WICKLIFF'S TRIALOGUS.*

EXTRACT FROM BOOK III. CHAPTER XXV.

ON THE INCARNATION AND DEATH OF CHRIST.

“ Aletheia. I PERCEIVE, brother Phronesis, that connected with these doctrines are many other things which require explanation. I might instance the inquiry whether it was absolutely necessary that Christ should be made flesh, that his sacrifice might be a satisfaction for the sins of men. And whether afterwards it was also necessary that he himself should die. Again, Why is not the sin of the devil done away, as well as that of man?—

Phronesis. I am glad, sister, that these questions are so accurately stated. Many remarks may be made upon the first proposition. In the first place, the history of the fall of Adam intimates that he sinned through ignorance, since the woman was beguiled, and the man deceived and stupified by the sin. In the next place, we are led to suppose that both the man and the woman, considering the dreadful severity of their punishment, repented profitably unto salvation, before the change of death. And, in the third place, we conclude that the righteousness of God must be preserved inviolate, notwithstanding the transgression of the first man, as has been frequently declared before. These positions being granted, it is argued from thence, that it was necessary the WORD of the Lord should be made flesh, because it was necessary that the human race should be saved in their first progenitor, according to the second supposition (that Adam and Eve repented). And this salvation was impossible unless Christ was made flesh, which must therefore certainly take place. For it behoved that man should be saved, since he repented so profitably, and God could not refuse his mercy to any one who so repented. And

• For an account of the Trialogus, see the life of Wickliff. This extract has been translated for the present work as a specimen was considered necessary for the reasons stated, p. 156. In many places the original is very obscure, and the latinity very barbarous, which, with the logical terms frequently introduced, make a literal rendering impracticable. Some of the arguments brought forward in this chapter will be found in the Postills, expressed in more simple terms.

as, according to the third proposition, it behoved that satisfaction should be made for sin, so it behoved that the same nature of man should make a satisfaction, equal to the guilt which that nature had incurred in the first formed man. This no one could possibly do, unless he united in himself the nature of God and man. For other men cannot, of themselves, even make satisfaction individually for their own sins; how then shall any of them make satisfaction for the whole race of mankind? And who, I ask, could be humbled so low, that his humility could compensate the pride with which Adam exalted himself? For since Adam so exalted himself, as to imply that he had attained an equality with the Deity, inasmuch as he consented to the temptation that he needed not to obey the divine command, it is plain that it behoved the person who would make satisfaction, to descend from as high a degree of exaltation as would be equivalent to the proud elevating of himself which Adam had attempted.

But how was this to be obtained, unless that, as a man who was not God had presumed to arrogate to himself equality with God, so a man who was God should descend from his equality with God to the low estate of man. Therefore, the apostle in the second chapter to the Philippians, says, that Christ emptied himself. I must however remark to you, that the presumption of the first man, by the nature of his crime, was false; but the assumption of man's nature, and the humiliation of the second man, was real and true. And it is also to be remarked, that this second man did not lose the form of the Godhead, which indeed was not possible. For Deity could not possibly become a mere accident (or part) of any one. But still retaining his proper Godhead, Christ assumed the human nature; which human nature, although it was in itself a substance, yet still it was extraneous to the Deity.*

And if any one captiously should inquire, Why should the second, or middle person of the blessed Trinity, be incarnate rather than the first or third; my answer is, That as the offence was committed through ignorance, therefore it must be done away by wisdom embodied in the person who undertook the redemption--which wisdom is no other than the WORD of God.

That is, the human and divine nature were entirely distinct substances. Not that one was a substance, and the other but an accident or appearance.

Therefore, since it behoves that one person in the Godhead should send another person to make satisfaction for sin, and as it is plain that the Father could not be sent, since he was the first Person of the Trinity, the Originator; it evidently was necessary, that he should send another to be made incarnate for sin, which, for very many reasons, it was most fitting should be the Word of God. And even if he had not been thus fitting, yet it is plain that the Saviour should be chosen according to this arrangement, since in the economy of the Godhead could not have been planned in any other way.

It is also equally plain, that since the sin of man must be done away by a Mediator who could render due satisfaction, it behoved Christ to be made flesh, and it was necessary that his death should follow, that his suffering might bear a proportion to the immense presumption of Adam, else satisfaction could not be made for the crime committed. Therefore, as Adam indulged pride so as to bring death upon himself voluntarily; so it behoved that the second Adam should be humbled unto the death of his body, which death was voluntarily accepted and undergone by him. And therefore the apostle says, that Christ was made obedient even unto death for us; and it was requisite that his death should be accepted on the tree, that like as man was ruined by the forbidden fruit of a tree, so he should be saved by death suffered as the fruit of a tree. And there are in every part of these transactions, other coincidences which might be stated. And indeed a clear answer may be given to the second difficulty you have proposed, from these very reasons. The question was, Why is not the sin of the devil remitted?— Now, as it is absolutely necessary to the performance of the actions of beings, that there must be agents, and there must be suitable recipiency of nature in those who are acted upon, so in order to put away sin, there must be a competent power of action in the agent, and some, suitable disposition of contrition in the sinner; but as this is altogether wanting in the devils, so their sin cannot be done away. there be a doubt but had they been profitably contrite, God could not have refused to grant them the remission of their sins. So that all the fault must attach to the devil himself, being impenitent. For indeed the sin of the devil is

