disciples, was fully sufficient for the government of this world (De sufficientia legis Christi). Out of it he drew his comprehensive averments in support of his reformatory views—not without intense study and many spiritual conflicts. He tells that when he was yet a beginner he was much concerned to comprehend the passages which treated of the activities of the divine Word, until by the grace of God he was enabled to gather the right sense of Scripture, which he then understood. But that was not a light task, for the Word is not to be opened by means of the grammar used by boys; Scripture has its own rules, it contains all verity and has the highest authority; for it is the law of Christ who can not lie, and is, therefore, to be placed above all human writings. The law of Christ is that which all men ought to learn, for the faith rests in it alone. Without knowledge of the Bible there can be peace neither in the life of the Church nor in that of society, and outside of it there is no real and abiding good; it contains all that is necessary for the salvation of men, it alone is infallible, sublime above error and failing, and consequently the one authority for the faith. He then is known as a true Christian who as a priest feeds his flock on the Word of God.
These teachings Wyclif promulgated not only in his great work on the truth of Scripture, but also in numerous other greater and lesser writings. For him the Bible was the fundamental source of Christianity which is binding on all men, who are therefore obligated to know it. From this one can easily see how the next step came about, viz., the furnishing of the Bible to the people in their mother tongue. Also not difficult to understand is the honor title of “ Doctor evangelicus ”’ which English and Bohemian Wyclifites gave to their master. Of all the reformers who preceded Luther, Wyclif most emphasized the importance of Scripture: ‘Even though there were a hundred popes and though every mendicant monk were a cardinal,” he taught, “ they would be entitled to confidence only in so far as they accorded with the Bible.” Therefore in this early period it was Wyclif who recognized and formulated the formal principle of the Reformation—the unique authority of the Bible for the belief and life of the Christian.
Upon this Biblical foundation was reared the structure of Wyclif’s doctrinal teachings. But he did not shake himself clear of scholastic methods.
His doctrine of God bears on its face
5. Theol- the stamp of speculative realism. He ogy and rejects the view that the idea of the Christology Godhead is a mere general concep- Realistic. tion, as well as the conception that a personal God is an individual, since
both these rest upon a nominalistic basis. The omnipotence of God is for him not at all unlimited
Wyclif