Nor can

*The original is very obscure, but the sense appears to be, That God is not to be blamed for not forgiving the wicked spirits, which he would have done, had they repented. But as they did not, and would

the sin against the Holy Ghost, which is called the sin of final impenitence. Therefore, as Adam sinned against the WISDOM of God the Father, and on that account it was necessary this Wisdom should become incarnate, so in order to accomplish the salvation of devils, it would have been requisite that the third Person of the Trinity should have been incarnate. And as this was impossible, so was the salvation of the devil. Nevertheless his punishment is not in itself so severe, but that while his pride and presumption remain the same, he is less pained by the infliction of the punishment, than by the anguish of his feelings, since he does not possess a human bodily nature. Therefore, since an act cannot take place where equal powers are in opposition, and still less from the smaller power, when they are unequal, it appears that the punishment of the devil cannot expel his obstinate pride. He is therefore hardened for ever. And as he can derive no advantage from the satisfaction of Jesus Christ, because He took not on him his nature, it is evident that unless the Holy Spirit should become incarnate, (which is impossible,) the devil cannot be saved. Hence some have refined upon this doctrine,* asserting that as the devil sinned against clear knowledge, and from mere wickedness of intention, so no one will be damned by sin properly against the Holy Ghost, unless a little before his death, having attained to clear and full knowledge, he should, of his own pure malice, sin to desperation, and so in a certain sense, become a devil.

Wickliff then proceeds to solve other difficulties; but he treats them altogether in such an unprofitable scholastic form, that it is not desirable to weary the reader any farther with the discussion. Objections which proceed from scholastic divinity, may well be left to that system to solve. The preceding extract is presented to the reader to give some idea of the hinderances to the reformation, by the prejudices that arose from the training to which the human mind was subjected in the dark ages. A comparison of the Trialogus with the more simple tracts of Wickliff, written by him in English, for the common people, shows the great difficulties interposed in the way of the learned of that period-it may not repent, it is entirely their own fault, and they have only to blame themselves that they are excluded from mercy. Such questions, it is evident, are at best unprofitable, but the scholastic divinity abounded with them. This one specimen will be sufficient to satisfy the reader. *The serious reader will probably consider the whole to be unnecessary refinement.

truly be said, that "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." We also see more clearly the striking interference of divine power, in leading Wickliff to lay aside the vain janglings then so popular, and to set forth gospel truth in simplicity. There is, however, a deep and heartfelt seriousness manifest in many parts of the Trialogus. Concern for the salvation of souls actuated Wickliff amidst all the mazes of scholastic divinity, and not the mere love of argument and victory evinced by the frivolous, blasphemous, and even indecent discussions of Aquinas and his followers.* Wickliff deeply felt the awful situation of his country, to which he doubtless applied the words spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, (v. 30, 31.) "A wonderful and a horrible thing is committed in the land. The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so; and what will ye do in the end thereof?" In all his writings he desired to impress upon the minds of his readers the solemn personal inquiry, " What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

Vaughan, in his remarks upon the Trialogus, says, "The third book relates more immediately to moral and theological opinions. The power to act virtuously and devoutly, wherever possessed, is said to be derived from the grace of God; and hence it is inferred, that no excellence of mind or conduct can be justly regarded as meriting eternal life. Faith is defined as an assent of the reason, referring exclusively to the truth, and to things unseen; as forming the basis of all christian enjoyment; and as that principle, the declension of which must necessarily precede each gradation in apostasy. The love of God is beautifully inculcated as the only secure foundation of morals and of social happiness.The portions of this book which relate to the evil of sin; to the Saviour's incarnation and sacrifice, as necessary to procure its remission; to the excellences of the Redeemer's character; and to the doctrines of grace, are only distinguished from passages in his other writings referring to the same matters, as being more strongly marked by the scholastic method of treating them; a peculiarity which cannot add to their attraction with a modern reader."

• Two specimens from the Quodlibets of Thomas Aquinas will suffice-Utrum angelus transeat ab extremo ad extremum per medium? Utrum hæc sit falsa, Deus potest peccare si vult? These are taken almost without selection from the above work of "the angelical doctor," who at one time was idolized by the whole western world.